The Myth Of Palestine Part II

The famous painting by Otto Dix 'The Skat Players' 1920, Gallerie der Stadt Stuttgart, Germany

 

One of my readers on the "The Israel Lobby" A Perfect Excuse For Anti-Semitism' thread, dismisses in the most cavalier fashion the centrality of historical and religious reality of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict and prompts me to write this post clarifying the issues involved.

There were no states or nationalities in the Middle East, certainly not among Sunni Muslims, until the Brits and French redrew the map after WWI. There never was, historically, any "Palestinian" Arab identity- and this area never had political sovereignty. After the Roman Empire, it was part of the Byzantine Empire. After the Islamic Conquest, it was part of, first, the Umayyad Empire; then the 'Abbasid Empire; then the Tulunid Empire; then it went briefly to the Byzantines, then the Saljuqs, then the Crusaders (the only time it was an independent political entity, by the way, between the end of Jewish sovereignty in the ancient world and the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the modern one- the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not "Palestine"); Ayyubid Empire; Mamluke Empire; and, finally, the Ottoman Empire.

At no time was there a country called "Palestine." Occasionally the geographic region the Romans had designated as "Palestine" was used as a geographic term in the medieval Arabic geographies, but it had no political meaning whatsoever. As has already been noted, under the Ottomans the area was divided among 3 different administrations- the Province of Beirut; the Province of Damascus; and the Sancak of Jerusalem (comprising roughly today's southern coastal plain and the hills of Judea).

What the "Palestine" apologists ignore, is that the Palestine Mandate, which was created by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference solely for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home and awarded to Britain under those terms (which she violated), included all of the area which Britain then quite illegally separated into the Mintaqa (region) of Eastern Palestine or Transjordania- today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (which also, incidentally, does not allow Jews to be or become citizens- although, unlike the Saudis, the Jordanians permit Christians).

Could someone please explain convincingly why, in addition to already getting 4/5 of the only "Palestine" which has ever existed since Roman times, the very same Arabs- ethnically, religiously, culturally, and even tribally and familialy- should get yet another country in this tiny area?

The "Palestine" crowd were singularly unperturbed when the areas allocated by the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 to an Arab state were swallowed up by Egypt and Jordan. One heard literally not a peep out of them. It seems that the only thing to which they object to is the exact same thing for which this whole extremely modern identity of "Palestinian" was invented: as a negation of Israel and the Jews. This is why the Arabs of the area have always rejected a state at every opportunity- most recently at Camp David in 1999; their goal is not to establish a state for themselves, but rather to destroy Israel.

If Israel did 1/10 of what the Palestinian Authority accuse it of doing (and their imagination is quite fecund, and not restrained by any over-scrupulous respect for truth- witness the Jenin "massacre"), it is still, morally, light-years ahead not only of any country in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia, but also of countries such as France when they have been confronted with wars which were not existential.

Yet my reader, and the other anti-Semites of this world have never been perturbed by real massacres and genocides, true viciousness and injustice. No, the only country in the Middle East where Arabs can freely vote and speak out against their own government- where even terrorists don't get the death penalty- that's the place that their ilk can't abide.

As Golda Meir once said, "Israel is the Jew among nations."

The "Palestine" lovers are so concerned with a right to a state for a completely new and unprecedented nationality, whereas for some reason the right to self-determination for the world's oldest nationality extant-- one which has acted, by any moral barometer, with infinitely more compassion, civilization, and care for human life than the new-fangled murderous one he is championing--seems to be extremely limited if it exists at all. That is the classic definition of anti-Semitism: one standard for everyone else, and then an impossible one for the Jews.

A  warped moral equivalence: a favorite trick of the left, something they did all the time during the Cold War (US no better than Soviets with their gulags, etc.) and that they do today (US and al-Qa'ida are morally equivalent). To quote Tolkien from the Lord of the Rings, when the Ent, Treebeard, muses that he might lash out like Saruman if his home were threatened: "The difference is that you never plotted to cover the whole world with your trees..."

The allied forces in Afghanistan have been in situations vaguely resembling the situation of Israel in the Arab-populated parts of the Unallocated Portions of the British Palestine Mandate (what the "Palistine" lovers so revel in fallaciously referring to as "the occupied territories"): I say vaguely, because the Allies in Afghanistan don't have innocent populations of women, children, etc. a twenty-minute drive away from downtown Kabul. Never would the Allies have done what Israel did in Jenin, solely out of mercy for the terrorists' families: namely, launch a ground offensive. According to the official figures of the Palestinian authority, 59 people- mostly armed terrorists- were killed in that operation; the ones who weren't armed terrorists were murdered by the terrorists when they blew up the entire street, which they had booby trapped. Israel lost 39 soldiers.

If the "Palestine" lovers don't understand that Israel could have leveled the whole place several times over without ever losing one of its own, then they clearly are even more ignorant of Israel and its abilities than I already know them to be. No other country in the world- including the US, UK, Denmark, etc.- acts with such reverence for the life of those who wish to destroy them, even at the high cost of its own precious sons.

In short, whatever else its shortcomings, Israel has acted with a restrain and decency unparalleled in the face of unprecedented barbarity and brutality. Perhaps the "Palestine" lovers would like to expatiate on the murder of the Hatuel family 2 years ago, when PA al-Aqsa Brigades shot and stopped a car driven by an 8-months pregnant woman, with 4 little girls in the back seat, ages 2 to 10, whom the terrorists then walked over to and deliberately shot at point-blank range.

Even the most vicious and mendacious Arab propagandist has not been able to claim any savagery remotely in the realm of that...Clearly, the moral compass of the anti-Semites is warped beyond repair.

And yes as I have said before, The Myth Of Palestine (Part I) is alive and well.

UPDATE I: Don't miss out on Mark Steyn's brilliant article to be published tomorrow @ NRO, wandering what Palestinians have to do to get some bad press. Indeed.

UPDATE II: I would just like to say thank you so much, to hundreds of my readers, who have sent me incredible emails, which I will always treasure. It goes to show how important it is to keep this subject alive and the truth in tact.

It reminds me of a quote from an article by Charles Moore:

"All I want to ask my fellow Europeans is this: are you happy to help direct the world's fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West. He is busy building his country's nuclear bomb."

Comments

[http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/]

I think I see where your confusion lies. You are naively allowing the facts to tell the story. But for anti-Semites and Palestinian apologists, the story tells the fact. And most of all, you must never trust a fact without a good conspiracy theory to support it. I don't see any good conspiracy theorys at all in your account.

And one more thing--I just discovered this blog. It is so beatifully written and laid out that I have half a mind to devalue it because of my jealousy. So be careful.

[Alexandra]

Rob (One Cosmos),

Snap, I just discovered yours yesterday via Liquid. (one of my readers and a great blogger) What incredible essays you have written there, very impressive!

[Edd]

Alexandra,

Again, thank you for a history lesson many ignore out of an astonishing ignorance or dubiously Faustian design. There is now, in my opinion, a sociopathic mind-set by the “Palestinians” and their puppet handlers to not only destroy Israel but the very sovereignty of the Western powers. If you have read any of Oriana Fallaci, she portrays the already decay of Europe and predicts it will eventually become an “Islamic colony.”

[Elder of Ziyon]

I once tackled the historic Palestine myth here.

[DavidByron]

It's good to see Alexandra that you have suddenly become a believer in the legitimacy of an absolute global tyrany under the UN. I assume that is the case from what you said here:

What the "Palestine" apologists ignore, is that the Palestine Mandate, which was created by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference solely for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home and awarded to Britain under those terms

Now the League of Nations didn't have anywhere near the authority of the UN but you claim they had the right to carve up and give away people's land. So presumably you now beleive the current UN has every right to --- say --- demand that America hand over the state of Texas to Mexico if they decided. And America would have to obey wouldn't it? In your view I mean? Yes? No?

My own view is that the UN would not have such authority and the League of Nations was far weaker again, so you have actually leapfrogged far past me in your support of international institutions.

Or maybe your comment above, and consequently your entire argument in this diary, was simply insincere nonsense? It is not to your credit to put forward arguments that you don't believe in.

A third possibility which I currently think is most likely, is that this is just another example of one rule for America and another for the Palestinains. You would utterly reject the idea of any country or any international body taking land from America yet you endorse the same concept fully when it is only applied to people you dislike -- Palestinians. Or as you put it:

A warped moral equivalence: a favorite trick of the left

This seems to be the heart of the matter. Much more general than this discussion about Palestine, this might inform all our differences. Israel invades Palestine and takes their land. You say that's just fine with you. Why? Because to insist that mere Palestinians have the same right of sovereignty over their own land as any other people in the world would be to apply a "warped moral equivalence". This "warped moral equivalence" is also known as "fairness", "equality" and "justice".

As I have said before, but now it seems far more vital to these discussions, moral equivalence is the basis of all ethics and law. The whole point of a law is that it applies equally to all. The whole point of a moral rule is that it applies equally to all.

