Embassy Protestors Use the Palestinian Playbook

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.


Pages: 1 2

The Use of Verbal “Mind-blockers”

Robert Conquest, discussing the imprecise and simplistic use of terms like “imperialism” and “colonialism,”  called these words “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers,”  which serve “mainly to confuse, and of course to replace, the complex and needed process of understanding with the simple and unneeded process of inflammation.” The Palestinians early on became masters of using such terms, casting the creation of Israel and Zionism as a neo-colonialist enterprise meant to maintain and advance Western imperialist designs on the Middle East. Of course, such charges are historically false. The creation of Israel was followed in ensuing decades by the precipitate retreat of the West from its former colonial possessions. Nor did the Western nations in 1948 lift a finger to protect its supposed imperialist client when it was attacked by the whole Arab Middle East. And it bespeaks a brazen shamelessness for adherents of one of history’s most successful imperialist and colonial ideologies, Islam, to complain about the practices rejected by the West.

But again, these terms are meant to extinguish such thoughts about historical fact. So too with the word “racist,” which has long been a staple of anti-Israel rhetoric. Just recently, Saeb Erekat, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, responded to Mitt Romney’s comment about Palestinian cultural dysfunction by incoherently saying, “It is a racist statement.” The most brazen example of this use of mind-blocking terms was the U.N. resolution designating Zionism a racist ideology.

The jihadists have adopted all these leftist tropes. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini was the master of such rhetoric, using Frantz Fanon’s anti-colonialist Marxist screed The Wretched of the Earth in his sermons and writings. Particularly when speaking to gullible Westerners, modern jihadists skillfully play on Marxist dogma and progressive obsessions. The godfather of modern jihadism, Sayyid Qutb, attacked capitalism “with its monopolies and usury” and its “materialistic attitude which deadens the spirit” with all the fervor of a progressive English professor. Bin Laden laced his missives to Americans with progressive bromides about “capitalists, the lords of usury, and arms and oil dealers,” and chastised America for securing “the profit of your greedy companies and industries” and “spilling [American soldiers’] blood to swell the bank accounts of the White House gang and their fellow arms dealers.” All these dead leftist clichés can be found not just in the works of rabid leftists like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, but in the editorial pages of the New York Times and the screeds of pundits on MSNBC.

The jihadists use these left-wing clichés in order to exploit an internal weakness of the West: the existence within its civilization of leftists who despise their own culture as the foremost cause of oppression, exploitation, and conflict because of its primal sins of colonialism and imperialism. Such people become natural allies of the jihadists, serving as virtual spokesmen and publicists, eroding from within our morale. Once more, the purpose is to eat away at America’s confidence and persistence in resisting jihadist violence, and to demonstrate once more the superior power of Muslims, who show none of the self-loathing, self-doubt, and fear of their Western progressive apologists.

Confusing Tactical Differences with Ideological Differences

The Palestinians have been the masters of presenting “moderates” to the West who say everything the West wants to hear, and who contrast themselves with violent “radicals.” So today we support with billions of our tax-dollars the “moderate” Palestinian Authority, who tells us that Palestinians want to live “side-by-side in peace” with Israel, and who appears to be the enemy of the terrorist Hamas organization that controls Gaza. But the differences between the PA and Hamas concern tactics. Both want to destroy Israel, but Hamas wants to destroy her now with violence, whereas the PA favors a longer-term destruction by “stages,” in which violence is one of several tactics, like participating in “negotiations” and “summits” and “roadmaps” that keep the flow of Western money coming. Of course, these two factions will slaughter and torture each other with gusto, but that doesn’t mean the PA isn’t our enemy or doesn’t want to destroy Israel.

The same anointing of jihadists as “moderates”  because they use more subtle duplicity in attacking the West has been evident in our dealings with the Islamist regimes we laughably anointed as budding democracies. Most recently, the jihadist Muslim Brothers were brought to power with America’s help because they were deemed “moderates” who would hold the more radical Salafists in check. But considering the billions in aid the Brothers stand to gain if they make a pretense of moderation, such deception shouldn’t surprise us. Nor should we be cheered by analysts who tell us that the recent riots are really about internal power struggles or other more practical motives. Like the hostility between Sunni and Shia, such internecine hatred doesn’t lessen one bit the larger, religiously inspired aim to destroy the West and exalt Islam to its rightful global glory and influence. Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi’s recent pilgrimage to Tehran to hobnob with the genocidal anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should remind us that we are still the Great Satan whose overthrow every pious Muslim should be fighting for.

The Islamists’ success at turning Israel into an international pariah responsible for all the region’s ills has provided the playbook for the jihadists’ struggle to control the behavior of Western governments to promote jihadist interests, and to demonstrate the power of a superior Islam over a spiritually corrupt infidel civilization. The fight to destroy Israel has been the jihadists’ training for the larger fight to destroy the West.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Alvaro

    A very interesting article and good analysis.

    A very interesting fact is that even G. W. Bush was more popular among the Muslims than Obama. Islam is a religion based on masculinity, war and conquest, so the tough adversaries are naturally met with respect. But the groveling, apologetic and weak ones are only despised.

    You will find this trait among Muslims everywhere in the Middle East.

    • Alvaro

      Here is the link, by the way. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/09/18/n

    • Sunbeam

      I agree. They only recognize fist. If you're weak, they would oppress you even further. To deal with them is to return them with brutality and evil, because they don't take kindness at all. This is them and this is their attitude. Trust none of them is the general rule for all of us. Don't be taken in by their kindness as they are not genuine. There's always an intent behind every kindness they extend.

