The Two-State Solution: A Roadmap to Conquest


Pages: 1 2

A recent poll commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP) found that “[a] majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza view the two-state solution as a precursor to one state – a Palestinian state.” According to the poll, which was conducted by Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg, Quinlan & Rosner Research, “Palestinians have not reconciled themselves to the long term existence of the Jewish State.”

The poll points out that “[a]lthough 23% accept the statement that ‘Israel has a permanent right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people,’ two-thirds agreed with the statement, ‘over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian State.’Sixty percent of the Palestinians were surprisingly honest with the interviewers, making it clear to the pollsters that “the real goal should be to start with two-states but then move it to all being one Palestinian State.”

Anyone who was more honest and realistic than President Obama and his clique, the Israeli political Left, and most of the European Union officials, would discern the strong irredentist tendencies among the Arabs and the Islamists.  For the so-called Palestinian “secularist” of the Fatah variety as much as for the Islamist Hamas, virtually all the land now controlled by Israel belongs to the Waqf — the Muslim religious endowment.  In addition, lands that Islam has lost (such as Israel and Spain) must be reconquered. The duty of the faithful is to regain control of lost lands and establish Sharia (Islamic law) as the law of the land.  Furthermore, the Islamic ummah (nation) must continually expand.  According to Islamic teachings, the earth belongs to Allah, and any part of the earth that does not presently follow Sharia, must be made to do so – by force if necessary.

President Obama, the State Department, and a large segment of academia and the media, refuse to see the Arab-Israel conflict as a religious one.  They fail to recognize a fundamental reality, which is that in the Muslim world, there is no separation between mosque and state.  Most of the Arab world adheres to Sharia law – which, in addition to setting the path for how a Muslim lives on a daily basis, also proscribes accommodation with non-Muslims and non-Arab political entities.  This is one of the reasons why the 40 million largely Muslim but non-Arab Kurds do not have an independent political state, and why Israel as a Jewish state is not accepted as legitimate in the Arab Middle East.  This is a reality the progressives in the West refuse to accept.

German Nazism and Italian Fascism of the 1920s and 1930s were racist ideologies that attracted and inspired the Arabs.  The Baath party that would take root in Syria and Iraq was spawned from these totalitarian systems. Baathists were drawn to the repressiveness of Nazism and Fascism rather than to the Western democracies of the U.S., Britain, and France.  The Arab political elites, including those in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, aligned themselves with these extremist worldviews and, during WW II, worked with Nazi Germany.

Yaser Arafat, who founded Fatah in 1959 in Cairo, was heavily influenced by the nationalist and Islamist teachings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Arafat drew inspiration from Hitler’s incremental conquest of Europe.  Arafat agreed to sign on to the Oslo Accords, which he regarded as a “trojan horse,” because he saw Oslo as an opportunity to take advantage of the West’s appeasement tendencies.  As the Nazis gained the Sudetenland, so Arafat hoped to gain Israel – piece by piece.

Pages: 1 2

  • jenny

    "Palestinian moderate" is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron__

    • AL__

      A willful blindness.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Israel has essentially 4 options…

    1) The "one-state solution": Absorbing the 2 million West Bank Arabs, conferring upon them all the rights of citizenship, and diluting the Jewish component of Israel to the point that its existence is threatened

    2) The "two-state solution": Withdrawal from the West Bank and celebration of "peace in our time", and then watching with a degree of certainty that what happened in Gaza will repeat itself, where the nascent Palestinian entity becomes a cauldron of militancy and begins mortar and rocket attacks, except not on Israel's south, but on her coastal heartland

    3) Continuing the stalemate indefinitely, where 2 million Palestinian Arabs are kept deliberately stateless, and where the world continues and even heightens its demonization of the Jewish state

    4) Expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank, creating a huge refugee/humanitarian crises and possibly precipitating a regional war; you think Israel is hated around the world now?…imagine the fallout.

    For my money, #3 is the most viable. I'm not opposed in principle to the two-state solution, but for as long as Palestinian society is as pathological as it is, withdrawal from the heights overlooking Israel's coastal heartland would be suicidal.

    • Ariel

      There are other options too– one such option would be to compel Jordan and Egypt to make the Arabs living in Judeah and Samaria and in Gaza, respectively, as Arab citizens of their own. On good behavior they could then continue to live in those areas while receiving state support from those two nations or in the alternative, when causing trouble, be returned to those States. They would be welcome to stay as foreign guests, but would need to behave properly. If not, they would have to pursue their nationalist/jihadist activities in their country of citizenship.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        And how sir, do we "compel" the Egyptians and Jordanians to take the Palestinian problem off of Israeli hands?

    • WildJew

      Option #4) Expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank, creating a huge refugee/humanitarian crises and possibly precipitating a regional war; you think Israel is hated around the world now?…imagine the fallout……

      This is the option our white European ancestors – settlers, squatters, colonialists, etc. – took even as they expanded in and conquered the entire north American continent, expropriating, ethnically cleansing; killing off American Indians and Mexicans. It was called Manifest Destiny. There was the 1830 (Congressional) Indian Removal Act whereby the five civilized tribes were forcibly expelled west of the Mississippi River in order to make room for land-hungry American settlers, the Trail of Tears, etc. Do you think America is hated around the world? Sure. Do most Americans care? If most Americans behaved and felt like US President B. Hussein, America would be done.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        Except that this is NOT 1830…and there is an entirely different set of ethics and morals established in America. What was acceptable in 1830 would never fly today.

        Meanwhile, America is not only hated around the world; our historical "sins" are taught with gusto at our own schools and universities, inspiring new generations of Americans to detest their own country…particularly because they wrongly perceive these sins to be unique, since a critical exposition of the historical sins of other (non-white) cultures would violate the multicultural ethos and therefore is forbidden.

        Perhaps you are a proponent of the mass expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank. If so, I make no moral judgment, I only point out that Israel better be self-sufficient in everything before she carries out such a policy, because surely she will face not only the prospects of regional war (which she could win, but at what cost?), but also an international quarantine.

        • WildJew

          I am not a proponent of anything in Israel at this point. I am only pointing to America's history of expropriation, forced expulsions, etc. of native peoples. But America's history is the history of the world. Why do you assume I am passing judgment on America for what was and perhaps still is acceptable behavior depending on the nation that does it? The last time I looked, Indian fighter / Indian remover, General (later president) Andrew Jackson's visage is still on my twenty dollar bill. Most Americans were and still are proud of their history. Jackson was and still it a national treasure and a hero. I am also a beneficiary of Jackson's conquests as are millions of Americans, especially in the South.