This can be seen by the fact that if someone really rejects moral equivalence then they can make any argument. Consider an abstract moral question. Is it good to commit ethnic cleansing? I, acting within the limits of moral equivalence must answer, "no". But to the person who rejects moral equivalence there is no simple answer. They have to know first what people are being ethnically cleansed. It is not enough to know the act because to deduce an act is evil in the abstract would be moral equivalence. Instead they must say, some people it is bad to ethnically cleanse (eg Jews), and some people it is tolerable to ethnically cleanse (eg Palestinians).

I wonder if this is the same view recently expressed by Kenny. If so then at least I owe him an apology of sorts for saying he was racist. It seems rather than being racist against Palestinians or Arabs this view simply lacks any morality at all.

I suppose someone more "liberal" then I am would express the idea that this view is just "a different kind of morality" or a different way of looking at the world. I reject this. So of course does the bible and for that matter every other religion or philosopher. What you have when you reject moral equivalence is nothing but bullying, violence and the "law of the jungle"; might makes right.

In conclusion I'd appreciate it if people who agreed with Alexandra's idea (that the League of Nations could legitimately hand people's land over to others), would say whether they (1) really hold this view or (2) are being insincere or (3) reject moral equivalence.

[Adina Kutnicki]

Hi Alexandra,

Just stumbled upon your blog via Little green footballs. Very impressive.

What you state in The Myth Of Palestine Part 11 can be more fully understood through the most well documented and fully researched book by Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial".

It must be stated clearly that Joan Peters started out to write this book from a "Palestinian" perspective. Was she in for a big surprise when the evidence led her to rethink and then restate her premise!

In addition, Joan Peters is NOT Jewish and not looking to champion Israel. As a historian and a journalist she was looking for the truth. Much to her surprise (and to her credit for simply culling facts from faction)it was not what she expected, yet what she ultimately wrote about.

[Joseph Marshall]

This is the usual disingenuous fan dance. The fact of thousands of Arabs living in Gaza, or on the west side of the Jordan River, is just that: a fact. Not only that, it has been a fact far longer than the State of Israel or the Palestine Mandate. Period.

Nobody is "giving" them that land in any way. They have been already there for time out of mind. And, in 1948, they simply abandoned the land within the original boundaries of the State of Israel.

The original Israelis just got lucky that they didn't have to contend with this basic fact before 1967, and within Israel's original borders. So, for twenty years, they were able to make the Jewish state they wanted.

For nearly forty years since the Israelis have deluded themselves that those thousands of Arabs living on the Occupied Territories are going to somehow magically disappear and leave all the land they are living on to be settled by Israelis. And for forty years they have acted toward the territory they occupied in 1967 accordingly.

This hasn't really worked very well for anybody, even the Israelis. And this is because it was a simple defiance of a very plain fact. Defying facts doesn't work.

You still talk and act as if those thousands of Arabs are going to magically disappear. They are not going to magically disappear. The only way in which the fact that thousands of Arabs are already living there can be altered is genocide. Period.

This is the basis for any sensible view of the situation. All the legalisms, all the special pleading from "history", all the "Arabs are evil savages", all the "Mohammed is the scourge of Christian Civilization" will not make that fact go away. Period.

Only genocide will make that fact go away.

A majority of Israelis, starting with Arial Sharon, are finally beginning to deal with that fact, and with a few other facts.

The State of Israel is largely a secular, non-Orthodox, state. Like the secular states of Europe it is not renewing the ethnically Jewish population at nearly the same speed that the Arabs in Gaza, or the West Bank, are expanding the Arab population. Hence to try to "Israelize" those territories is an invitation to suicide by slow poison for the State of Israel.

This is exactly the same dilemma that you are constantly pointing out in secular Europe.

The logical course of action this implies-- since, unlike Europe, Israel actually still does have a choice in the matter--is exactly what Sharon has initiated: "disengagement" and fortification of the boundary.

This means a de facto Palestinian Arab state of one sort or another. It will simply be up to the Arabs already there to choose the kind of state they will make. If it is hostile to Israel, it will never be very effective in acting on that hostility.

In fact, as disengagement and fortification have proceeded, the terrorist organizations have become steadily less and less effective. This will continue.

The Israelis have largely come to their senses and finally faced facts.

It would be nice if their cheerleaders on the sidelines would do the same thing. And not just about Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, either.

The billions of Muslims worldwide is also a very plain fact. And the millions of Muslims in Europe is as well. And the rest of us do not have the choice the Israelis still have.

The constant, hysterical, whooping up of the "Clash Of Civilizations" is simply another form of defiance of very plain facts.

Or, if it isn't mere unworkable defiance of plain facts, it is the systematic building of a network of excuses leading to deliberate actions of quite well-known 20th Century moral horror with unparalleled 21st Century scope.

So I would say to anyone so glamored by a Muslim/Christian Clash Of Civilizations, be careful what you wish for. It just might come true, and you will eventually have to account for your part in creating it.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

David "Ché" Byron,

Your 'reasoning' is yet again completely and utterly false. You did not get into anything she said. She tried to make clear in her article that there is no such thing as the Palestinian people / a Palestinian nation in history.

You conveniently ignore that and go about your usual story. If there never was a Palestinian people / nation, nobody took their country.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Joseph,

It is true that Arabs lived on that land historically, but so did Jews. It wasn't a 'nation' in the modern use of the word; people simply lived on the land.
Anyhow; at a certain point the decision was made that a country Israel should be formed there. Iraelites don't want, as far as I know, to 'wipe out the Arabs' living in Israel, nor do they want them to 'magically disappear'. As I understand it the majority of Israelites accept Arabs living in Israel.

In other words: that land wasn't a country / nation. So; nobody 'stole' their country from the 'Palestinians' (because well... they didn't have a country), arabs were living on that land however that nowadays forms the country of Israel. If the Israelites accept Arabs living in their country... they're not breaking any sort of international rule / law.

[bunuel]

wow. where were you hiding all this time? shows the importance of lgf and cohorts or we would still be deprived of this mirific oasis. thank you so very much.

[Gregg Davis]

Joseph Marshall,

The West is certainly not without fault in the current situation. However, how much responsibility are we supposed to take for the choices people make?

We're told that Muslims in Europe are not assimilating because of de facto racism and apartheid on the part of ethnic Europeans. Yet, many groups that immigrated to the United States either voluntarily or involuntarily (African slaves) suffered decades of institutionalized prejudice and lack of opportunity, but they did not advocate, as increasing numbers of European Muslims do, the creation of apartheid states within the U.S. Muslims in Europe and Canada and some in the U.S. claim they should have the right to govern themselves according to Shari'a law and even argue that Shari'a should be extended to everyone.

You seem to want to place the blame for a looming 21st century mass slaughter entirely on the West. Islam's refusal to join the modern world (except in the most superficial way) and to curb its exploding birthrate, its deliberate colonization and subversion of the West, etc., etc. have nothing to do with it, apparently.

[North by Northwest]

Elder,

I quote from the post you link to above:

There is a very simple test that can prove which claim is more accurate, whether the Palestinian people have existed as such historically or not. The test is to look at newspaper archives from before the establishment of Israel and see how they used the word "Palestinian."

Thank you for the link. I urge everyone to read his excellent post.

As is clear, at least in Palestine, the word "Palestinian" usually referred to Jews, not Arabs. [...] So how were the Arabs who lived in the area referred to? Usually just "Arabs", sometimes "Bedouins", and sometimes even "Arab nationalists": [...] Note that nowhere are these Arabs referred to as "Palestinians." [...]

This is what the WaPo writes: "Jerusalem, Sept. 1 [1929](A.P.). -- Bedouins last night attacked nearly a dozen Jewish colonies in northern Galilee, pillaging the houses and burning the crops. There was an unconfirmed rumor that 22 persons were wounded in these attacks.

Elder concludes:

So while the word Palestinian as referring to Arabs who lived in the area does seem to predate the 1964 establishment of the PLO, it is not by much - and it seems pretty clear that the impetus towards the establishment of the PLO came from Egypt and other Arab states, not from the Palestinian Arabs themselves.

[Alexandra]

Byron,

Your by now utterly stale arguments are predicated on one assertion alone:

'Palestine' was the land of the people called "Palestinians", who

"...have the same right of sovereignty over their own land as any other people in the world..",

and you support your assertion by making the comparison to the territories of a sovereign nation such as the U.S.

If it is shown to you, that this assertion is false, will you change your opinion vis-à-vis Israel's legitimacy as a nation and accept its right to exist as a sovereign state in the Middle East?

[Joseph Marshall]

I repeat, Muslims are here, we are here. And, the land west of Jordan and north of the Gulf of Aqaba consists of the State of Israel [which is largely Jewish] and the Occupied Territories [which are largely Arab & Muslim].

Who did what to whom in history and who has what "right" to what piece of real estate based on what legalism is simply beside the point.

The Arabs in the Occupied Territories do not want to be part of Israel. [Yes, I know they also want to destroy Israel, but that is also beside the point--as my dad used to say, there's people in Hell wanting ice water, too.] And the Israelis are finally figuring out that they really don't want them to be part of Israel, either. And are doing something about it.

These facts are finally beginning to solve the problem, not in a way that is neat and tidy, not in a way that has anything to do with anybody's "rights" to real estate, not in a way that is going to satisfy anyone's abstract view of "justice" or "moral law", but in a way which is actually going to work.