  • Nakba1948

    This article should be retitled as "Bruce Thornton Uses the Zionist Playbook." This is a classic attempt to conflate Israel's interests and Israel's enemies with the interests and enemies of the United States. Thornton's argument, loosely speaking, rests on the analogy of "The Palestinians are to Israel what the 'vast Islamist conspiracy' is to the United States." This false analogy is meant to attract sympathy for the Zionist entity from the average American.

    Here are the facts. We Palestinians have a legitimate grievance against the Zionist occupation of our land (all of historic Palestine, but at the very least, the West Bank and Gaza). The Islamic extremists would have far less of a problem with the United States if not for our unconditional support for the Zionist entity and their illegal settlements in Palestinian land. Yes, al Qaeda and the like are populated by evil, demented people, but they don't simply hate America "because of our freedom"; they hate us because we enable the oppression of the Palestinian people (in addition to our military bases around the Middle East, support of corrupt autocrats, and "petropolitics"). Ron Paul has it right: stop acting as Israel's bodyguard, get our troops out of the Middle East, stop supporting corrupt regimes like the Saudi dynasty, and wean ourselves from foreign oil. That's how to keep America safe. For all their bluster, these cave-dwelling jihadists have no interests in establishing Sharia law in the US, and neither does anyone else. That's neocon-Zionist agitprop.

    Similarly, the incredible narrative constructed by Thornton in this article about how the Palestinians have gained international support through some byzantine plot hatched over decades flies in the face of Occam's Razor. The Palestinian cause has gained legitimacy on the world stage–while Israel has concomitantly lost whatever legitimacy its fanatical supports perceived it once had (in fact, it never had any)–because the Palestinian cause is LEGITIMATE, while Zionism has be revealed worldwide as the racist, supremacist, belligerent ideology it is. It's that simple. We're right; you're wrong. And Americans, Jews, Palestinians, and Muslims alike will live more peaceful existences once the existence of the Zionist Apartheid entity comes to a long overdue end. Long live America! Long live Palestine!

    • Larry

      Happy eternal nakba, long may it continue, and my the Israelis extend to all the land between the river and the sea.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "This article should be retitled as "Bruce Thornton Uses the Zionist Playbook." This is a classic attempt to conflate Israel's interests and Israel's enemies with the interests and enemies of the United States."

      Why do Muslims lie so much about history, causes and results of war? You've repeated lies here.

      "We Palestinians have a legitimate grievance against the Zionist occupation of our land (all of historic Palestine, but at the very least, the West Bank and Gaza)."

      Make your case without lying. What is your basis for this claim?

      You sound like you MIGHT be a dupe of the Islamic lies, while considering yourself part of that group. Where do your personal beliefs come from? All of the lies you've repeated here are used by Jew haters and Muslims alike. What makes you think you know which side is lying?

      I know who is lying, I just don't know you.

      "Similarly, the incredible narrative constructed by Thornton in this article about how the Palestinians have gained international support through some byzantine plot hatched over decades flies in the face of Occam's Razor."

      No, the plot was hatched in the 7th century and the rest has been a reaction according to those evil principles. They make it up as they go along. They certainly never expected to be where they are and few of them even have a realistic understanding of the present day facts, never mind all of the lies about historical facts.

      The Muslim Brotherhood conspiracies are fairly well documented now, but you're not directly talking about them. The Palestinians were used as tools of the MB and others. Now do you get it? The Palestinians were used to test and innovate. Many lessons were also learned from the Soviet propaganda too.

      Wait, you think Soviet leaders would lie to their populations but Muslim leaders would not? It's a bigger problem for Muslims because you must go outside of Islam to find a foundation of truth to compare to the lies you hear.

      It's VERY difficult for Muslims, I know this.

      Palestine is a dream, and a nasty malicious dream at that. I am very sorry if you've been used. I truly am. I hope you find success and happiness in America as a truly assimilated and loyal citizen.

      • tagalog

        That is a pretty obscure mixture of some true things and a lot of speculation, and a bit of paranoia, all put together in a way that makes it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "That is a pretty obscure mixture of some true things and a lot of speculation"

          The speculation is on your part. How can anyone possibly support these statements with all of the required references covering the history of the region?

          I also find it useful to plant seeds to bring out more claims from the opposition. This allows me to focus on specific lies that are so commonly used. Even you admit that you can't identity anything false, you only say that it is speculative because you personally can't flesh it out.

          Your objection is obscure and speculative because you haven't actually challenged a single thing I said. What is paranoid then? It's not paranoid in the slightest when you already know the facts.

          Nice bluff though. You can fool some people with it.

    • Lan Astaslem

      we saw you muzzies on full display acting like savage beasts in libya and egypt – what is it with you 7th century neanderthals? the truth is, nobody wants the invented 'palestinians' and Israel is here to stay – get used to it

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Happy ETERNAL NAKBA for Paleswine, al qada!

      Morte Paleswine!

    • UCSPanther

      Something tells me that your idea of peace involves a "Judenfrei paradise".

      Just like Hitler and his fellow freaks…

    • Touchstone

      Why don't you ever have the courage to respond to the people who respond to you?

      The land was Turkish (Ottoman) for 400 years. During that time there was no Arab state of Palestine. Arafat didn't discover the utility of the word "Palestinian" until the 1960s.

      Zionist Jews were building a home for themselves in the early 1900s. They weren't stealing land, they were developing it. Years later, Arab armies invaded and started the war that continues to this day. The Jews seeking refuge on their ancient land didn't cause the problem. The religious intolerance and racism of your fellow Arabs caused the problem and continue to plague the region and the world.