          A joint Resolution of Congress was passed April 9, 2009, "To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.."

        • WildJew

          Yet the Resolution ends with the following disclaimer: "(b) Disclaimer- Nothing in this Joint Resolution–

          (1) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or

          (2) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.

          My only point is this. It is hypocritical of Americans to pressure Israel to make suicidal concessions of land to a people who are dedicated to Israel's annihilation. Quite unlike many American Indians (in particular the Cherokee Nation) with respect to their white neighbors, most Muslims will not live in peace with a Jewish state, regardless of its borders, as Mr. Puder properly explains in his article. If as you suggest (and I agree) Israel needs to be self-sufficient, then it would be best that she get on with it to the best of her ability by weaning herself off American aid. Perhaps it will mean taking more land and resources from her neighbors.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            WILD JEW: "It is hypocritical of Americans to pressure Israel to make suicidal concessions of land to a people who are dedicated to Israel's annihilation."

            RESPONSE: I concur completely. The issue brought up was not pressure for territorial concessions, but mass expulsion of civilian populations, expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

            I also agree that Israel's problem is unique…because of the particularism of her enemies, primarily, their implacability and fanaticism.

          • WildJew

            If you believe the 1949 Geneva Convention pertaining to population transfer applies to Israel, I say it is wrong. If you are talking about the language that applies to an illegal occupier of a sovereign, Israel is not an occupier of a sovereign, neither a legal nor illegal "occupier." The last recognized sovereign was the Ottoman Empire. The Convention – as I understand it – was written in response to German occupations and atrocities before and during the second world war. Germans occupied and forcibly transferred whole populations for either slave labor or extermination primarily in Poland.

            Better than a million ethnic (enemy) Germans were expelled after the war from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, the former Soviet Union, etc., and properly so. Where they wrong in your view? What was the international community's response? What did the nations say? What did they do about these mass-expulsions of ethnic Germans? If Israel had behaved like a self-respecting nation following the several Muslim-Arab-world wars of annihilation, they would have expelled every last Muslim-Arab enemy living in the land. Wouldn't they? Some American Indian tribes, from time to time, took the wrong side (I'm thinking of the Revolutionary and Civil wars) and they paid a terrible price for it.

          • WildJew

            If Israel is foolish enough to bow to American pressure to establish a Muslim-terror state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, etc., there will follow at some point in time (perhaps during a regional war) a mass-slaughter of Jews by the Muslim enemies living in the land quite unlike what we have seen up until now. That's the way I see it. If I am right are you telling me that a mass-expulsion of these murderous enemies and their collaborators would be illegal according to the Geneva Convention? I hope you are not one believes in the integrity of the United Nations and its institutions. I don't. Do you believe nations should give over their sovereignty to "international law?"

          • Chezwick_Mac

            1) No, I don't at all believe in the integrity of the UN and its institutions. The utter farce we call the UN "Human Rights Council" is the clearest example of a total absence of integrity.

            2) Yes, I believe the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank WOULD violate the Geneva Convention, even if the status of the West Bank is unresolved. Israel conquered the territory via war, theoretically binding it to the Convention.

            3) As for international law, I DO believe the rules of war should conform to certain international standards (though I believe in a degree of latitude for interpretation, e.g., is water-boarding torture?). I also believe to an extent in international arbitration regarding trade disputes. The alternative is ruinous trade wars that could well wreck the global economy. For the record, I DON'T believe international law has any place in domestic jurisprudence.

            4) You keep drawing historical analogies to quantify your views on the Middle East conflict. The world is a very different place than it was on the heels of WWII. Germany was the villain in that war and there was no sympathy for its plight in the aftermath. Conversely, Israel is perceived (wrongly, of course) as the villain in today's ME conflict. A mass expulsion of Pals may in your opinion enhance Israeli security. A strong case could be argued that such a course could completely isolate Israel from the rest of the world and precipitate its ultimate demise.

            For the record, I may make a legal judgment about mass expulsion of the Pals, but I make no moral one. As I previously stated, Israel's position is unique in the world, regarding both the scarcity of its existing territory and the pathological nature of its enemies. My concerns about expulsion have much more to do with the practical repercussions of such a policy than with ethics.

          • WildJew

            You wrote: 2) Yes, I believe the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank WOULD violate the Geneva Convention, even if the status of the West Bank is unresolved. Israel conquered the territory via war, theoretically binding it to the Convention….."

            Theoretically? The so-called "West Bank" constitutes what was to be the Jewish National Homeland according to the 1922 League of Nations Mandate.

            It is my understanding, "The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations – its predecessor – had approved. The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River," the British having illegally given 75% of the Jewish National Homeland to a Hashemite king which later became Jordan.

            Following the 1948-49 Arab war against Israel, Jordan illegally occupied and annexed these territories. In the 1967 Six Day war Israel re-conquered these territories — which were hers by right — from an invading Jordan. Why then is Israel bound to the Convention when she is in possession of her own land.

          • Chezwick_Mac

            The UN partition of 1948 granted most of the West Bank to the Arabs. The Jews agreed to the partition and this has for decades been the basis for Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the much of the world, particularly Israel's supporters.

            The Arabs of course rejected the partition and the subsequent fighting established the armistice lines. You can claim Israel's boundaries were determined by the 1922 League declaration, others could claim it was the 1948 UN partition plan, still others could claim it was the 1949 armistice lines.

          • WildJew

            You're right, the Jews (the Zionists) took what they were offered by the UN. They took what they could get at the moment, hoping for a better outcome later. I'm sure you know the armistice lines are not borders. The enemy Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syrian, etc.) made this clear when they signed on to them. They expected to push these lines further into Israel in future wars, ultimately destroying her. Do you know this? You've got to know it. Like you said, the Arabs rejected the partition plan, opting instead for wars of annihilation. All bets are off, are they not?

          • WildJew

            Would you agree, should the 'Palestinians' join Israel's enemies in time of war, Israel is within her rights to expel these enemy inhabitants?

          • Chezwick_Mac

            From a purely legal standpoint, the Israelis would have no right to expel non-combatants from their homes. From the point of view of strategic necessity and the ethics of survival, it may someday become necessary.

          • baldarab

            "Germany was the villain in that war and there was no sympathy for its plight in the aftermath. Conversely, Israel is perceived (wrongly, of course) as the villain in today's ME conflict." Nazis try to ethnically cleanse Europe of Jews and Gypsies – bad thing. Zionsists try to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Christians and Muslims – good thing? Wow! I can see the clarity of your thought!!!