The Arabs in the Occupied Territories are simply going to have to face facts as well. As unilateral disengagement proceeds, there will be less and less that they can actually do to or about Israel. They will have to make what state they can out of what they've got, and they will either succeed or fail in the endeavor.

We should catch up with the Israelis and face a few facts ourselves.

Just like the people in Hell wanting ice water, there are Muslims in Europe and the United States who want to be governed by Shari'a law, whether in enclaves or not. But that is simply not going to happen. And it is certainly not going to happen in the United States, anymore than Mormons in Utah were able to retain legalized polygamy.

And if Muslims living here try to make it happen by force, the law that is already here will pursue them like the Eye of God pursued Cain in the desert. This is already happening.

I suspect many here are not intimately familiar with the history of the Black Panthers. If they were, they would be far less worried about a Muslim "enemy within the gates".

I am not interested in "placing the blame" on anyone about anything. [I won't bother to detail why. I'm not as fond of asserting my Buddhism as many here might think.] What I am interested in is bringing my fellow citizens back into a realistic relationship to results.

We can help make a 21st Century horror happen, or we can help prevent it. We are not helping to prevent it by constantly frothing about what may or may not be going on in Muslim heads.

One of the great advances made by the United States is that we figured out that we don't need to apply the law to what goes on in people's heads, we only need to apply it to what they actually do.

Of course, this presupposes that we apply law or mere force or even merely the threat of force, intelligently, both here and in the rest of the world.

My private opinion is that for the past four years we have applied these things very unintelligently, and that we have done this because we are fixated on what is going on in people's heads rather than what they actually do, or are capable of doing.

This is a route to disaster.

[DavidByron]

I dealt with this ridiculous argument in two other threads. I didn't think I need to repeat it but apparently I do.

You conveniently ignore that and go about your usual story. If there never was a Palestinian people / nation, nobody took their country.

Sovereignty is a human right not a state right. The sovereignty of a people is held by the people even if they don't happen to be recognised as an independent state. The recognition of this fact is probably the main real improvement that the Americans came up with in 1776. The idea that Palestinians had no human rights because they didn't consist of an independent state at the time is as ridiculous as saying the American colonists had no sovereign rights because they were part of Britain.

And as always these facts are routinely recognised for any people on earth except the Palestinians. Once again this "argument" is either lunacy, insincerely held or else is an example of one rule for us and another for them.

[DavidByron]

Who did what to whom in history and who has what "right" to what piece of real estate based on what legalism is simply beside the point.

Was it also beside the point when Iraq invaded Kuwait? When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? When Hitler invaded Poland?

These facts are finally beginning to solve the problem, not in a way that is neat and tidy, not in a way that has anything to do with anybody's "rights" to real estate, not in a way that is going to satisfy anyone's abstract view of "justice" or "moral law", but in a way which is actually going to work.

I tell you this: you'll never have peace if you start out by ignoring justice. Justice is the cause of this fight. If the Palesinians could be pursuaded to ignore the injustice against them then they wouldn't be fighting and risking their lives would they?

[Liquid]

Excellent post today Alexandra!

You know, real change, despite the influence of heavy fisted politics on both sides, is hopeful through the changed heart. It would take a change of heart! I think there are many neighbors in the middle east that live side by side and have work things out with compromise and mutual respect or no one would be alive over there today, but eventually they are only pushed into and used by elevated political or religous conflicts from the "tribal tensions" which has at the very root an accompanied embedded hatred inside it's motives. I have thought many times how many of the overall problems could be solved if muslims were not taught to hate the Jewish people. Many will say, "But they are not taught this, it is only a reactional survival response" and yet every day there is more "facts" that exposes that yes indeed, the hate is taught. We see the way that the children are groomed to hate! We see how the glorification of suicidal murder is taught. We see the spiritual pervserion spewed out of the mouths of the clerics and imams.

The day that this denial that its not taking place is shaved back enough to see the truth, maybe then it will be addressed with some amount of honesty. Until then, the "Islam is peace" mantra is going to continue to be chanted while the forked tongue vibrates the call to murderous pushing of all the Jews into the sea!

What is most mind boggling for the westerners is observing through incident after growing incident from hostage taking/beheadings to cartoon/riots to conversion from Islam to Christianity and how all of these are used incidents to murder! It's as if every day we witness more and more "grab a reason from the islamic hat" so that there can be a cause behind the desire to torture/murder! 'Give us a reason' 'Find a reason' seems to be the hunger! Think about the public executions and the public mutilations in some of those muslim countries under sharia law! It's a spectator sport mentality. Why is that? Is it to oppress or to teach via example Allah's will? What's behind that? It makes me sick to my stomach just as the thoughts of the things that took place in Rome centuries ago. The thought of people gathering and getting pleasure and betting their money on watching lions eat Christians is unbelievable...but it happened! It's savage entertainment! It's entertainment that excites the animalistic beast in humans! I remember during the fallujah incidents when we saw muslims in tribal frenzy mode drag corpses down the streets and throw stones at it hanging like a slaughtered animal over a bridge. I remember then thinking how many times can you kill that corpse? The chants and fever that I watched grow out of it was more than savage it was almost a display of public masterbation! They were getting pumped with endorphines and it fed something that was already planted inside them. Something dark and evil. Now many will say, "Oh this is just isolated to the middle east" but no, this spirit of rage for pleasure takes place in other parts of the world too, from Africa all the way to vile honour killings inside the western corners of this globe. Tossing acid in the face of young woman in pakistan or using machetes to dismember a village in the sudan or the gang raping taking place in Chad or stabbing one's own child multiple times are just some of the actions of rage that seem to rest only till the next craving! It's like what the heck is going on? What is fueling this behavior? How do the citizens of the world "reform" or "detox" such behaviors in those that choose to do such horrible acts and then claim justification as the "will" of Allah? We are hearing more and more of this being the reason mouthed by the ones prior to or after such crimes on humanity. What did the Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar say was the reason that he drove the SUV into the college campus? The fact is that when things like this take place and muslims make these claims it always gets turned around that the response to it is nothing more than prejudices people have against Islam. It's always said as if what the muslims that do such things explain why they do it just gets tossed to the side. Why won't people address it? Because everytime I hear this reasoning it is basically putting the world in the position at being at war with Allah, no? Because once that takes place and starts to be addressed then the cry of "Islam is peace" "That isn't true Islam" "Islam has been hijacked" etc. See what I mean?
Well...then all I can say to that anymore is that muslims shouldn't put Allah in that position to justify or take the blame for their own personal hatred. Does Allah know best? Because Muhammed said so? So again, it takes us back to does Allah command murder? Does Allah teach to get rid of all the Jews in the middle east? Does Allah dictate via the koran to not take Jews or People of the Book as friends? Was Muhammad's behavior much different from what we are seeing today?

The conflicted saga continues while the world waits for Islam to get itself togethe and in the mean time we look over to the left and see "Islam is or is meant to be Peace" but if we will strain our neck a bit over to the right and open our eyes then we see just the opposite when we take a look at the Friday prayers teaching hate and murder!

Check out this if you get the time today...

straight from the horse’s mouth (and the birthplace of “Islam”):

"Those who claim that there is truth in what the Jews say, or in what the Christians say – whether he is one of them or not – is denying the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad's sunna and the consensus of the Muslim nation… Allah said: 'The only reason I sent you was to bring good tidings and warnings to all [Koran 34:28]'; 'Oh people, I am Allah's Messenger to you all [Koran 7:158]'; 'Allah's religion is Islam [3:19]'; 'Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him [3:85]'; 'The unbelievers from among the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] and the polytheists are in hellfire and will be [there] forever. They are the worst of all creation… [98:6]'.

"Therefore, religion necessitates the prohibition of unbelief, and this requires the prohibition of worshiping Allah in any way other than that of the Islamic shari'a. Included in this is the prohibition against building houses of worship according to the abrogated religious laws, Jewish or Christian or anything else, since these houses of worship – whether they be churches or other houses of worship – are considered heretical houses of worship, because the worship that is practiced in them is in violation of the Islamic shari'a, which abrogates all religious law that came before it. Allah says about the unbelievers and their deeds: 'I will turn to every deed they have done and I will make them into dust in the wind [Koran 25:23].'
Debunking the “Islam Is Love and Peace!

[FredLee]

Excellent post, Alexandra. Here is one over at IRIS Blog that is written in a very similar vein:

Israeli Election is about Preventing Hamas Armageddon

[Josh]

Reverence? They never belonged there.

There was no Palestine? Yeah we know that, there was no Israel either. Israel was never a nation either.

Israel is an artificial state on artificial life support of America, they'd die tomorrow if it were not for US. It doesn't matter who came first, who shot first, who's land G-d promised or who died in the Holocaust. This is the real world, there's no right or wrong, it's kill or be killed. In either case, it's none of America's business.

We didn't participate in aiding Germany against Jewry, we didn't found Israel in the League of Nations Mandate, we certainly don't live next door to them, what makes them our concern, what do we owe them?

[m]

Sovereignty is a human right not a state right. The sovereignty of a people is held by the people even if they don't happen to be recognised as an independent state.

Okay then! You should recognize the sovereignty of the Jews that have lived in Israel for thousands of years.