      It's definitely not so simple as "Arabs are right, Jews are wrong." The black-and-white nature of that statement is more compelling than the complex truth, so you cling to that distorted narrative, conveniently taking the medieval hatred and intolerance of your fellow Arabs out of the equation.

      If anyone has a "racist, supremacist, belligerent ideology", it's your fellow Palestinians, and Arabs and Muslims in general. You're so racist, supremacist and belligerent that you can't bear the thought of an independent Jewish state, thriving on ancient Jewish land, acting as a much-needed place of refuge for Jews. You don't want to build for Palestinians; you want to destroy what belongs to Jews, and what they've paid for in blood and toil.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Zionist Jews were building a home for themselves in the early 1900s. They weren't stealing land, they were developing it. "

        They were BUYING it before developing it. There was no stolen land. This lie comes from the conflation of sovereignty and property ownership. The Palestinians will either trace back to lies about alleged victims, or refer to the simple idea that "we" owned the land collectively and "they" stole the land from "us" collectively by virtue of the fact that Israel is a sovereign nation that apparently "rejected" the "Palestinian victims" and proved by their "refugee" status.

        Stolen land my ass. Anyone personally who lost property can make claims in the courts. What did they do? They rejected sovereignty. That is NOT the same thing as victim-hood. That is treason. If somehow Israel was violating some moral or legal standards in creating their nation, then make the claim on that basis. They have no claims. They have a few individual claims, some which were paid off and others which were exchanged for treasonous acts.

        Turkey was the sovereign, and took the side of the aggressor in a large scale war that they lost. Britain was the subsequent sovereign, and then the nation of Israel was legitimately created. Up to that point, the only victims of personal property loss and violence were the Jews, for many decades prior, and then under the Turks.

        The Muslims were the colonizing oppressors thrown off by the West. The rightful sovereigns were restored as evidenced by history clearly documented, but difficult for some to find in the massive sea of lies published by Islamic and leftist liars. You have to be determined to find the truth, and willing to discern with diligence. Then you'll see that the historical records support my statements.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "They weren't stealing land, they were developing it. Years later, Arab armies invaded and started the war that continues to this day"

        This actually skips a lot of suffering of the Jews at the hands of the local Muslim persecutors. The violence started from the beginning of Islamic colonial activities and never abated. Specifically, even after WWI when the Mandate was created, the British then were no different towards "emotional" Muslims than we are today. The Muslim pogroms were just as consistent and outrageous, but quite a bit more violent, and murderous. The major event that started motivating Jews to arm themselves was probably the 1920 Nebi Musa riots or the other major point in the timeline of unilateral Islamic "Palestinian" (Jews were known as Palestinian through the early period of the modern nation of Israel!!) ultra-violent aggression and the other major citation is the 1929 Hebron massacre. Not that it was quiet in between those events.

        Muslims historically are always armed. Not all of them, but as a culture, there are always armed Muslims around to threaten non-Muslims.The Jews were not protected by the police. Sound familiar? It was much harder to explain this even 2 years ago because few can imagine "modern" liberal governments failing to protect unarmed attackers. Thank the Muslim Brotherhood and timid Western governments of the 21st century for making it so much easier to teach the history of Islamic terror.

        In any case, the very first Jewish organized response to this lack of protection from constant murderous attacks was to form defensive militias. Some of them actually chose to seek "revenge" on occasional, but the distinction between Islamic and Western culture is that the Westerners nearly always condemn vigilante justice. The West is about due process.

        This is why ALL of the claims about Palestine and Islamic victimization are lies. Sure there were real victims, but those individuals always had nonviolent recourse with American governments and often did with the British as well. What do they do? They act collectively so that the details don't matter so much. Myth and fact are conflated, and since the facts are not on their side, they rely heavily on myths…lies.

        This is why you so often here about the Uma and acting collectively. They can then quote victim stories to people unfamiliar with the facts. I have documentary footage of (this is only the most blatant example I site) with a man literally polishing his BMW while describing his home and lifestyle as precisely the moral equivalent of the Nazi created ghettos populated by the Jews. What in the hell was this man imagining? They made reference to "neighbors murdered by missiles" as though Israelis had constant arbitrary missile attacks when this narrative probably had its roots in the few political assassination of Hamas leaders.

        This is not paranoia because it is not a conspiracy. This is culture, the culture of Islam.

        • Larry

          I'm going to use "Palestinian" in the former sense here, because it's easier.

          During WWI, and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, no Palestinian Arabs fought against the Ottomans. The Druze tribes did, they waged the final stage of their long running guerilla war against the Ottomans, and Palestinian Jews did, they formed the 38th and 38th Bns of the Royal Fusiliers. No Palestinian Arabs even joined Feisal's Arab forces.

          So, historically, the Palestinian Arabs didn't even attempt to free themselves from the Ottoman colonialist occupiers of their land.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The thing is Larry that the details required to tell the whole story…it's just one long series of crimes against the Jews, but who will believe you when they are inundated with lies all their lives?

    • Drakken

      You fakestinian savages will push that envelope to far and when you savages do, I hope that Israel with the west's blessings pushes that rats nest called Gaza into the sea and takes the West Bank and throws you savages into Jordan proper and see how they like it. I haven't forgotten how ole King Hussein slaughtered 20,000 of you savages in a week after you tried to overthrow him, you savages deserve to paid in your own bloody coin and then some.