          • MixMChess

            "Zionsists try to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Christians and Muslims – good thing?"

            Israel has never ethnically cleansed anyone, let alone the so-called "Palestinians." In fact Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population is thriving instead of disappearing. Between 1948 and 1998, Israel`s Christians grew fourfold, from 34,000 to 130,000.

            Additionally, under Israeli rule, the Palestinian population has increased exponentially, for example in the W. Bank the Palestinian population increased over 80% from 1993-2004 alone!

        • ziontruth

          "Except that this is NOT 1830…and there is an entirely different set of ethics and morals established in America. What was acceptable in 1830 would never fly today."

          It did fly in September 1970, "Black September," when King Hussein of Transjordan expelled en masse Arabs of Palestinian immediate origin residing in his political entity.

          It fails to fly only when executed by those forces which the Marxists have branded as "oppressors by nature"–Israel, America, the West in general.

          Solution: Destroy the Marxist Left. In my neck of the woods, I call for criminalization of Marxism and a blanket ban on any media personage not proven to be pro-Zionism.

    • muchiboy

      "1) The "one-state solution": Absorbing the 2 million West Bank Arabs, conferring upon them all the rights of citizenship, and diluting the Jewish component of Israel to the point that its existence is threatened "

      "Diluting" the Jewish component.An interesting choice or words.To put it mildly.Wonder where that comes from?From another mouth and ethnicity would be deemed unacceptabe,(ly) eugenic and racist.
      However,many western countries are faced with this same future or dilemma if you like,as populations age and we rely on immigration to sustain our workforce and citizenry.Sure there are always challenges with change, xenophobia being one.
      Above the fear of dilution was raised,but that was a fact of life with the Diaspora.Besides Canadian Jews,Russian Jews and British Jews we have blond Nordic Jews,red headed Celtic Jews,and afro headed African Jews.Regardless,Jews have always maintained their identity throughout time and place.As to concerns about controlling their own destiny,I argue the price paid by the Palestinian people and Israel's neighbors for that control are just not worth it in terms of human suffering.Israeli's have not shown themselves to be either good occupiers(ask any Palestinian) nor good neighbors(ask any Lebanese).
      Sure Israeli's would be fools not to worry about security,etc. in a single state where both Arab and Jew lived side by side.And given how the Palestinian diaspora have been treated they have some legitimate worries too.How would Jew and Arab,Israeli and Palestinian,Judaism and Islam live peacefully and respectfully in tolerance within a single border?For the answers we need to look outwards.On this single blue finite planet live many races of many cultures,languages,religions and economic status.More then ever before we need to learn tolerance and respect for others beliefs and values.Perhaps some more then others.And I agree,maybe Islam needs to try harder.Muchiboy

      • WildJew

        Muchiboy, did you take the time to read Mr. Puder's article. I think much of what you have written is addressed in his article. There is a flaw, I think, in your immigration argument. True, America is a nation of immigrants from diverse cultures, but to one degree or another these diverse peoples "assimilated" into American society and culture, while maintaining (as you say) their own unique cultures. Some / many did. As you wrote, "Jews have always maintained their identity throughout time and place." But Jews – with exception of a tiny piece of real estate – are not a conquering people based on our religion, whereas Islam is and therein lies the problem.

        You will see in the US, as the years progress, more and more demands from our Muslim citizens as we are seeing throughout Europe. I maintain when you have a culture and religion that cannot tolerate another culture and religion, you've got a huge problem. Islam cannot tolerate equality between Muslim and non-Muslims. There is no equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. There is no separation between mosque and state in Islam. American culture must be destroyed. That is the difficulty with your argument. Same holds true with Israel. The Jewish state must be destroyed. There will be no coexistence between Jews and Muslims (but perhaps for a tiny few) in the land of Israel.

        • baldarab

          the sooner we remove the link between any state and any religion, the better for all of us. Religion is a matter of belief. Citizenship is ultimately a matter of alinment with the land (culture, values, society, etc follows, but will vary for any group of citizens). So the sooner Israel stops discriminating against non-Jews, be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever, the better for everyone. And the same applies for any state.

          • MixMChess

            "So the sooner Israel stops discriminating against non-Jews, be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever, the better for everyone."

            Israel doesn't discriminate against anyone based on religion, race, creed or sex etc. Israel`s non-Jewish minority forms about 20% of the population and is made up of Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, non-Arab Christians, Druze, Bedouins, Circassians, Asians and others.

            Israeli-Arab citizens have equal civil and human rights as all other Israeli citizens. In fact as an Arab you would enjoy more civil rights in Israel than you would in any Arab/Islamic country anywhere in the world. Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote.

            The other 80% of Israelis are Jews of different ethnicities and races from Arab countries, Ethiopia, India, Russia, the former Soviet Union republics, Latin America, the U.S. and Europe. Refugees from Arab and Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries and their descendants make up over half the Jewish population.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        MUCHIBOY: " "Diluting" the Jewish component.An interesting choice or words.To put it mildly.Wonder where that comes from?From another mouth and ethnicity would be deemed unacceptabe,(ly) eugenic and racist."

        RESPONSE: I meant it purely from a demographic viewpoint, as it pertains to the mechanism of Democracy (which defines Israel), in other words, votes.

      • ziontruth

        "On this single blue finite planet live many races of many cultures,languages,religions and economic status.More then ever before we need to learn tolerance and respect for others beliefs and values."

        There's the wished-for world as expressed by the Flower Children of the Sixties. And then there's the real world.

        In the real world, if you want to prevent great suffering and bloodshed, you don't put under the same political framework groups whose differences are just too great to be bridged by rational discourse.

    • Rock Rochester

      Very well stated!

  • muchiboy

    “Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza view the two-state solution as a precursor to one state – a Palestinian state.”

    Whether more dream then real there is a certain practicality to this sentiment.Hope lingered even in the death camps.Next year in East Jerusalem?

    “Palestinians have not reconciled themselves to the long term existence of the Jewish State.”

    And did the Jews reconcile themselves to the permanence of the Diaspora? Next year in Jerusalem?

    “lands that Islam has lost (such as Israeland Spain) must be reconquered.”

    Comparing Spain and Israel is like comparing apples to oranges,temporally and geopolitically.I suspect the Spaniards in a modern Islamic occupied Spain would feel the same as Palestinians now feel in a Jewish occupied,ethnically cleansed Palestine.