Do you know how they classify a Palestinian "refugee" and how refugees are classified otherwise? Why do they get their own rules?

What about the Jews who were thrown out of the other Arab countries? Do you think they should be given their land back or compensation?

[Don Meaker]

We owe Israel what we owe ourselves: integrity. We should judge them by the same standard by which we judge ourselves.

I am always amazed at the restraint practiced by Israel, as I am amazed by the restraint practiced by the Army and Marines in Fallujah. They are better men than I.

If one would like to examine the state of Israel at the turn of the 19th-20th century, look up "Innocents Abroad" by Mark Twain. The land was barren, except for a few villages of Jews. As Jews moved in during the British Mandate, Arabs moved in along with them, to benefit from the improvements built by the Jews. Most local Arabs did not live there for centuries, they moved in in the 20th century. What Arabs did live there were nomads, or were renters. Twain notes that the Ottomans rented the right to "escort" tourists, and required these escorts, (armed with rusty single shot muskets) despite the fact that Twain's tourists were well armed with Winchesters and Navy Colt Revolvers.

Now noone could suggest that Twain was partial to the Jews, but he did correctly note their presence, and the absence of people other than Jews.

[m]

Hey Josh.

Name another time that a country has won land in DEFENSIVE WAR(s) and the world started screaming that they had to give some of the land back?

The world has seriously gone nuts.

Israel gives it's Arab citizens rights that Jews do not have in any other country in the middle east. Yet, she is the blight on the Earth. It boggles the mind.

[Joseph Marshall]

I tell you this: you'll never have peace if you start out by ignoring justice.

I must say I think this a little naive. For one thing, perfect justice is not possible in this vale of tears.

But beyond that, there are many injustices that will never be righted. I live in a country where historical injustice is a common as lead pencils: The Trail of Tears, The Long Walk, the Mexican War and consequent seizure of Mexican territory, Black Slavery, seventy years of violent strikebreaking, Jim Crow and lynchings, the McCarthy and HUAC Witchunts, and on and on. Most of these settled down to peace without "justice" ever being served. H.Rap Brown had it right: violence is as American as cherry pie.

Indeed, the most morally horrible of actions can sometimes lead to the best of consequences, if not for the perpetrator or the victims, at least for the inheritors of the results.

The Soviet dominated part of Eastern Europe was subjected by Stalin to massive forced movements of ethnic populations to fit the boundaries of the countries involved. Yugoslavia was an exception, since it ended up with a Communist government on its own and without Soviet occupation. This forced population movement was patently a horrible practice, barely remembered now, and hardly just.

But the inheritors of freedom in East Europe did not dissolve into ethnic and factional violence anywhere but in old Yugoslavia. And I think it reasonable to conclude that this was the result of the ethnic rearrangements undertaken by Stalin.

And even in Western Europe, it seems to me unlikely that we can attribute the conflagration of 1914 to the peace of Metternich and the failed revolutions of 1848. I don't think either of these historical events would qualify as just.

Consider, also, the overall domestic tranquility of Britain after about 1860 and compare it to the dangerous world of thieves, cutpurses, and cutthroats from 1860 back to Shakespeare's day.

Can we not attribute this reasonably to the wide practice of "transportation for life" made possible solely by the broading extent of British colonialism? I hardly think that either transportation for life or colonial exploitation strictly qualifies as just.
There is no one-to-one correspondence between "justice" and "peace" and never has been.

As far as the Israeli/Palestinian situation is conserned, the Israeli half is straightening itself out and the Palestinian half will follow when it becomes clear that disengagement reduces the reach of any attempts at anti-Israeli violence.

[Washington]

For all the bluster here are some facts:

1. Israel is the Middle East Superpower. They have the capability of launching nuclear weapons. They also have the will if it appears hopeless. Make no mistake about that. One item that binds Israeli's is the fact that they will not allow themselves to be overrun. Never.

2. People talk about fairness and justice. In the grand scheme every nation has been taken advantage of and has taken advantage of others. It's part of the world we live in - it is reality. We can all hope for perfect relations with our neighbors, we can strive for it, but a realist understands that people will take advantage of others. The best we can do is minimize it.

3. Mr. Marshall makes a passionate case for the rejection of an Islamic/Christian/Jewish holy war or clash of civilizations. I applaud his post which is a welcome break from the smegma put out by Byron. However, Mr. Marshall should be discussing his post with some Islamic bloggers-perhaps he can convince them for they are in dire need of a balanced voice. He is preaching to the choir here.

[Tiburon]

[An interesting spectrum of opinion here in these threads. Perhaps some readers might be interested in what constitutes the true cutting edge of the internal debate in Israel, as is illustrated by the following article by PE. The 'question' is certainly reducing to which Israeli government, or groups within government in Israel, are going to have the physical and moral fortitude to lay claim to those lands to which, at absolute minimum, they have an equal fair claim to as the so-termed (Ancient)'palestinians'. You'll forgive that I don't engage in trying to refute the fantasiful narrative as presented by commentators such as David Byron and Joseph Marshall. That is being ably accomplished by many obviously reasonable folk here, not least the blog author.]

[The comment by Josh above hardly deserves response, but suffice it to say that informed individuals know that US interests have been far better served than Israel's through the years of 'co-operation' between the states. (See following post). I happen to strongly concur that Israel should immediately and totally reject any and all further financial support from the US, and so look forward to the US 'butting out' of Israeli affairs altogether. There is sufficient mutuality of interest to assure a strong ongoing relationship, simply out of enlightened self-interest on the part of both states. - Tib. (via LGF)]

Lacking in the Campaign: Candor and Courage

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Examine the campaign rhetoric, the platforms of the various parties: what’s missing? A candid and courageous enunciation of the principles Israel stands for as Jewish nation, and a forthright statement of the policies Israel must pursue to preserve its Jewish identity.

Fortunately, there is one party hearty and honest enough to proclaim these principles and policies: the Jewish National Alliance—Hazit. Hazit’s platform was formulated primarily by Prof, Israel Hanukoglu (former science adviser to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu), Hazit chairman Baruch Marzel (a man of down-to-earth knowledge of Israel and its basic problems), and the present writer (political scientist and author of several books on Statesmanship and Judaism). No other party has this breadth and depth of knowledge.

Hazit is dedicated to three all-comprehensive and interdependent principles: (1) the People of Israel (2) Torah Judaism, and (3) the Land of Israel.

(1) To be dedicated to the People of Israel, power must be shifted power from political parties to the voters. This can only be done by having members of the Knesset elected by, and accountable to, the voters in regional elections. Otherwise, MKs, instead of representing the views and interests of their constituents, will be subservient to their party bosses, especially those who are cabinet ministers. Therefore, parliamentary electoral reform is the first step that must be taken to (a) empower the people; (b) render the Knesset independent of the cabinet; and (c) enable the Knesset to amend Basic Law: The Judiciary, in order to put an end to the judicial despotism and anti-Jewish agenda of the Supreme Court.

(2) To be dedicated to Torah Judaism is to uphold the Torah’s world-inspiring ideas and values and transmit this rich heritage of the Jewish people to future generations. This requires (a) a public school curriculum that includes serious courses on Torah, Talmud, and the great expositors of Jewish law (such as Rashi and Maimonides); (b) courses on Jewish history and Zionism; and (c) law projects to preserve the nation’s Jewish character, threatened by the influx of non-Jews into Israel, and by the non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist by an increasing number of its Arab citizens.

(3) To be dedicated to the Land of Israel, is to understand that this land is the birthright of all Jews, to the unborn as well as to the living. Not a single inch of this land can rightly be surrendered to non-Jews. Therefore, a rational and self-respecting government will (a) abrogate the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement and declare Jewish sovereignty over the heartland of the Jewish people; (b) pass a Land Act to encourage the settlement of this land by 250,000 Jews in five years; and (3) prompt Arabs therein to emigrate by means of financial incentives.

These are Hazit’s basic principles—studiously ignored or obscured by other parties, such as Likud, National Union, the National Religious Party, Israel Beiteinu, Shas, and United Torah Judaism. Perhaps they lack candor or courage? Perhaps they have succumbed to “pragmatism,” a euphemism for timidity? Be this as it may, since courage often comes with numbers, Hazit has invited these parties to issue the following joint statement:

● Consistent with strategic as well as religious reasons, we categorically reject the surrender of any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews.

● We categorically reject the idea that Jews can lawfully divest themselves of Jewish land by means of a national referendum, the attitude of various members of the Knesset. (Abraham Lincoln expressed Jewish law when he said, “No people have a right to do what is wrong.”)

● We demand that the government abrogate the Oslo Agreement, which has been constantly violated by the PLO and has resulted in the murder of more than 1,500 Jews.

● We categorically reject the government’s immoral policy of self-restraint vis-à-vis Arab terrorism. This policy makes the lives of Jews expendable. This policy has allowed Arab terror to shatter and traumatize the lives of countless Jewish women, men, and children, and to make thousands of them homeless. We therefore demand that the government uphold the sanctity of Jewish life and pursue a policy of zero-tolerance for Arab terrorism.

● We categorically reject the release of Arab terrorists, which is not only a violation international law—“no crime without a punishment”—but of justice, reason, and national honor.