    • Omar

      Showing your ignorance yet again, Nakba1948? First of all, the so-called "Palestinians" are an invented people (Check out Newt Gingrich's video interview for the truth. There was never a state called Palestine. It was only a geographic entity in the Middle East. Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name. It means Philistines, who were Greek sailors with red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). The Jews have continuously lived in the Holy Land for over 3000 years. The Romans conquered Judea, Samaria and the rest of the holy land (and renamed the conquered land Palestine) in 66 AD/CE, almost 600 years before Islam was established and the Arabs started moving into the Holy Land. Also, Zionism is not a racist or a bigoted ideology. Zionism is simply a movement to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land. At the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and the British acquired the Palestine Mandate, which consisted of modern-day Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. The British promised the Jews that they could get a state in the Mandate, but London soon gave about 80% of the Mandate to the Hashemites, who renamed the partitioned land "Transjordan", later renamed Jordan. The remaining 20% of the Palestine Mandate was partitioned at the United Nations in 1947. The land was partitioned into a Jewish state and another Arab state. The Jews accepted the partitioned land and sought to make peace with the Arabs. The Arab states rejected the partition and launched a war of annihilation against Israel on the day of its creation. Israel had no choice, but to fight back against the invaders, which it did and it won. For more than 60 years, Israel has had to defend itself against enemies who want to destroy the democratic Jewish state. The so-called "Zionism is Racism" analogy was invented by the Soviet Union, Cuba, the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and their communist and Islamist allies when the communist/Islamist bloc passed the "Zionism is Racism" resolution at the UN in 1975. It took about 16 years-until 1991-for the "Zionism is Racism" resolution to be repealed at the UN. The United States, the United Kingdom and other democratic countries helped abolish the hate resolution. Also, Israel is a tolerant, democratic country that respects everyone's rights, liberties and the rule of law. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than citizens of other countries in the Middle East. The Islamists hate America, Britain, Israel and the rest of the free world for our freedoms, not for our so-called "oppression" in the Middle East. America and the free world has freed other countries from dictators. Ron Paul is so wrong about foreign policy in general. His foreign policy is the American leftists' foreign policy, which explains why some activists in the communist Occupy Wall Street endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency. If you really want to talk about despotic regimes and human rights violations in the world, why don't you talk about the Islamist, jihadist regimes in the Middle East for starters. Look at Sudan, a racist, sexist, Islamist jihadist regime even worse than South Africa during the apartheid era. The regime in Sudan has committed genocide against its black population. Remember Darfur? Or look at Hamas, which refuses to make peace with Israel. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Hamas is extremely anti-Semitic. Iran's "leader", Ahmadinejad, denies the Holocaust and calls for Israel to be "wipe off the map". Look at Syria, where the Assad family dictatorship has been murdering thousands of innocent people since the uprising began a year and a half ago. The Assad regime is supported and financed by Iran and Russia. Why don't you blame Russia for supporting homicidal regimes? There are many other despotic regimes outside the Middle East. Look at Cuba, which currently has the only dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. The Castro regime has been lying to the Cuban people for more than a half-century. The communist regime in Cuba has oppressed its people for far too long. That regime has lost all legitimacy. Or look at China, which is still oppressing its people with excessive brutality and internet censorship. The communist regime in China also invaded and illegally annexed a sovereign country (Tibet), which resulted in devastation. The bottom line is that America, Britain, Israel and the rest of the free world have fought for democracy, freedom, peace and stability for a long time. The free world's enemies, like so-called "Palestine", are the ones that have lost all legitimacy in the world today. God Bless America, Britain, Israel, the rest of the free world, democracy and freedom! Down with so-called "Palestine" and enemies of freedom and democracy!

      • EddieLang

        Beautifully done, Omar. You have provided a succinct yet accurate history of the disputed region. One small suggestion: try breaking up your post into paragraphs. That way it will be more readable.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        And God Bless Canada, Australia and the Czech Republic!

    • Ghostwriter

      "Long Live America?" I doubt you believe it,Nakba. Did the Israelis ever scream "Death to America" every five seconds? NO!!!!!!!!!! It was your beloved Palestinians who do that and more. You're a lying creep and you deserve whatever condemnation you get.

    • EmJay

      Torah accurately documented the ishmaelites thousands of years ago when it was written to Hagar "thou art great with child … thou shalt call his name Ishmael … he shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brothers" (Genesis 16:12). The prediction was 100% accurate — and the nonstate tribal arabs squatting in Samaria, Judea and Gaza are manfully living up to the descriptors given in the world's oldest documented description of them! Way to go, losers!

  • LindaRivera

    If you are in New York City, please attend if possible TODAY! From Satya, a leader in HRCARI:

    Join NYC protest at Pakistan Consulate, Sep 21st, in support of minority Hindu/Sikh/Christian women in Pakistan. Not much need to be said about how Pakistani minority women (Hindu, Sikh, Christian) are kidnapped, forced to marry Muslim men, never to see their parents. It is one of the most heartbreaking experience for any parents to lose their children overnight. This dreadful religion called Islam will not stop at anything, eventually they will destroy what we call ‘humanity’.

    Please join the protest at New York City. If you work in NYC, please take a break during lunch time and attend the rally. Please spread the word.

    Date: Friday, Sept 21st, 2012
    Time: 12 – 2PM
    Location: Near Pakistan Consulate, 65th Street and 5th Avenue, Manhattan, New York City

  • Indioviejo

    This analysis should be required reading among our military leaders and State Department dupes now playing the enemy's play book.

  • mrstarry76

    Damn, now I've got to use my printer…too good NOT to print & save to read & study! Great piece!