    “refuse to see the Arab-Israel conflict as a religious one.”

    We in the west cannot fail the Palestinian people and view the conflict merely as Islam vs non Islam.The Palestinian people were occupied by the European Diaspora while Israel continues a “facts on the ground” policy resulting in effective ethnic cleansing ensuring a Zionist state.

    ” They fail to recognize a fundamental reality, which is that in the Muslim world, there is no separation between mosque and state. Most of the Arab world adheres to Sharia law – which, in addition to setting the path for how a Muslim lives on a daily basis, also proscribes accommodation with non-Muslims and non-Arab political entities.”

    Admittedly Islam might have to be dragged,kicking and screaming if necessary,into modernity.But again,like criticism of Israel and the worries of Antisemitism,we must be vigilant not to tar all with the same brush.

    “This is one of the reasons why the 40 million largely Muslim but non-Arab Kurds do not have an independent political state,”

    Doesn’t the Kurd’s “homeland” also border non-Arab Iran?

    “and why Israel as a Jewish state is not accepted as legitimate in the Arab Middle East. This is a reality the progressives in the West refuse to accept.”

    There are disturbing and unacknowledged comparisons to the neo colonial re-created Israel and other past examples of colonialism. Muchiboy

  • muchiboy

    "Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza view the two-state solution as a precursor to one state – a Palestinian state.”

    Whether more dream then real there is a certain practicality to this sentiment.Hope lingered even in the death camps.Next year in East Jerusalem?

    “Palestinians have not reconciled themselves to the long term existence of the Jewish State.”

    And did the Jews reconcile themselves to the permanence of the Diaspora? Next year in Jerusalem?

    "lands that Islam has lost (such as Israeland Spain) must be reconquered."

    Comparing Spain and Israel is like comparing apples to oranges,temporally and geopolitically.I suspect the Spaniards in a modern Islamic occupied Spain would feel the same as Palestinians now feel in a Jewish occupied,ethnically cleansed Palestine.

    "refuse to see the Arab-Israel conflict as a religious one."

    We in the west cannot fail the Palestinian people and view the conflict merely as Islam vs non Islam.The Palestinian people were occupied by the European Diaspora while Israel continues a "facts on the ground" policy resulting in effective ethnic cleansing ensuring a Zionist state.

    " They fail to recognize a fundamental reality, which is that in the Muslim world, there is no separation between mosque and state. Most of the Arab world adheres to Sharia law – which, in addition to setting the path for how a Muslim lives on a daily basis, also proscribes accommodation with non-Muslims and non-Arab political entities."

    Admittedly Islam might have to be dragged,kicking and screaming if necessary,into modernity.But again,like criticism of Israel and the worries of Antisemitism,we must be vigilant not to tar all with the same brush.

    "This is one of the reasons why the 40 million largely Muslim but non-Arab Kurds do not have an independent political state,"

    Doesn't the Kurd's "homeland" also border non-Arab Iran?

    "and why Israel as a Jewish state is not accepted as legitimate in the Arab Middle East. This is a reality the progressives in the West refuse to accept."

    There are disturbing and unacknowledged comparisons to the neo colonial re-created Israel and other past examples of colonialism. Muchiboy

    • Evabeliever

      muchiboy: For all your pseudo-intellectualism put on display it is apparent that you are as ignorant as a mule. There never was an Arab Palestinian State; zero! no culture, no national flag, no national anthem, no national currency. Nothing! Islam was created by a rapist, pedophile, murdering thief more than 1000 years AFTER Jews were expelled by the Romans. You try to address the issues with willful ignorance of the truth: the Arabs have ZERO claim to the land. You can bark like the dog you are that Israel is wrong, that Israel is a neo-colonialist State created by European Jews exiled by Nazi Europe but that is a convenient lie. You use the "if you disagree with me then it must be because I am an anti-Semite" line to defer anyone from calling you out as an anti-Semitic fool. It is obvious what you are and it does not need to be stated. In truth, you are a fool and you can go sleep with your Jew hating brethren. The truth is Israel belongs to the Jews. There really is no discussion that is valid. You have ZERO grounds to base any counter-argument. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Take your phony arguments and talk to the wall. Oh, is that Arab also? Muchiboy? No, more like Muchiidiot!

    • MixMChess

      "Next year in East Jerusalem?"

      Nope, Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem has always been a JEWISH city and maintained a Jewish majority. East Jerusalem includes the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and many sites of importance to the Jewish religion, including the City of David, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Additionally, major Jewish institutions like Hebrew University and the original Hadassah Hospital are all located in eastern Jerusalem.

      The only time that the eastern part of Jerusalem was exclusively Arab was between 1949 and 1967, and that was because Jordan illegally occupied the area and ethnically cleansed the thriving Jewish community.

    • MixMChess

      "The Palestinian people were occupied by the European Diaspora while Israel continues a "facts on the ground" policy resulting in effective ethnic cleansing ensuring a Zionist state."

      Jews cannot occupy their own land. Especially when that land was vacant, tenant-free, and legally purchased from at exorbitant prices. Is there a reason why you keep repeating this lie? Are you really that stupid or perhaps you can't give up the goosestepping? Just look at population statistics and land-purchase sales and deeds from the mid 19th century to the 1930's. Its all there in black and white and easy to understand… even for a simpleton such as yourself.

      How has Israel ever ethnically cleansed anyone? Arab populations have increased exponentially in Israel and the territories. It might be fun for you to use buzz words, but you look like an idiot when you can't accurately define them or back up your claims with any facts.

    • ziontruth

      "We in the west cannot fail the Palestinian people …"

      Good, the Palestinian people (=the Jews) are happy to hear you support them.

      (Yes, I know exactly what Muftiboy meant. I just like turning the tables on anti-Zionists.)

      "But again,like criticism of Israel and the worries of Antisemitism,we must be vigilant not to tar all with the same brush."

      Except for tarring Zionism with the brush of "White, Western, European Coloniasm." Then it's tar away, tar freely, tar the hardest you can, tar until there isn't even a tiny crack for the truth to shine through.

      The truth that Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with Western colonialism, and everything to do with the indigenous rights of one of the most ancient nations on earth. Rights which the Arab imperialists and their Marxist lackeys refuse to acknowledge.

  • muchiboy

    "German Nazism and Italian Fascism of the 1920s and 1930s were racist ideologies that attracted and inspired the Arabs."