● We categorically reject negotiations with Hamas—Arab Nazis—and deem such negotiations not only demeaning of Judaism, but also self-destructive. They magnify Arab contempt for Jews and incite further Arab terrorism.

● We demand that the government cease deceiving the people of Israel about “peace,” that it pursue a war-winning strategy toward Hamas, hence, that it destroy the entire Arab terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

None of the invited parties mentioned above deserve the trust and support of the Jewish people unless they publicly endorse each and every one of the points mentioned in the above statement.

[Tiburon]

[regards the myth of Israel's dependance on the US]

The Myth of Israel’s Dependence on the United States”*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

*Based on the Eidelberg Report

Israel National Radio

February 7, 2006

1. So long as Israel believes it’s dependent on the U.S. for its survival, Washington will continue to mediate the Israel-Arab conflict to the disadvantage of the Jewish state.

2. American and Israeli politicians are ever saying that the shared moral values the U.S. and Israel is the basis of their friendly relationship. Ariel Sharon often said that his friendly relationship with President George W. Bush was Israel’s greatest strategic asset. No wonder Sharon repeatedly engaged in unilateral concessions to Israel’s Arab enemies! But this obviously renders Israelis servile and undermines the security of their country.

3. Now, contrary to conventional wisdom, Israel’s military and economic dependence on the U.S. is a myth. Some years ago Joseph Sisco, former Assistant Secretary of State, told Israeli author Shmuel Katz, "I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us." American foreign policy-makers are pragmatists, not moralists. U.S. aid to Israel is animated by national self-interest—pious platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding. Israel is and has been America's biggest strategic bargain.

4. According to Gen. George Keegan, former chief of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, while Israel annually received $1.8 billion in military grants from the U.S. between 1974-1990, Israeli aid to America was worth between $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon, and testing Soviet military doctrines up to 1990, when the USSR collapsed.

5. Moreover, the bulk of the $1.8 billion Israel currently receives in military aid must be spent in the U.S., where it provides jobs for an estimated 50,000 American workingmen. It should also be noted that Israel would not need this amount of military aid were it not for huge American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. U.S. military aid to Israel creates a demand for, and the purchase of, tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S. weaponry by these and other Arab states.

6. American arms manufacturers have a vested interest in opposing any reduction of military aid to Israel—and so do their representatives in Congress. Directly and indirectly, Israel has enriched a welter of American corporations. For this reason alone, American congressmen, irrespective of their attitude toward Israel, will oppose cuts in military aid to the Jewish state. And as world leader in software and avionics, Israel has many corporate friends in the USA.

7. Mention should also be made of Israel’s medical research contribution to the U.S. And then there are the thousands of Israeli-educated engineers and scientists that live and work in the U.S. and have contributed countless billions of dollars to the American economy!

8. As for the $1.2 billion Israel receives from the U.S. in "economic" assistance, it does not go into building up Israel's economy. Most of the money is used to repay pre-1974 loans for military hardware. It has been reduced by $120 million a year beginning in 1998, so that it is now negligible. By the way, Israeli economists across the political spectrum agree that U.S. aid to Israel has reduced the productivity of this country. Israel would have its own fighter aircraft were it not for myth of its dependence on the USA.

9. But now consider Israel’s strategic contribution to the U.S.

a. Ever since 1971, when Israel first received significant amounts of aid from the U.S., the Jewish state has helped secure NATO's southern flank.

b. In 1970, at Washington's behest, Israel prevented a Syrian invasion of Jordan. By protecting Jordan from this client of the former Soviet Union, Israel thwarted Moscow's ambitions in the Middle East. (By the way, it would be naive to think that Russia has permanently abandoned its historic objectives in this region.)

10. Furthermore, Israel would not have been financially indebted to the U.S. had she not withdrawn from the Sinai. By so doing Israel lost a $17 billion infrastructure, including her most sophisticated air bases, as well as Israeli-developed oil fields which, by now, would have made the country energy-independent. Israel has had to spend more importing oil than she has thus far received in U.S. "economic" assistance. It was as if the United States beggared Israel to display American "charity."

11. The question arises: What prevents Israel's political leaders from telling the truth about this grotesque state of affairs? Do they fear the loss of $1.8 billion in military aid? Perhaps this was true in 1985, when Israel’s Gross Domestic Product was $24.5 billion. But today, when Israel’s GDP is almost $150 billion, the $1.8 billion is only 1.2% of its GDP. Given even a much smaller GDP, $1.8 billion can’t be deemed indispensable for Israel's survival. Indeed, if Israel had a government that was not steeped in corruption, it could dispense with American "charity" entirely! All it would have to do is clamp down on tax-evasion. Or if the government granted a moratorium to big tax evaders and lowered taxes, this would increase capital investment and make Israel another Singapore!

12. But all this is known to Israeli politicians. If so, why do they perpetuate the myth of Israel’s dependence on the U.S.?

13. According to contemporary political science, the dominant motivation of politicians is the desire for power and prestige. (This is precisely how nine out of ten Israelis view Israeli politicians!) It follows that Israel's ruling elites may have a personal interest in fostering the myth that their country's survival depends on U.S. aid. This conclusion gains credence from the fact that no Israeli government has undertaken serious steps to liberate Israel from its supposed dependency.

14. Like other political elites, Israel’s want the people to feel dependent on the government. Influenced, no doubt, by Israel’s precarious situation, many people in this country want a strong leader, even if he is corrupt. Sharon exploited this tendency. As already mentioned, he repeatedly said that his friendly relationship with President Bush is Israel’s greatest strategic asset. This could not but make the people feel all the more dependent on Sharon himself. Stated another way: by fostering the myth of Israel’s dependence on the U.S., Israeli prime ministers can the more readily manipulate and control the people.

15. At the same time, the myth of Israel’s dependence on the U.S. is also used by Israeli prime ministers as an excuse for their caving in to American pressure.

16. All this substantiates what I have long called for—Regime Change. This will require the compete overhaul of Israel’s system of governance, beginning with democratizing the mode of electing the legislature; replacing the corrupt system of multi-cabinet government with a popularly elected president; and democratizing the method of appointing the Supreme Court. These democratic reforms will empower the people—the key to making Israel a truly independent and sovereign state—yes, and even a Jewish one!

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, Washington, I hardly think that this blog has been totally innocent of the Clash Of Civilizations hysteria. The broad thrust of Alexandra's posts on these issues is that Muslims, as Muslims, are inherently hostile, always and everywhere, to non-Muslims, and that no other alternative than violent conflict between Muslims and everyone else is truly possible.

The consequences of such a point of view are perfectly plain to anyone who is capable of logically extending them.

Now I personally think that merely keeping your eyes open and your powder dry is sufficient defense against most threats. By that standard, the most dangerous threat in the Middle East is, and always has been, Iran. This has been the case since at least the First Gulf War.

And it is, in fact, this threat which the Bush Administration has chosen largely to ignore in order to pursue our foolish adventures in Iraq.

This is the sort of thing I mean when I say that we have applied the law, armed force, and the threat of armed force unintelligently.

Should you doubt this, try to come up with any action the Bush Administration has taken since 2002 which has in any way reduced the threat of a nuclear Iran. If you evaluate the matter objectively, I don't think you'll find very many of them.

[Tiburon]

{Finally, towards a practical 'solution' to the conflict: - A Loyalty Oath. As pretty well every commentator on this thread gives credence to Israel's "right to exist", (in some form or another), I surely cannot envision any objection to a formulation such as elucidated by PE and the HAZIT, seen below. Surely also it would serve to 'separate the sheep from the wolves'... Thanx for the bandwidth to the blog author - hope this furthers.}

The Hazit Loyalty Oath

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

A. The Jewish National Alliance (Hazit), has adopted a loyalty oath formulated by its partner, the Yamin Israel Party. The present writer drafted this loyalty oath several years ago. I have updated some of its provisions in view of the ascendancy of Hamas and its claim to represent the Arab citizens of Israel.

B. The necessity of a loyalty oath for all citizens of the State of Israel is justified by the following facts:

1. Studies indicate that most Arab citizens of Israel identify themselves as “Palestinians.”

2. After citing the anti-Israel statements of Arab Knesset Members such as Taleb a-Sana (who praised a suicide bomber and called for more of the same), Abdul Malik Dahamshe (who calls Israeli Arabs convicted of murdering Jews “prisoners of conscience”), Azmi Bishara (who praises Hizbullah as the model for Israeli Arab resistance against Israel), Mohammad Barakei (who urged Israeli Arabs to participate in Palestinian violence against Israel), columnist Evelyn Gordon of the Jerusalem Post (April 16, 2002) writes: “Thus if the statements by Arab MKs indeed reflect the opinions of their voters [the Arab parties then had 10 seats in Israel’s 120-member Knesset], the inescapable conclusion is that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs actively or tacitly support violence against Israeli Jews.”

2. It is well known that Israeli Arabs have collaborated with terrorist organizations and suicide bombers.

3. Hamas, having won the Palestinian Authority elections, sees itself as also representing the Arab citizens of Israel, the organization's political leader, Khaled Mesh'al, told reporters in Qatar. Israeli Arabs, he said, are one of the most important engines behind the drive to transform all of Israel into “Palestine.” In particular, Mesh'al cited the Israeli Arabs' role in the effort to overwhelm Israel through an Arab “right of return.”