  • Schlomotion

    Part One:

    While Mr. Thorton's argument seems formidable at first glance, it is really most heavily weighted at the forehead. It has intellectual trimmings, but it weaves sensible truths of the classics with some hopeful argumatics and then this is shakily overlaid upon the facts like a really nice couch cover over a broken and moldy couch.

    We have to set aside immediately the phrase "the Obama administration’s foreign policy debacle unfolding in the Middle East," because while this looks like the case, it is really the couch cover on the fact that the Middle East has picked up pace in its impetus to federate since the collapse of the USSR. It is also the case that the Neocons want Egypt's revolution reversed, pan-Arabism squashed, and Barack Obama ousted from office and replaced with a more pro-Likud President. To this effect, Mr. Thorton is attempting to Carterize the President like one marbleizes a table.

    The reference to Thucydides, while correctly used in and of itself, is strongest in the first sentence, still strong in the second sentence, begins to become a myth in the third sentence, an argument from silence in fourth sentence, and in the fifth sentence, merely a semantic argument. The fifth sentence deserves to be addressed anyway. It posits that it is impossible to "occupy" disputed territory, specifically, territory that is not a state. This falls flat because, at an even simpler level, all battles are over territory. People take up positions on said territory and other people try to repel them. Statehood is not essential to the process of invading and occupying or repulsion, only occupiers and opposition are needed in the form of actual bodies and fortifications and siege engines. Those are present in the territory that Mr. Thornton meta-disputes.

    Mr. Thornton's semiotic deconstruction of the occupied territory, Palestinians, and statehood are well constructed apologetics, but still apologetics and they hearken back to the Fanon and Adorno-thick academic treatises of the mid-1990s where a defeated -ism was still trying to wage war through the college book press. He can't resist. He even says Fanon at the end of the article. Setting this style over substance aside, and to paraphrase Jean Baudrillard, we cannot let the simulacrum of Mr. Thornton's argumatics precess relative to the actual disputed territory. OR, we must view Israeli and Palestinian desires to occupy the same land as competing simulacra. If they are competing simulacra, then Israeli claims to historicity must be discarded as well. Claims to historicity must be discarded for both Israelis and for Palestinians on the basis that two competing teams of live bodies are fighting to install two competing kitsch ethnic decors and two competing rationales for living on the same territory while depriving the others of it. This also demolishes Mr. Thornton's second paragraph.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Shariamotion,

      HAPPY ETERNAL NAKBA!

      Say Hi to OBL when you too get to Hell.

    • Mo Schlotion

      What color is the moldy couch cover? Maybe the couch should be reupholstered. Maybe the marbelized table should be replaced. Somebody is probably having a furniture sale now. No down payment and no interest for two years.

    • Touchstone

      Written like someone who yearns to have his work held in high esteem like the more successful and widely read authors he opposes. You have obscurity and desperation written all over your over-written posts.

      "Mr. Thorton is attempting to Carterize the President" — Obama has been compared to Carter ever since he took office and by more commentators than one can count. Hanging this on Thornton is ludicrous. Obama was Carterized years ago.

      "all battles are over territory" — That's more true of wars, but not "all battles", in which religion often plays the leading role. And wars might be fought to gain precious resources rather than to conquer land.

      "fighting to install two competing kitsch ethnic decors and two competing rationales for living on the same territory while depriving the others of it" — Aside from your hideously insulting and racist "kitsch" remark, it was the Arabs who tried to deprive Jews of living on the territory (heck, of living at all). It was the Jews who asked Arabs to stay, and more than 20% of Israel is now comprised of Arabs. How can 20% of Israel be Arabs if Arabs were being deprived of "living on the same territory"? By the way, what percentage of Arab nations are Jewish? Doesn't *ZERO* put a dent in your slanderous claim that Jews are as guilty as Arabs in this regard? Doesn't *ZERO* tell you that it's the Arabs who seek to deprive Jews of "living on the same territory", but not the reverse?

      When will you stop equating two unequals? You're not entitled to your own facts. You're outrageously dishonest.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Written like someone who yearns to have his work held in high esteem like the more successful and widely read authors he opposes."

        This is some kind of twist on the more typical trolling he usually tries.

      • Schlomotion

        "Written like someone who yearns to have his work held in high esteem like the more successful and widely read authors he opposes. You have obscurity and desperation written all over your over-written posts."

        That was classic, jittery academic sneering.

        Me, Oscar Tschirky trying desperately to create a salad that will drive people to my master's hotel. You, Thousand Island Dressing ready-made and coating the Big Macs.

        That is sort of a microcosm of your attempt to prove that Israelis are the unequals of Arabs. Do you think you are good at demonstrating these vast gulfs of moral and academic superiority?

        • Touchstone

          The longest paragraph I wrote in the post you just sneered at contains facts which demolish your spiteful tripe, hence your attempts to derail the discussion elsewhere.

          When you can't refute the facts someone presents to you, you cower behind a personal attack.

          • Schlomotion

            It's funny when you always want me to treat your quaint points. Quaint point number one was that it is not possible to Carterize the President because several people have done it already.

            Refutation: Is it impossible to be a anti-semite to someone simply because people have already been an anti-semite to him? You yourself would argue that it is always possible to add insult to injury, that it is in fact boundless. Thus you attempt to Carterize the President as one revarnishes a table without sanding; rewallpapers a room without peeling it first. In short, it's an impertinent quibble of yours. As a Jew in your imaginary drome can always rightfully expect to be insulted by an anti-semite, a US President can always expect to be Carterized if he holds Israel to a treaty.

            Your other monstrously pithy point was that people can battle over religion which has no territory.