    The world has moved on since the defeat of that ugly ideology.And Germany was at the center of European civilization.Still is.And it was the Germans who marched the Diaspora to the showers,not the Arabs.Again,if life were fair,the Europeans and America would have re-created Israel on the banks of the Rhine,not the Jordan.Would have served Germany right.And the Six Day war would have been more interesting.

    "As the Nazis gained the Sudetenland, so Arafat hoped to gain Israel – piece by piece."

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Studying a series of side-by-side maps of Palestine from the 19th century to present day showing Jewish and Palestinian areas of occupation is highly instructive.Give them an inch they take a mile takes on new meaning! muchiboy

    • CanadConserv

      if life were fair the Arans would return to Jews the land they stole through 7th century invasions, North Americans would move back to Europe and let natives resume their old lifestyle, and the hundreds of thousands of conquests through time would render every state on earth illegitimate.

    • MixMChess

      "And it was the Germans who marched the Diaspora to the showers,not the Arabs."

      You are a liar Ron Grant. In 1941 Haj Amin al-Husseini (The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other top Nazi leaders in order to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti recruited over 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the extermination of Jews in Croatia and Hungary.

      Don't believe me? Then I am sure you'll believe Adolf Eichmann`s deputy Dieter Wisliceny:

      "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan… He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures."

    • MixMChess

      "Studying a series of side-by-side maps of Palestine from the 19th century to present day showing Jewish and Palestinian areas of occupation is highly instructive."

      That is impossible considering that the there was no Palestinians prior to 1964. In fact most maps during Ottoman rule simply referred to the entire region as "Palestine" and didn't specify Arab vs. Jewish areas, and neither did British maps during the mandate rule. So where can I pick up these imaginary maps you reference?

  • Chezwick_Mac

    MUCHIBOY: "Whether more dream then real there is a certain practicality to this sentiment.Hope lingered even in the death camps.Next year in East Jerusalem?"

    RESPONSE: The analogy is poignant, not because it is at all legitimate, but because you think it is. Comparing Palestinians in the West Bank to the Jews of Auschwitz is indicative of a deep-seated anti-Semitism.

    MUCHIBOY: "I suspect the Spaniards in a modern Islamic occupied Spain would feel the same as Palestinians now feel in a Jewish occupied,ethnically cleansed Palestine."

    RESPONSE: Except that "Palestine" isn't at all "ethnically cleansed". There are 2 million Arabs living in the West Bank and another million living in Israel proper. Such a reference to a non-existent "ethnic cleansing" is once again a tell-tale indicator of a pathological anti-Semitism.

    MUCHIBOY: "Admittedly Islam might have to be dragged,kicking and screaming if necessary,into modernity."

    RESPONSE: What a remarkable admission that something is rotten in Denmark, er….Islam. But what about the possibility of Islam dragging the modern world – kicking and screaming – into barbarity? This is in fact what they're trying to do….and they're concentrating first and foremost on Israel, only you can't see it, because you are an anti-Semite..

    MUCHIBOY: "There are disturbing and unacknowledged comparisons to the neo colonial re-created Israel and other past examples of colonialism."

    RESPONSE: Israel is only a "colony" in the fiction of the Marxist narrative. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism. Israel is the living expression of the Jewish national consciousness, nothing more, nothing less. But how could an anti-Semite possibly understand as much?

  • Ariel

    To Muchiboy:

    Your premises is that there is a "palestinian" people and that the Jews are European colonizers. Both are outrageous claims and without foundation.

    The Arabs living in the Judeah and Samaria are the remnants of colonials and imperialist conquests from the Arabian peninsula and from later Arab power centers outside of Israel/Palestine, and, later on, from mass migration during the British Mandate and during the time of Jordan's conquest of the area.

    The Jews, on the other hand, are the true indigenous population that returned not only from Europe, but from North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Iraq, Iran, India, and so on, to their homeland (this is more than amply proven by hundreds of archeological sites in Jerusalem as well as Jewish structures and settlements that have been lived in for centuries (see Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, etc,). More than half the Jews who repatriated came from the Muslim world and now constitute the majority of the Israeli population. There was never a country called Palestine, while the Jews are the only extant and are the last people to independently rule the land and they have maintained a continuing presence in the land for over 3000 years. So, the idea that the Arabs are victims of colonialism is outrageous, because they are in fact the foreign interlocutors.

    Palestine was named as such by the Romans, who after the Jewish revolt against them and the subsequent expulsion of the Jews from the land, renamed the area after the Philistines (the historic enemies of the Jews). However, the Arabs who identify as "palestinians" have nothing to do with the Philistines, the Philistines came from the West- they were a sea faring people who invaded from the coast, from islands around Greece. The Arabs, on the other hand, came from the East, originally from the Arabian Peninsula, shortly after Muhammad's time and later from Egypt and other Arab power centers. As such, there is no connection whatsoever between the Arabs and the Philistines. Beyond the fact that there never existed a "palestinian" state of any kind or a political entity, for that matter,until the 20th century, all this highlights the absurdity of the claim– no matter how much individual Arabs may believe it– and I don't doubt they do– but a person can believe that he is a bird all he wants, but he will remain a person and unable to carry flight. Should the Jews gives up a true homeland for a fake people? Is everything just relativist? Truth of no import? If that is the case, I'd venture to say that this would create a world not even you would want to live in.

    Muchiboy, it would be wise for you to open a history book, before exposing your ignorance to the world. Your analysis is similar to that of a Chomsky– he uses very compelling and cold logic to make his case, but his premise is a revisionist history.

    • Moogman

      Amen. If you read history, you will see this. If you read current events, you will notice that Jews are re-gathering from African nations (i.e. Ethiopia).

  • Brigitte Goldstein

    The analogy between Hitler's destruction of Czechoslovakia and the Arabs' plan for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state can be drawn even deeper. Just as there is no such thing as a Palestinian peoople, there never was such an entity as Sudeten Germans. Both are fictions created to deny a historical reality. There never was a Sudentenland, only a mountain range by that name, just as there never was a country called Palestine. The German-speaking population of Bohemia and Moravia who became citizens of Czechoslovakia in 1919 were, prior to that date, Austrians by virtue of the area being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Neither the land nor the people were ever part of Germany. (to be continued)

  • Brigitte Goldstein

    continued:
    The Arabs who lived in the area of the Ottoman Empire that was referred to sometimes by the Roman invention "Palestine" or the Holy Land were subjects of the Sublime Port in Istanbul. After the fall of that empire, they came under British Mandate rule, and following that under Jordanian rule. Never were the Arabs called Palestinians (the designation actually was used only for Jews living in the area before the creation of the state of Israel) until Arafat used it as a PR coup. Both examples show how history can be manipulated and distorted through the creation of fictions to justify aggression.