4. The Hamas leader's statements in Qatar were not the _expression of a new stance. In December 2005, a Hamas campaign video praised Arab citizens of Israel who wish to destroy the country “from within.”

C. Hazit’s concern about national security is balanced by its concern to protect the civil rights of all citizens of the State. It cannot be said too often, however, that “rights” are correlative to “duties,” one of which is loyalty to the State that protects those rights. Here caution is necessary. In drafting a loyalty oath—and one has been proposed by Yuri Shturn of the Israel Beiteinu Party—it must be so phrased as not to contradict established laws protecting freedom of _expression.

D. Hazit takes note of the 1952 Citizenship Law, which acknowledges loyalty as an essential element of citizenship and nationality. Part I, section 5(c) states that prior to the grant of citizenship by naturalization, the applicant must make the following declaration: “I declare that I will be a loyal national of the State of Israel.”

Hazit would amend this provision so that the law would require all citizens of Israel—Jewish and non-Jewish—to take the following oath: (a) “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully abide by the laws of the State of Israel.” (b) “I do further swear that I will neither aid nor abet any political or religious party, group, or organization, or any foreign government, that advocates hatred or violence toward the State of Israel, its citizens or residents, Jewish or non-Jewish.”

E. Hazit takes note of Part II, section 11(a)3 of the Citizenship Law, which stipulates that the citizenship of any Israel national may be revoked if he or she “has committed an act involving disloyalty to the State.” In American Constitutional Law, section 11(a)3 would be deemed “void for vagueness” because of the imprecision of the term “act.” Hazit proposes the following amendment:

“The citizenship of any inhabitant of Israel shall be revoked if he or she (a) engages in acts intended to impair Israel’s security or welfare, such as serving in a terrorist organization whose aim is to destroy human life or property in Israel; (b) aids or abets any terrorist who has committed, or plans to commit, any act of violence against Israel, its Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants; (c) advocates, or supports any individual, group, or nation that advocates violence against Israel; (d) is a member of any political party or organization that rejects Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. (Note: This last point is consistent with Basic Law: The Knesset, which prohibits any party that rejects the Jewish character of the State.)

F. Hazit’s proposed loyalty oath for all citizens of the State of Israel offers a thoughtful balance between individual rights and national security.

[Joseph Marshall]

You'll forgive that I don't engage in trying to refute the fantasiful narrative as presented by commentators such as David Byron and Joseph Marshall

Well, having carefully read Mr. Tiburon's posts, I must say that I am inclined to modify my views.

I merely hope that a majority of Israelis have come to face facts that they cannot make disappear.

[Kevin]

Finally! One issue both the right wing and the Democratic party can get behind!

Really, though. We should just exterminate the "Palestinians" if they don't leave. Israel (including Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and all land between the Nile and the Euphrates) is for the Jews and only the Jews!

All other religions and ethnicities MUST BE CLEANSED!

Good work, Alex!

Kevin

[Washington]

Mr. Marshall:

Why do you ask me to provide an example with respect to Bush. Those of us who are conservative are not blindly loyal to any politician-at least those of us who have studied conservatism in America for any appreciable amount of time. It would be like me asking you to provide an example of Clinton's policies-that would be to assume that you supported Clinton on every issue.

Mr. Bush is the President. I am a citizen. I choose to come to my decisions based on my own research into issues. The left seems to have trouble understanding that everyone right of left does not march to the party drumroll.

As for Islamism I suggest you take a trip to the Middle East. Walk through the streets and get a feeling for the hatred of most things Western. It has been that way for some time-despite what your favorite columnists have been telling you.

[epaminondas]

Well Byron and others persist in creating artificial logic constructs as if this signifies anything other than inner compulsions. After 5 years with the Arabs, I can tell you it's word for word what they say, and they are clearly driven by racism, and an inability to accept former dhimmis in the position they are.

It doesn't matter on what basis one wishes to eliminate this state, the unassailable facts are that a desolate land, as DNA studies have now inarguably proven, settled by the same people (by and large) now there, was made via political and religious refugees a center for the inflow of populations due to the developments on land purchased from arab owners.

At any point from 1936 on there could have been two peaceful states, but the arabs, like monty python's knight at the bridge simply cannot accept that their societies, rigidly locked by religous documents jumped the shark between 1453 and 1683 and it's been rapidly downhill, unhalted by oil which in other societies would have created a millenium of riches, and continue to insist they will destroy Israel. It's not the leaders, it's the peoples, the culture, the entire society.

There is nothing different today. There is nothing to discuss in the realm of peace there, just as there is nothing to discuss between americans and the freakish salafi philospohical descendants of Sayd Qutb.
Israel is.
So I will quote a jewish friend. Israel am Chai.

For those of you whose internals are disturbed by this, driving you to seek the end of Israel, and find a reason other than racism for this, enjoy the ride. But have no doubt what the bitter truth really is.

Israel is hated because it is full of jews. All of human history makes this objective reality ineluctably unavoidable. It's destruction is sought by bigots, not those concerned with arabs, who weren't there until the jews made an industrial society for them to thrive in from the 1890's forward.

Those who criticise Israeli goverment policies, but not the end of the state are easily to see, and have much to say. But those whose actions, and words continually seek to delegitimize this state, given the history here in the real world, have a lot to consider. But, of course, they can't

[Tiburon]

Joseph - I'll admit of a degree of 'intellectual laziness' in regards responding to your stated positions. You do have 'measure' in your response, and I sense a optimistic bent as well, which we all could use a little more of, these days.

I cannot concur w/your general position that retreat behind the Auswitzch Lines (as the 1947 Armistice Lines were termed by Abba Eban) is the only 'pragmatic' resolution possible. National Spirit, coupled with fairly impressive military capability, can deliver a very different scenario in rapid course.
The irrefutable fact is that the vast majority of 'palestinians' have 'roots' that are temporally no deeper than the vast majority of Jews (I'm not speaking here of the Jewish families who maintained an unbroken presence in the Land, and an ethnic majority in Jerusalem, through the entire interim between the last Jewish Commonwealth and the present one...), but those 'palestinians' lack the deep spiritual connection to the Land, their 'Farthest', that do the Jews. In prayer, five times a day, they raise their nether portions to Jerusalem and direct their supplications and duty to Mecca. Their history, culture and family ties are to many of the 22-odd Arab states beyond Israel's borders, and directly stated - the vast majority will LEAVE if offered Fair Compensation (say $50-100,000 US per landholding family (better than that received by the 860,000 Arab Jews expelled from the Arab world post-Jewish State after '48). I think this is best accomplished through private monies, and that at most the Israeli State should not place obstacles in this process, otherwise leaving it to the private marketplace.

Those Arabs with deeper roots, willing to accept the Jewish State, are of course welcome to stay as responsible citizens. Given their rapidly plummeting birthrates and the rapidly growing birthrates and Aliya of national-religious Jews in Israel, they will eventually be a small, but hopefully respected, minority in the Land.

I don't find comments like Kevin's to be helpful. Anyone with a reasonable memory can recall the steady improvement in civil and financial relationships that developed (though not without 'setbacks' of course) between '67 and the Oslo Debacle in '93. It was clearly the importation, re-invigoration and re-arming of the moribund PLO thug warlords (and abdication of national duty by the previous and present Israelis Regimes) that has led to this sorry state of affairs.

Abrogate Oslo due serial gross violations by the PA.
Destroy All Terror and Incitement Infrastructure.
Annex Yesh'A,
placing EVERYONE, Jew and non-Jew, under Israeli Civil, not Military, Law. And prepare for Peace to break out all over.

A little simplistic, but hopefully you get the point.

[DavidByron]

I'd still like to know how many here reject "moral equivalence" as the basis for their views on the Palestinian problem. It seems to be the best way to explain most people's views.

m:
You should recognize the sovereignty of the Jews

I do. But you don't have a sovereign right to someone else's land.

Do you know how they classify a Palestinian "refugee" and how refugees are classified otherwise? Why do they get their own rules?

I don't know. How is any of this relevent to the crime commited by Israel?

What about the Jews who were thrown out of the other Arab countries? Do you think they should be given their land back or compensation?

I suppose so. I don't know what you're talking about and it doesn't seem to have any relevence. If someone has been cheated by a state then I think they ought to get relief. That wouldn't be a question of sovereignty though. It wouldn't be enough for Israeli state to merely pay the Palestinians for the land they stole for example.

Don Meaker:
The land was barren, except for a few villages of Jews. As Jews moved in during the British Mandate, Arabs moved in along with them, to benefit from the improvements built by the Jews. Most local Arabs did not live there for centuries, they moved in in the 20th century.

That's just not true. If it had been true then the Zionists wouldn't have needed to invade and take the land by force.

Now noone could suggest that Twain was partial to the Jews, but he did correctly note their presence, and the absence of people other than Jews.

That's utter rubbish. Find me the quote then where Twain says there was nobody but Jews living in Palestine. Go ahead.

m again:
Name another time that a country has won land in DEFENSIVE WAR(s) and the world started screaming that they had to give some of the land back?