            Refutation: it has Human Terrain, as our jargonesque military is fond of saying.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Terrain_System

            Your third amazing point was that calling Palestinian, but mostly Israeli ambitions in the Levant the imposition of a kitsch decor is racist.

            Refutation: Israelis are not a race.

            Refutation: And I repeat, both sides must give up their claims to historicity, since they both currently inhabit the same region and for the most part are no better than no different than, and no more sophisticated than one another. Bloods and Crips. Coke and Pepsi. Left and Right. To the nonswarthy, you all look brown with big noses. To the Chinese you look decidedly unslanty, but somehow, nearly everyone but you two groups can't seem to get along. Dispassionate outsiders don't think it's a race issue, but a personality one.

            Your fourth point was that Israelis let more Arabs live in Israel proportionally than Arabs do Jews elsewhere.

            Refutation: Americans let more Native Americans live in the United States than Native Americans let Europeans live in the United States. It's the same stupid comparison and wrong because "letting" implies a failure to commit genocide or mass expulsion. I refer you to Israel's own founders who had the fortitude to admit that they were taking territory away from other inhabitants. It's not out of magnanimity that some of them remain. As Zionists are fond of saying, wherever they are in the minority, they are oppressed dhimmis forced to assimilate. They even say this in full regalia.

          • Touchstone

            "It's funny when you always want me to treat your quaint points." — Oh yeah, really funny. How "funny" that someone would actually expect the point-counterpoint continuum to be maintained. It's just so *funny*. You think you just struck "comedic gold" again, don't you?

            "Thus you attempt to Carterize the President" — You need a primer on how to read what's written, rather than what you assume has been written. What I said was "Obama has been compared to Carter ever since he took office". That's an observation, not a confession. I was merely defending Thornton from a charge that seemed to lay the Carterization process at his feet, when in fact it's ubiquitous and longstanding. If many commentators see pertinent similarities between the two leaders — such as major shortcomings with serious ramifications — I don't see what's objectionable about drawing the parallel. It's as if any mention of a historical precedent in any context meets with your reflexive censure, but it's a perfectly legitimate kind of point to make. It all comes under the heading of learning from history so as not to repeat mistakes (alas, you're the guy who thinks "history is a lying ass").

            "a US President can always expect to be Carterized if he holds Israel to a treaty." — A typical Schlomotion comment: fatuous, spiteful, glib, and off the mark. A reductive, misleading, agenda-advancing distortion of events.

            "Refutation: Israelis are not a race." — You conveniently forget that you used the word "ethnic" and paired it with "kitsch". So you not only smear ethnic groups, you deny doing it. You're slime! Revel in it!

            "you all look brown with big noses" — I rest my case. This tripe sounds like it came from a toddler, and if that were the case it could be excused. How dim you are: first you deny being a racist, but then you stereotype all Jews and Arabs on the basis of phenotype! You can't keep track of what you wrote two sentences ago.

            "nearly everyone but you two groups can't seem to get along" — Laughably, that's not what you intended to write. Ruminate on your clumsy mistake a while, and how you unwittingly stumbled onto a statement with some truth in it (which seems to be the only way you'll ever find the truth). But even if you HAD written what you intended to write, it would still be a self-flattering distortion of reality. Conflict is everywhere. People have trouble getting along the world over, you ignorant bumpkin. Especially where Muslim radicalism takes root. Turned on the news lately? Not hard to find people who have trouble getting along all over the place: Europe, North Africa, Russia, even America.

            "Dispassionate outsiders don't think it's a race issue, but a personality one." — Well, those dispassionate outsiders are ignorant idiots. First of all, it's moronic to sum up the views of all "dispassionate outsiders" as if you can speak for anyone but yourself, much less a multitude. Second of all, there must be at least a few of these outsiders who have actually read a bit about the conflict and know that it's slightly more complex than "Arabs and Jews lack chemistry". This is a multi-faceted conflict, not two people on a blind date. The reasons for the perpetuation of conflict are many and varied, and not limited to Arabs and Jews (how quickly you forget the role outside forces play in maintaining the strife).

            Neither Arabs nor Jews have a collective personality. Ever the stereotyping fool, you lump Semites together with respect to "personality" just as you lump "dispassionate outsiders" together on the basis of what they think. Your failed displays of omniscience suggest you possess the opposite quality in abundance. The more you knowingly summarize entire peoples, the more you reveal you don't have a clue about them, or even how to begin talking about them.

            "It's the same stupid comparison" — Like the one you just made about Native Americans and Europeans. Another unsound analogy. Won't be the last, I'm sure. You haven't refuted anything here. Arabs insist on their territory being judenrein, and you're full of specious rationales and bad analogies offered in the service of ethnic cleansers and exterminationists.

            All you've done here is refute your own claim to intellectual superiority.

          • Schlomotion

            What's even funnier is that I don't even need to get the words right. If I put "Palestinians" and "Israelis" in the same sentence, no matter what all the other variables are, the reader will automatically infer "those two groups of people who can't get along ever, the one that throws the rocks at the one who steals his land, and the one who steals his land because the other one throws rocks at him." I don't even need any other words.

            I don't suspect you defend Mr. Thornton from too many removes.

            "Obama has been compared to Carter ever since he took office." Sure. And the town bike has been ridden many times. One more won't hurt. So why does antisemitism bother you?

            Not only can a US President can always expect to be Carterized if he holds Israel to a treaty, Americans at large can expect to told incessantly in a pro-Israel press that their apocalypse is coming, that they are morally bankrupt, and that they are departing from Tradition. Cue the Chaim Topol.