  • John123987

    I am a little concerned that a few people here have written more in the comments section than the author did in his own article.
    Anyway, I have long since given up hope that this will be resolved peacefully. Jew-hatred is the oldest hatred in human history. The genociadial zeal that muslims have toward Jews gurentees that this will end in blood. The only question left in my mind is how many people will die before the Jewish people win again. They've overcome and outlast every enemy for the last 3500 years, this time won't be any differnet.

  • muchiboy

    "You can bark like the dog you are that Israel is wrong, that Israel is a neo-colonialist State created by European Jews exiled by Nazi Europe…"

    WOOF,WOOF! muchidog

    • MixMChess

      Funny, because if you were a dog you would be abused, mutilated and killed by the very Palestinians you so eagerly advocate for. Remember dogs are ritually unclean and there are countless hadiths compelled muslims to abuse and kill dogs.
      http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp

  • muchiboy

    "I meant it purely from a demographic viewpoint, as it pertains to the mechanism of Democracy (which defines Israel), in other words, votes."

    Noted,Chezwick_Mac.But still interesting.You can't get away with anything now a days we are so PC.Believe it or not,I do find myself revising my postings after a re read just for fear it may seem unjustly offensive.Goebbels would be rolling in his grave muchiboy

    • Matt

      Hang on, your hinting at the so called “right of return” of people (& descendents) who willingly left their homes just prior to the commence of hostilities in the 1948 war of independence & who have resultantly been displaced, due to their host nations; Egypt, Syria & Jordan’s refusal to allow them to stay & Israel’s refusal to allow them to return. What of the thousands of Jewish refugees, forcibly removed from all Arab states since 1948, having to leave with nothing but the clothes on their backs, no nation, government, human rights body or the UN has ever demanded that these Jewish refugees be allowed the right of return or be compensated for loss of property.
      Why should Israel allow people, who left by their own volition & admit to being a sworn enemy of Israel, to return & live within Israel’s borders? There is not a single nation today that would allow any ethnic group people, who have sworn its destruction & whose common goal is the extermination of its citizens, to live freely within its borders. The very idea is absurd.

  • muchiboy

    "muchiboy: For all your pseudo-intellectualism put on display it is apparent that you are as ignorant as a mule. There never was an Arab.."

    Evabeliever,my opinions,beliefs,sentiments and arguments for the Palestinian people may be mine but many others share them and they are not all intellectual mules,either.Not by a long shot.And one doesn't have to look too hard to find a real intellectual Jew who shares these sentiments.
    Furthermore,we need to draw the line in defense of the rights of others when those rights infringe on the human rights of others.The re-creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people at a time when man,and Jew too, should have known better was unacceptable then .And the policies of Israel that serve to increase and continue Palestinian suffering while serving to increase Israeli territory is unacceptable today.Such barbaric and unconscionable behavior clearly belongs to another age and is further evidence that Jews do not deserve their own state when the interests of non Jews are at stake.muchiboy

    P.S.WOOF WOOF EHAW EHAW

    • MixMChess

      "my opinions,beliefs,sentiments and arguments for the Palestinian people may be mine but many others share them and they are not all intellectual mules,either.Not by a long shot.And one doesn't have to look too hard to find a real intellectual Jew who shares these sentiments."

      So basically you're saying that its OK to defame the Jews and advocate for their genocide some other pseudo-intellectuals share your views and you think you're in good company. What logic!

    • MixMChess

      "The re-creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people at a time when man,and Jew too, should have known better was unacceptable then."

      Israel was not created at the expense of the Palestinians or anyone else. You know it and I know it.

      "And the policies of Israel that serve to increase and continue Palestinian suffering while serving to increase Israeli territory is unacceptable today."

      This is laughable at best considering that the Israel has an entire web of policies dedicated to preventing any Palestinian suffering. Did you forget that Israel provided over 1 million tons of aid (equal to 1 ton per resident) to the Palestinians in the past year alone? Or perhaps you forgot that Israel's territory has been rapidly receding? Remember 2005 when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza? Israel has also made it more than clear that it is willing to withdraw form the W. Bank and parts of the Golan for peace.

      "Such barbaric and unconscionable behavior clearly belongs to another age and is further evidence that Jews do not deserve their own state when the interests of non Jews are at stake."

      More neo-Nazi rhetoric. Of course you are fine to give Hamas and the Palestinians a state. Hamas only wants to exterminate WORLD Jewry. The Palestinians oppress their women, kill their gays, and beat their animals. They are the most vile and disgraceful culture on the planet. But Ron Grant that Nazi wants to give them a state. You're a real piece of work… do us all a favor and take a long walk off a short bridge.

    • ziontruth

      "Evabeliever,my opinions,beliefs,sentiments and arguments for the [Arab imperialists --Ed. ziontruth] may be mine but many others share them …"

      They're just as wrong as you are. Numbers do not a truth make.

      "And one doesn't have to look too hard to find a real intellectual Jew who shares these sentiments."

      Those are not only wrong, they're quislings as well.

      "The re-creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people …"

      No Palestinian people in 1882, 1917 or 1948 except the Jewish people. (Not now either, but in the past even the Arab settlers in Palestine didn't call themselves "the Palestinian people.")

      Not at the expense of the locals until existential wars (1947-9, 1967) forced it. Palestine 1882 was an Ottoman backwater, teeming with mosquito-infested swamps. The Ottoman Turks often sent people there by way of punishment, much as the British used Australia. The local Arabs had no attachment to Palestine, and were mainly confined to the cities. The Zionists settled vacant lands. Antipathy to Zionism until after the First World War was wholly Islamic: the idea of "Once under Islamic rule, always under Islamic rule." Jews in Palestine pre-1882 were tolerated for acquiescing to rule under the apartheid system of dhimmi law; the Zionists were a new force in that they never bowed to that law, hence the genesis of anti-Zionism.

      "Such barbaric and unconscionable behavior clearly belongs to another age …"

      Nary a word about truly barbaric regimes.

      It's like those ISM terrorist-aiders who show their wounds by IDF bullets acquired at anti-Israel demonstrations, saying, "Look what evil Israel does!" When I see those pictures, I always say to myself, "If Israel were even a tenth as evil as they imagine her to be, those ISM activists wouldn't be sporting those wounds. They wouldn't be able to tell the tale."