It was a war of aggression and invasion. In fact since the was what created the State of Israel it would have been impossible for anyone to have attacked Israel before the war because Israel didn't exist.

Washington:
People talk about fairness and justice. In the grand scheme every nation has been taken advantage of and has taken advantage of others.

Is that your way of admiting the justice of the Palestinians' cause? Are you saying this because you recognise that Israel commited ethnic cleansing and stole land that belongs to the Palestinians?

Epaminondas:
At any point from 1936 on there could have been two peaceful states

You mean if the Palestinians (that other people here think didn't exist) had agreed to hand over to Jews half their country? Hand over to Zionists who were openly talking about exterminating the Palestinians and taking all their land? That's about as realistic as George Bush suddenly deciding to give peace a chance by handing half of the USA over to Al Qaeda.

Israel is hated because it is full of jews.

Right. The Nazis were hated because they were German too. Some people will tell you it was because they commited great crimes against humanity but no - it's just pure anti-Aryan prejudice.

[Liquid]

For those of you whose internals are disturbed by this, driving you to seek the end of Israel, and find a reason other than racism for this, enjoy the ride. But have no doubt what the bitter truth really is.

Israel is hated because it is full of jews. All of human history makes this objective reality ineluctably unavoidable. It's destruction is sought by bigots, not those concerned with arabs, who weren't there until the jews made an industrial society for them to thrive in from the 1890's forward.
--------------------

I applaud you epaminondas for pointing out the TRUTH! Because this is the bottom line!

[Washington]

DavidByron:

This is something I can't get round: Mr. Byron is an obvious anti-Semite. He doesn't hide it, deny it, nor does he offer anything other than hate filled empty rhetoric. At what point, if any, do people realize that debating him is futile?

One cannot argue with a chair, at least for very long. I know that many will state that he has a right to his opinions, blah, blah, blah... I agree. In that same vein did Hitler have a right to his opinions? How about Mao? How many people here would debate with Bin Laden on a daily basis?

My point is this-Mr. Byron does not have a blog, nor does he state how he came to his positions, nor does he offer DEBATE.

I have stated it before but am certain of it now - he simply states things to stir people up. He doesn't have the guts to write on his own-he merely picks at what Alexandra writes. He is a sophist.

I love debate but debate is spoiled when someone like Mr. Byron refuses to act in a civil manner, refuses to state his positions=read the other threads for proof of that, and constantly attacks those who dare to speak about freedom, or God forbid, the Jews.

Hate has a forum all it's own. It is widespread. I refuse, on principal, to address Mr. Byron anymore. If his rants were not directed at Israel and the Jews would he ever find a place to comment? I doubt it. This may seem like a freedom of speech issue but it is hardly that - it is hate disguised as debate-and a poor disguise to top it off. The wretched little people eat this stuff up-thoughtful people turn away in disgust. In diplomacy there comes a time when talking is no longer useful. It's never easy but it happens. Now is the time for me, personally, to stop addressing Mr. Byron.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, Tiburon, if the solution can be had by paying people to leave, more power to it. But you must consider that they also need somewhere to go in such large numbers. One of the most impressive things to my mind has been the way Jordan has adapted to no longer having sovreignty over the West Bank and the people who are living on it.

Perhaps I am deceiving myself, but it seems to me that the Kingdom more or less regards the matter with a quiet and continuing sigh of relief to now have a river between them and everybody on the other side of it. And I see no great enthusiasm in Egypt for dealing with the people in Gaza again.

So I wish Israel luck if monetary payment will do the job, but I'm frankly not very hopeful of it.

[Raimondo]

Wow..Excellent post Alexandra...and some great posts...Liquid, J. Marshal. Washington.

Islam is not the religion of peace. There are peaceful Muslims. But Islam as a whole does not preach peace by any means. Countless horrors practiced only in the last thirty years in the name of Islam have been brushed under the rug. Look at Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, etc...Nobody mentions the religious motivations of some of the massacres that heve taken place in Africa, they are written off as tribal. Somehow when atrocities are performed in the name of Islam, they are sugarcoated by the media.

It's nice to read blogs that aren't afraid to state the truth.

[Joseph Marshall]

Washington, this is really not a matter of Conservative vs. Liberal, though you happen to be one and I happen to be the other. A failure of statescraft is a failure of statescraft.

The Clinton Administration clearly failed in the case of India, North Korea, and nuclear weapons. And [I think] the Bush Administration has clearly failed in Iraq, Iran, and nuclear weapons.

In both cases the roots of the failures were two. First, as I have stated, it was paying too much attention to what people think and say rather than to what they actually do. Clinton was deceived by putting too much stock in the agreement with North Korea, and Bush was deceived by putting too much stock in Saddam's desires and not enough into his actual capacities.

Second, both failures were caused by a misunderstanding of the true uses of military power in statescraft. By far the most useful thing in foreign relations is the threat of military action. Neither an actual war, nor an "agreement" which is mere window dressing, and not coupled to military threat are desirable.

At the fall of the Taliban, Iran was in the most precarious position it had ever been faced with. The United States military was far closer to it than ever before, and that same military was virtually unfettered with other duties.

At that point, had we turned our attention to it, and been willing to put a threat behind it, the Iranian nuclear development could have been effectively halted.

As it is, we have not only diminished our ordinary capacity to be a military threat to Iran, we have also proved that even when we defeat a country, we do not have the capacity to make that defeat stick.

The Iranians thus can quite reasonably take the view that, with a little diplomatic shadow-boxing, their nuclear ambitions can finally be achieved. Under the current circumstances I would give it even odds of happening.

I would not have given such odds three and one half years ago and I would have been justified in not doing it.

The most important thing is to understand why the failures have occurred. Too many in a row are going to be lethal for this world.

As to Islamic hostility, it means little unless it leads to some action. Such threat as there is in it is a threat of what it can actually do rather than what it may wish to do. In this regard capacity is far more important than intention. This is why Iran should have been Job One from the fall of Afghanistan forward.

[Josh]

Name another time that a country has won land in DEFENSIVE WAR(s) and the world started screaming that they had to give some of the land back?

Maybe none, but doesn't matter. Name another country that violates that many UN resolutions, duh! Obviously neither of these arguments make any sense or difference. My point stands, there's no right or wrong or rights (G-d given or government issued). I never said Israel 'stole' land, nor should they give it back, I certainly don't buy the UN resolutions bullshit, but if they don't cooperate with their neighbors, they can just expect more suicide bombers, TOUGH LUCK.

We owe Israel what we owe ourselves: integrity. We should judge them by the same standard by which we judge ourselves.

Whoa? Serious? Ok, first of all. We obviously don't judge Israel the same standards we judge Arab countries or Asian countries. But judging them the same way we judge ourselves? Hmmm, we don't depend on foreign aid, sorry! Tell Israel to try that! We don't discriminate people based on national origin or religion (if you think we do against Mexicans or Muslims, you're thinking like a Zionist, not American).

I have no moral or legal judgment against Israel (or Palestine, or any other country for the matter). But I only believe the least Americans can do is stay out of their conflict.

[Huan]

Palestinian as a nation does not predate that of the Israeli nation. That hardly matters as they consider themselves a people now.
I support whoever can control that strip of land (right of conquest) and rule it with justice. Thus far the Israeli have managed to do so, the Palestinians has not. Too bad the Palestinians seem to have abandoned morality in their war of terrorism, all the while whining for continued financial dependency, lacking guiding moral principles. Sorry but claims of "I was there first" seems rather immature.

[Washington]

Mr. Marshall:

I don't believe that it is a question of conservative v American liberal either. However, the goals for Iraq and Iran are very different. Iraq is discussed ad nauseum so I will assume that we understand the rationale behind that invasion.

Iran has four corps, roughly, with no ability to move them from position to position-nothing like we saw with Operation Swarmer, for example. The goal in Iran would be to decapitate the head of state and his minions and to destroy, or damage, any facilities that are used in the production of "glow" stuff. :-)

One can be achieved without the other. There is no need, nor desire, to plant a quarter of a million troops in Iran. In fact, tactically, it would not have been the goal three years ago. So with respect the goals were/are different. Studying military history teaches you that trying to compare two theaters of war is like trying to compare Mozart with Robert Plant-it's difficult and not likely to make much sense.

Diplomacy is to military action what kissing is to sex. Eventually if you kiss enough...anyway. The threat of action works ONLY when the opponent views that action as undesirable. Far too many in the Islamic world want to go and receive their 77 virgins and thus the threat of military action adds very little to diplomacy. Moreover, diplomacy can only work if both sides are genuine in wanting to achieve a common goal. With respect to Islamism, just as we witnessed with nazism, there is no common goal - only preparation for war.

[Liquid]

I never said Israel 'stole' land, nor should they give it back, I certainly don't buy the UN resolutions bullshit, but if they don't cooperate with their neighbors, they can just expect more suicide bombers, TOUGH LUCK.
----

Wow Josh, when I read your words I kinda felt like a video tape might be rolling and then I started looking around for the duct tape or ummm or the voice muffled behind a masked face saying "If you don't comply to our demands....this or that is going to happen!" Maybe you can reword that for me another way? Hopefully I am reading that all wrong! Please say I am!