            Yes indeed. People all over the world have difficulty getting along. And then we have Pamela Geller trying to make it worse with her big bus ads, and Mr. Netanyahu who now has every fanatic in the world using the expression "red lines" in just a half a month.

            "Second of all, there must be at least a few of these outsiders who have actually read a bit about the conflict and know that it's slightly more complex than "Arabs and Jews lack chemistry".

            It is more complex than that. The Israelis lack compassion. The Palestinians lack water. The Israelis lack the rest of Palestine. The Palestinians lack statehood. It's pretty complex. One guy is standing on the other guy's neck, and the other guy is grabbing the first guy by the groin. It's like one of those snake and mongoose statues. Quite ugly. Salem's Lot.

            The taxidermized ethnic kitsch of Israelis and Palestinians in deadlock is ever more grotesque than their respective preferences. You really ought to notice that is a global symbol of repugnance by now.

          • Touchstone

            "I don't even need to get the words right" should be your motto. It should be made a permanent part of the anti-Israel gang's mission statement. Just vomit ANYTHING on to the page and call it a cogent criticism of Zionists. After all, there's universal agreement that Jews suck and Arabs are saints, so it's not like you need to get the words right!

            "So why does antisemitism bother you?" — Oh right, as if antisemitism — an ancient, institutionalized, international hatred built on a foundation of malicious libel, with the blood of multitudes on its hands — is equivalent to comparing person X to a former president! I would have thought it's beneath you to grasp at straws so gauchely. And this from a confessed defamer and two-bit hypocrite who Beginizes, Mengelizes and Geobbelizes people as often as he breathes. Double standard alert! Double standard alert! Carterize BAD, Mengelize GOOD.

            "The Israelis lack compassion." — The sweeping summaries of Israelis in this paragraph are as bigoted, spiteful and one-sided as they are expected. Another hypocritical double standard, yet again! This is a shining example of your penchant for engaging in defamatory propaganda despite denouncing hasbara every day. Good show!

          • Schlomotion

            Oh, I don't think people think Arabs are saints. I think people think Arabs are brown people in nightgowns and dinner napkins on their heads who want to screw the world over a barrel of oil. They think of Israelis and Palestinians like I said before, as an attritious, codependent atrocity. I know I do. I am sure Max Blumenthal does, or Philip Weiss.

    • Omar

      Schlomotion, quit showing your ignorance. Seriously. The United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and the free world's allies have been campaigning for freedom and democracy for a long time. The Islamists and their leftist allies want totalitarianism That's the reality.

      • Schlomotion

        The United States no longer embraces Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, Miranda Rights, Freedom of Assembly, or freedom of movement on the highway system. The United Kingdom has installed ubiquitous surveillance and lightposts that bark orders out at people. Israel is a real estate debacle fortified behind a wall like East Berlin. None of those countries are campaigning for freedom and democracy anymore. Every day they resemble the Islamists more closely.

  • Schlomotion

    Part Two:

    It may be true that nationalism is a concept alien to Islam. However, Mr. Thornton equates Islam with Arabs and tries to evade the idea that there have been separate blocs or Kingdoms or principalities in the Arab world, or that states have existed in the footprint of the former Ottoman Empire. The man denies a lot. We cannot proceed from the axiom that nationalism is alien to Islam to the statement "Arabs cannot form nations." Thus we can also never get to the statement "Arabs shalt not federate" which is Mr. Thornton's destination statement. We must observe that in the real world, not merely the world of good academic arguments, Palestinians have now made repeated attempts to form a state, and the closer they get to actually declaring a state, and the closer they get to having actual elections, the more angry, the more vehement, and the more psychotically the Israelis protest, resembling the Zealots from the fall of Jerusalem. This was also true of Egypt, for which pro-Israeli Hasbara spin doctors are trying to make quite a bigger spectacle of the Islamic spectacle and use it to depose the US President and issue apocalypses for US-as-Rome. In actual recent history, we have been reading the outrage by Israelis at the fall of Mubarak, and the anger of writers like Caroline Glick that Obama has neither turned back the clock nor attacked Iran as payment for Jewish votes. Mr. Thornton then pops back over to the "there is no such thing as Palestinians argument" though by now, we have all either seen them or seen a reasonable enough facsimile of them to believe that they have a right to live in their own houses. Mr. Thornton just wants to delete them.

    As Israel tries to physically delete the Palestinians, Mr. Thornton wants us to delete them historically, delete the idea of Arab nations as such, delete the known fact that the Nakoula video did have a profound role in the recent embassy protests, delete Muslim desire for influence over US foreign policy (but retain Israeli desires for the same), delete the recent apologies to foreign countries, delete the First Amendment and overwrite it with some strange amendment protecting identity thieves and their anonymous speech, and lastly, delete one side of the fact that both Palestinians and Israelis are trying to write themselves to the same sector of the world's hard drive. He does this with the fervor of Muslims embracing Allah and smashing the statues of Al-Lat.

    After paying lip service to the First Amendment, Mr. Thornton goes on, wishing to delete also the words "imperialism" and "colonialism" from the lexicon. Ironically, he makes the appeal to complexity by again resorting to the competing simulacra of Palestinian semiotics and Israeli semiotics. In so doing, he reduces the verbal expression of both sides back down to stones and spears that these knuckleheads are trying to wrest away from one another. This leads to the quite different axiom "These people will fight over anything" and inadvertently makes a strong argument for peace imposed by a third party, e.g. Carterism.