      From my point of view, Israel is too lenient. The Marxist-dominated world media thrives on this leniency. It is time to block all the terrorist-aiders out, completely.

    • Matt

      "..barbaric and unconscionable behavior clearly belongs to another age.."
      Your talking about Islam right?

  • muchiboy

    "Why must we continue to educate you on things that are part of historical fact. Anywhere between 400,000 – 600,000 Arab muslims left of there own free will after being encouraged to leave by their neighboring muslim countries. This so that they could then wage war on the newly established state of Israel. They did this with murderous promises of driving the Jewish people into the sea, thus in effect executing genocide upon them. They then lost the war. The Arab muslims have no right of return, nor do their progeny."

    OK.I give up.You win.Pinky square.muchiboy

  • Sam B.

    MuchiBoy:Check out most of the former non-Islamic British colonies and compare them to those benighted Mid-east lands–India is a thriving democracy (The Indian Prime Minister gives the British credit for putting India on the right track–its judiiary, its education, now its thriving tehnology economy. Would that more countries were such products of N-C. Ditto Austrialia, Ditto Canada. All of those former colonies–later independent dominions of the Bristisn Commonwealth, are now free and independent members of that same commonwealth–and compare them with those beneficiaries of Mo's imperialism –stuck in the 7th century, long before British or Turkish colonialism, never able to extricate themselves until they discard the bugaboo "Neo-Colonialism." The barbarous custom of Suttee, that practice of widows burning themselves to death on the pyres that held their husband's corpses. With the coming of the British, all that stopped. So much for colonialism. Learn your history, you seem to be well informed on certain cherry-picked facts, but how you use them–therein lies the fly in your anti-semitic ointment. We Jews have developed highly sensitized antenna over three milennia.

  • Sam B.

    The British were in the Mid-Easr a mere blink of time–50 years. They were in India several hundred. Look at the difference. Stop this blaming Neo Colonialism, a buzz word, without which you leftists would be lost.

    • ziontruth

      Well said. "Neocolonialism" is just code for "I don't want to let go of my visceral hatred for the West and I'll employ any excuse to maintain it."

      The Muslims' only saving grace is that their enemies are pragmatic people who are willing to shorten their memories for the sake of normality. That's how you get explanations of 9/11 based on a context that's too recent to be right ("Blowback from 1980's policies," "Outrage for the situation in Palestine," "Colonial aggression"). It's only a few (though growing number) who dare to entertain the thought that it all might have much older roots. Roots for which the finger of aggression points, curiously enough, not to the non-Muslim but to the Muslim, contrary to everything taught by the Marxified education systems of the world. How many people, apropos of India, have heard of the Muslim-perpetrated genocide of the Hindus? When I first learned about that, I had to rub my eyes out in disbelief. Here was proof that not only could the Muslims commit genocide, they actually did. One's ideas of prospect for lasting peace treaties are forever altered by such a revelation.

      I've been thinking for the last couple of years that the Danish Cartoons Affair woke up far more people than 9/11 did; for 9/11 could be given the usual Leftist excuses ("blowback" etc.), while the Danish Cartoons Affair was pure, unvarnished Islam in action that could never be explained away, could only be stubbornly ignored, which most people can't bring themselves to do.

      Sorry for the rambling, but there are comments that set me off in a whirl of thoughts.

  • USMCSniper

    The Palestinians are proxy terrorists for the Aeab Muslim States who strap munitions on their own women and children and send them out on homicide-suicide missions to murder other innocent women and children in markets, restuarants, on school buses, and in their homes. The Palestinians in their own words and by their actions are committed to the genocide of the Jewish people therefore, have foreited their rights to even exist at all let alone be given Israel's land for a terrorist state by the UN and with US endorsement.

  • Matt

    While some try to argue that a State of Palestine existed prior to the British Mandate & following the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian Arab leadership at that time, viewed the land as part of Southern Syria & their desire was for the reconnection of Palestine with Syria, not for an independent Palestinian state.

    People who continue to promote the idea that Palestine was a pre-existing Arab state,
    ie; internationally recognized & complete with defined borders & a functioning system of government, are simply propagating a lie. This false claim is no different to the nomadic peoples in the Sahara Desert claiming an independent state within Africa, & is tantamount to wiping out the historical and legal roots of the State of Israel & the internationally recognized rights of the Jewish people, to a homeland. A close study of recent history shows that there had been no official Palestinian claim to the land prior to 1948 & the re-birth of Israel. Since 1948, all manner of “history” has emerged in support of the Arab claims.

  • Matt

    Further,
    Since many anti Israel protagonists claim that Israel illegally succeeded from British rule under the 1948 “Declaration of Independence” & their claim to the land is illegitimate, it would be fair to apply he same argument to Jordan as they to succeeded from British rule & declared independence in 1946, yet of this, we hear nothing but silence. Worthy of note is the fact that the proposed partition, under UN Resolution 181, was agreed to by the Jew’s but more importantly, rejected by the entire Arab world.

  • muchiboy

    "Anywhere between 400,000 – 600,000 Arab muslims left of there own free will after being encouraged to leave by their neighboring muslim countries"

    It does not take a humanitarian to know that 400,000-600,000 humans,whether Palestinian,Haitian,Rwandan or Polish Jew, do not flee their homes,farms,villages,towns cities or countries unless for catastrophic,life threatening reasons e.g.natural disasters,genocide,war. I don't know your experiences with civil war ,and for your sake and your families I hope it is limited,but to describe the Palestinian refugees fleeing the horrors of a civil war as "left of there own free will " is both cruel and unforgiving.muchiboy

    • Matt

      I understand your point of view but, they did leave at the request of the Arab high command prior to the commencement of hostilities. The so called “right of return” of people (& descendents) who willingly left their homes prior to the commence of hostilities & who have resultantly been displaced, due to their host nations; Egypt, Syria & Jordan’s refusal to allow them to stay & Israel’s refusal to allow them to return, is an Arab problem, not Israels. They sided with the Arab's & lost.
      Why should Israel allow people, who left by their own volition & admit to being a sworn enemy of Israel, to return & live within Israel’s borders? There is not a single nation today that would allow any ethnic group, who have sworn its destruction & whose common goal is the extermination of its citizens, to live freely within its borders. The very idea is absurd.

    • Matt

      Further,
      Thousands of Jewish refugees, forcibly removed from all Arab states since 1948, having to leave with nothing but the clothes on their backs, have been easily absorbed into the tiny nation of Israel. Yet, no nation, government, human rights body or the UN has ever demanded that these Jewish refugees be allowed the right of return or be compensated for loss of property. Is it not reasonable for the Arab states to do likewise for their Arab brothers?
      The sad reality is that the Palestinian “problem” is the sole creation of the Arab world, in an attempt to de-legitimize the nation of Israel, nothing more.