[hutchrun]

PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a 1977 interview with a Dutch magazine.

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. "
http://groups.msn.com/NoPalestinianState

[hutchrun]

Took me some time locating it, and here it is-the nexus between Islam and nazism:
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html

PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTS CLICK ON ANY PICTURE TO ENLARGE
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

[Liquid]

Great articles Hutch..thanks!
I will share this with ya...

Back in 2003, Sheikh Abdul Palazzi, professor at the Research Institute for Anthropological Studies in Rome, was in the United States recently guest lecturing at Yale University on the possibility of bringing democracy to the Arab world.
The Koran says before the end of days the Jews will return to their land. At the end of World War One, Sharif Al Hussein, the leader of the Hashemite family and governor of Mecca said, when he saw the Jews returning to Palestine, "We are seeing what was foretold in the Koran. When others settled there the land stayed barren, but now the land recognizes its original sons and it is producing."

It's too bad the Palestinian Arabs don't know that.

They can't know it because these passages have been removed from their books. The PA selected only certain sources for their books. All of the proofs are deleted. But in other Islamic countries you do find all proofs in the Koran. You know, before 1967, Islamists referred to the Jews as Palestinians and the present-day Palestinians were called Jordanians. In Jerusalem, Imam Tabari, an important cleric, wrote an important book, "Lives of Prophets and Kings" He described the life of King Solomon and the Temple he built. Anyone who denies this not only denies history, but denies Islamic sources.

The Palestinian Arabs even deny that the Holy Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount.

I was part of an international delegation that visited Israel in 2000. The Wakf took us to visit Al Aksa. Right outside of the Dome of the Rock is a small chapel on the eastern side. "What is this place?" I asked. "It is the place where Solomon stood to dedicate the Temple," was the reply. "Then why do you deny this?" I asked. With a smile I was told, "For political reasons."
Exclusive Interview With Sheikh Abdul Palazzi

[Josh]

Hey Liquid, thanks for the reply.

Trust me, I know what I said, and I meant what I said. And yes, you read it right. I literally meant (with no sympathy or support to terrorists and murder) that this world is lawless, you either kill or be killed, you make peace with the bad guys or they'll make you. Israel brought on the hatred themselves, they have to deal with it. America shares the guilt with Israel because we stand with them, nobody else in the world suffers the same hatred by Muslims of Arabs (not that I give a shit about them liking us anyway).

You can go ahead and tell me 'if you do nothing, you're standing with the bad guys', so be it. I'd rather stand with the bad guys than with Israel. Again, Israel did nothing for us, nothing good I can think of.

I don't care what Israel does, good or bad, right or wrong, just don't make me pay for it, just don't make my homies die in wars for them.

[slowtrain]

There was no Palestine in the Geographic location where Arabs now claim as Palestinian lands, until about 135 C.E., when Roman emperor Hadrian's army crushed a Jewish revolt, destroyed Judea, sold Jews into slavery and exiled many Jews to North Africa. Jews were forbidden to live there in Judea and were only allowed to enter Jerusalem on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country's name from Judea to Syria Palestina. Palestine as we know it today, came from the name Syria Palestina, which Hadrian intended as an insult to Syria.

[Liquid]

*deep breath*

Josh, you say, "America shares the guilt with Israel because we stand with them, nobody else in the world suffers the same hatred by Muslims of Arabs (not that I give a shit about them liking us anyway"

Guilt of what?

I find it very sad that you as an American sit here on this blog and make statements like if they don't cooperate with their neighbors, and I am quoting YOU here...
"they can just expect more suicide bombers, TOUGH LUCK"

It's one thing to not understand the situation but to side with the as you call them "bad guys" says alot about the mentality that can't be bothered with the truth of the Islamist agenda and so you would rather join "victimhood" with the terrorist because you think its gonna make you somehow safer? It's this same type of thinking that says, 'I don't care as long as it doesn't affect my generation!'

You see, that kinda thinking doesn't jive with most of us Josh, because most of us love more than ourselves and we want to see our children and grandchildren have a chance at life under freedom...not sharia law. Do you think you will be happier and less bothered living under sharia law Josh? Let me ask you this... are you a person that thinks Arafat was a hero?

[Josh]

No I do not think Arafat was a hero. I'm sure it makes you feel better to think I'm a terrorist sympathizer.

Most of us love more than ourselves? Fine, I won't argue with you on that. Go for it! I'm a cynical selfish asshole who just doesn't want to get caught in the crossfire.

Don't get me wrong, I love my country. I'm no socialist cry baby that thinks if we don't invade Iraq or Iran we must save the money and spend it on education and health care. I simply think the more you do the more you harm, even if your intentions were good.

And yes, I will feel safer to know that innocent Israelis are being killed by brave suicide bombers and I was part of neither side.

I don't care about anything behind my generation, because I'm barely guaranteed my own life (sorry, my gov't and my society has made me hopeless).

As for 'Sharia law' I've never been for religion mixing with politics, regardless of religion. So leave me out of that. You paranoia that we'll be under that if we don't fight Muslims is exactly the Islamophobia that Zionists want you to believe. I don't care what religion you are, you can choose to be a puppet for the Zionist machine.

Speaking of which, modern Zionism is the best example of political hypocrisy. They use the identity 'Jewish' by both religious and racial perspectives, then accuse others for being racist or irrationally fanatic of their religion(theorocratic). America is slowly becoming the same.

[Liquid]

Josh: And yes, I will feel safer to know that innocent Israelis are being killed by brave suicide bombers and I was part of neither side.
------------

Aren't you taking sides though? Wasn't it you that said, " I'd rather stand with the bad guys than with Israel. Again, Israel did nothing for us, nothing good I can think of."

[Josh]

No, I'm not taking sides.

I said, IF you think being indifferent and isolationist is standing with the bad guys, I'd still rather be that (but if you think standing outside and not taking a side simply means nothing other than not taking a side, cool, that's it). Go back and read the previous post I made.

[Liquid]

Josh, I can't help but feel your words have revealed undeniable similarities to those like the european anti-semitism right before the Holocaust. You probably support boycotting Israel too eh? I'd bet you have compared zionism with Hitler at some time or the other.

*shakes my head*

I am off to bed...
I have read enough of your demonizing Israel for one night.

[Josh]

Oh, great, I love guilt by association! If European anti-Semitism advocates drinking clean water I must advocate drinking dirty water, right?

I don't need to boycott Israel. I said I have no problem with what Israel believes or what they are doing, as long as I'm no part of it. Do I need to compare Zionism with Hitler? I hate using Hitler as an example of iconic cliche bad guy, but if you've read Der Judenstaat by Theodor Herzl, you can see great parallels to Mein Kamf, see yourself (and I didn't say there's anything wrong with either of these works)!

As far as racism is concerned, Hitler and Zionism are no worse than any other nationalism, nations are all essentially racist. I think I've been fair to Israel and not judged them for their religion or racism, all I ask is the accusations are not put on me.

I also recommend you read 'The Founding Myths of Modern Israel' by Roger Garaudy. You'll see what I'm talking about (I don't know if you've ever heard the other side of the story), including arguments that Hitler supported Zionism as a segregative protection for both Germany and Jews (as opposed to accusations of genocide to destroy Jewry altogether).

Byron, you insist on conidering the EXEPTIONAL quotes of people from who, Stern Gang?, isolatied Ben Gurion quotes, Jabotisky ? as if that is the equivalent of an Israeli goverment, or as if this is somehow the same as arab goverments across the generations since 1919 (Musafa Tlas's little best seller as Sec Def of Syria, Al Jazeera of KSA's wonderful encomium in 2003 about jews using blood to make holiday pastries, by a GOVT PROFESSOR in a GOVT PAPER...and THOUSANDS of others), or the Hadith of the Stone and the Tree which make clear salafist (which is PRECISELY what the jewish people face) arab thought about jews MILLENIA before any Israel, in fact when the Arabs CONQUERED an Israel made EMPTY BY ROME, and now home, as DNA HAS PROVEN to that same people.

I love it when people quote Garaudy.. Cmon Josh -how about Zundel? Faurisson? CODOH? IHR?
C'mon...let's rock. I want the sunshine to fall on people who start quoting KKK think alikes. This is like being with my gulf arabs friends.

You have a REAL problem fella. I met people like you right across a voter registraion table in 1966 in the south.

The people who RIGHT IN HERE say what they say about Israel make it clear just how RIGHTEOUS it is that Israel exists. You are in denial about bigotry.

If I were you I'd worry about Russia and China frustrateing US efforts to stop Iran, because the result will be that Israel, who cannot afford to lose even one war, will have NOTHING to lose by acting, and thus be compelled, and setting off a large regional war, resulting I think, in the use of nuclear weapons.

Israel is. These bigoted attempts to deligitimize it are not only a waste of breath, but are moving the 'deck chairs' around while the main problem proceeds.

We face here, what they face. We face a bunch of people who think making up our own laws out of our own heads means we cannot be following god's. The jews just do that, as HAMAS puts it on a muslim waqf, but then of course, so are the Buglarians, Serbs, Austrians, Spaniards, etc, .wherever muslim feet have once tread....make no mistake, absurd racism in this over Israel AIDS th