    • MixMChess

      You are lying again Ron Grant. The Palestinians left on their own accord at the prompting of Arab Armies. Syrian Minister Haled al Azm admitted that, "we ourselves are the ones who encouraged [the Palestinians] to leave." Even Abu Mazen has admitted that it was not Israel but the Arab armies that "forced [the Palestinians] to emigrate and leave their homeland and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettoes in which the Jews used to live."

      In fact most of the Arabs left before hostilities began and they had any reason to fear Israel. The Arab-sponsored (and anti-Israel) Institute for Palestine Studies estimated that 68% of the so-called Palestinians left without even seeing an Israeli soldier. Approximately 390,000 Palestinians had already left by early June of 1948, just a few weeks after the Arabs attacked Israel. General John Bagot Glubb, British commander of the Arab Legion noted that "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war."

      Care for any more lies Ron Grant?

  • muchiboy

    "The sad reality is that the Palestinian “problem” is the sole creation of the Arab world, in an attempt to de-legitimize the nation of Israel, nothing more."

    I beg to differ,Matt.The Palestinian problem is first and foremost humanities problem,and the last time I looked the Jews and Israeli's were part of Humanity.I may understand your dismissive sentiments,but forgive me if I say they are both inhumane and unconscionable.Thank God the Western Liberal Democracies did not hold this most shameful sentiment when the Nazi's were marching Jews and other minorities into the showers.You have learned nothing,instead repeat the inhumanities of the past.muchiboy

  • Matt

    Given that you believe this to be a humanist, as opposed to theological problem, would you agree that ALL Jewish refugee's & decendents should be allowed to return to all surrounding Arab states from where they were forcibly removed & reclaim all property & be compensated by the Arabs?
    The point of difference between Jewish refugees & Palestinian refugees is that the Jews were forced out of their host countries while the Palestinians willingly left with the belief that the Jew's would be destroyed & they could return. History has shown this did not happen & they now have the ordasity to blame Israel for their plight.
    Is it not reasonable to assume that the Palestinian problem could be solved by integrating them into surrounding Arab states ie; Jordan & Egypt just as Israel did for their disposessed people? After all the (Palestinians are by birth, ARAB not Jewish.
    The fact is that these people are kept in a permanant state of shameful poverty to serve as an ongoing attempt to reclaim Palestine to reclaim all Israel peice by peice.
    Stating that I am innhumane is a bit rich, the Palestinian problem is innhumane, with that I agree, but we differ on who the perpetrators of the innhumanity are.

  • muchiboy

    "Funny, because if you were a dog you would be abused, mutilated and killed by the very Palestinians you so eagerly advocate for. Remember dogs are ritually unclean and there are countless hadiths compelled muslims to abuse and kill dogs."

    Yea,the Muslims don't share the western love for dogs.I think we both agree that Islam needs to be dragged kicking and screaming if necessary into modernity.But like many aspects of Islam there is debate within that community.Islam is in crisis and the potential for change is note worthy.We need to support the moderates.Below are some links illustrating the debate in Islam regarding dogs as pets.At least they are talking and not killing.Muchiboy
    http://www.facebook.com/#!/letsadopt.turkiye
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpkJ8dzJiYI
    http://americanbedu.com/2009/07/02/saudi-arabia-i
    http://www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/islam-and-dog
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100
    http://www.facebook.com/goodmuslimslovedogs?v=wal
    http://www.blurtit.com/q689551.html
    http://fromcairo.blogspot.com/2005/05/dogs-in-isl
    http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=N

  • muchiboy

    "Remember dogs are ritually unclean and there are countless hadiths compelled muslims to abuse and kill dogs."

    I know the Muslims don't like pet dogs,but do Jews like pet pigs?I think both are cool. muchiboy

    • MixMChess

      Jews are only restricted from eating pigs, there is no restriction for having them as pets. That said, Judaism places great stress on proper treatment of ALL animals (pigs included). Unnecessary cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are accorded the same sensitivity as human beings. In some cases, Jews are allowed to violate sabbath laws to rescue/aid animals in pain or near death. This is in great contrast to Islam (as practiced by Palestinians), where Muslims are compelled to destroy and abuse helpless animals that are considered ritually unclean.

  • muchiboy

    "There's the wished-for world as expressed by the Flower Children of the Sixties. "

    Appropriate sentiments on the 30th anniversary of Lennon's death in NYC.Do me a favor,ziontruth,put on Lennon's "Imagine" tonight.I intend to.Ron

    "In the real world, if you want to prevent great suffering and bloodshed, you don't put under the same political framework groups whose differences are just too great to be bridged by rational discourse."

    You had to bring up the real world,ziontruth.Not tonight.muchiboy

  • Matt

    Muchiboy,
    If you care to look back through history, from the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD through to 1918 when "Palestine" is taken over by the British following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, “every man & his dog” has had a go at conquering the region.
    Where, at any point during this timeline, do you see a mention of a seperate ethnic group called "Palestinians" conquering or being conquered? The fact is you will not, yet these ARABS still say the land is theirs & always has been.
    To reinforce my point I would like to quote several prominent Arabs:
    “There is no such thing as Palestine in history — absolutely not!”
    Professor Philip Hitti, 1946. (Arab historian)
    “We’re not Palestinians, if anybody is a Palestinian the Jews are Palestinians” Ahmed Shukairy, 1956. (Co founder of the PLO)
    There has NEVER thought the history of mankind, existed, a "Palestinian" government, state, culture, religion or people.

  • Matt

    Muchiboy,
    1. Can you provide a documented history of the Palestinians prior to 1948
    2. Can you differentiate the distinct differences between Palestinians & Jordanians with particular attention to pre 1918. (Are they not the same people who lived in all of "Palestine" prior to 1946 & the creation of Transjordan?)

    Abbas, is a co founder along with Arafat, of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an extreem terror group that make Hamas look like kindergarten teachers.
    Arafat, a man who had committed his 1st murder by 20 & was involved in the Pan Am Lockerby & Akili Loro terrorist attacks was co founder of the PLO.
    And you support these people!

  • muchiboy

    "..barbaric and unconscionable behavior clearly belongs to another age.."
    Your talking about Islam right?"

    Right,Matt.I'm feeling generous tonight.Merry Christmas.muchiboy