    Mr. Thornton's review of the denouement of colonialism overlooks the period of Israeli terrorism against the British and leaves the "retreat of the West" hanging on no causal hook. He then goes back to the trope (which I taught him, but he attributes to Robert Conquest because he is older and dustier) of banishing the stultifying, apodictic words. This is the third example, the first being Thucydides, the second being the First Amendment, of Mr. Thornton using a classic as a frieze upon which to hang his rococco embellishments and Randianisms. This art style is dated to the late Ayn Rand Institute, 1990s Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook style of Hellenized Zionism. It is of note that his article is purely aesthetic in nature and that this aesthetic serves only one side of the simulacrum.

    • Mo Schlotion

      Where's Part 3? When is the movie coming out?

    • Advocatus

      Wonderfully insightful commentary. Awaiting Part Three.

      Take this gem of yours: "As Israel tries to physically delete the Palestinians, Mr. Thornton wants us to delete them historically, delete the idea of Arab nations as such…." I thought Israel was trying to cntrl-save Palestinians, seeing as there are more of them around then ever before. And tomorrow there will be more still.

      I hate to break this to you, mate, but gibberish is still gibberish despite the use of a thesaurus to throw in some 50-cent words now and then. A sentence of yours at random: "Mr. Thornton's semiotic deconstruction of the occupied territory, Palestinians, and statehood are well constructed apologetics, but still apologetics and they hearken back to the Fanon and Adorno-thick academic treatises of the mid-1990s where a defeated".

      That could just work as a parody of stultifying academic hogwash so well done on it.

    • Touchstone

      "Palestinians have now made repeated attempts to form a state, and the closer they get to actually declaring a state, and the closer they get to having actual elections, the more angry, the more vehement, and the more psychotically the Israelis protest, resembling the Zealots from the fall of Jerusalem" — You never let facts interfere with your desire to bloviate self-adoringly. What you conveniently ignore is the intractable demand by Palestinians to FLOOD ISRAEL WITH MILLIONS OF ARABS in the form of the "Right of Return". That's probably the most profound bone of contention between the two sides.

      This is what's happening here: The Palestinians want a state, but they also want to destroy the Israeli state by flooding it with hostile Arabs, and, being a dedicated apologist for Israel's enemies, you give a pass to their genocidal, state-destroying objective, opting to distort the truth of the situation until it becomes merely yet another case of Israelis acting hysterically, just like their ever-so-barbaric ancestors. Nice try. All you've done is LIE and DISTORT and SLANDER, using the most flowery language you can muster in an attempt to distract the "beasts in the front row" from what you're actually doing: baselessly demonizing Israel and hiding the true motives of the people who want them dead.

      "Mr. Thornton just wants to delete them." — No, but you want to aid the Arabs in their struggle to delete Jews by steering clear of mentioning their true motives, portraying their struggle as merely a desire for statehood, rather than the state-destroying, Jew-erasing exercise it is. You're the Jew-deleting Arabs' man on the inside. One of many.

      "As Israel tries to physically delete the Palestinians" — Delete them by relinquishing Gaza to them? Delete them by building a wall to keep out their Jew-deleting suicide bombers? Delete them by enduring the openly genocidal Hamas, allowing them to proceed with their elections, win, and govern a neighboring territory? Funny how the Palestinians who are supposedly being "deleted" keep reproducing and increasing their number. Funny how all the idiots who accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing conveniently ignore the fact of an INCREASING, not decreasing, population of Palestinians.

      Nazis deleted Jews, and the Jewish population was reduced dramatically. If Israel was deleting Palestinians, their population wouldn't be increasing, you psychopathic liar.

      "the known fact that the Nakoula video did have a profound role in the recent embassy protests" — Yes, it's "known" as in "used by the Obama admin as a way of distracting attention from the truth". It's as "known" as the theory that says if one repeats a lie often enough, it takes on the quality of truth. That's what Rice tried to do on those Sunday talk shows, and you sit there and applaud such efforts, being a kindred propagandist at heart.

      "which I taught him" — An unprovable claim, as self-aggrandizing as the gratuitously academic vocabulary in which you immerse your specious arguments.

      It's ironic that you always take issue with the "canned words" of Zionists and their alleged "playbook" when you yourself lean on academic-speak, trotting out your favorite verbal specimens in post after post.

      • Schlomotion

        I can't help but notice that your argument "The Palestinians want a state, but they also want to destroy the Israeli state by flooding it with hostile Arabs" is not only a clone of the argument of the Palestinians about Israelis, but also that while the Palestinians want that, in reality, it's what the Israelis are doing to them. In contrast to the desired right of return, we have the actual reality of Israelis building settlements right up against the Wall of Annexation with deadlines and projected population values that necessitate further staffing of the wall by military and then USSR-style military manoeuvers on populated land outside the wall. Laughably, you think nobody sees this.

        Secondly, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the flowery language I can muster. That was just a quick passing thought.

        • Touchstone

          Once again, you ignore most of the points and facts presented to you, and distort what you can.

          Any existing Israeli settlements can be modified or dismantled as a result of mutually beneficial peace negotiations. The "right of return" is NOT analogous. It's intended to destroy Israel as a Jewish-majority state (i.e. a place of refuge for Jews, which is what it was designed to be). It makes peace negotiations absurd and ridiculous. The Arab negotiators don't want to settle Arabs in the new Palestinian state that is to be created as an outcome of negotiations. Rather, they intend to relocate them to Israel. This is their idea of a sound basis for peace talks. It's an insanely obvious non-starter, but you give it a pass and bash Israel with a specious analogy, predictably. Your reticence on the ludicrousness of such a demand, especially in the context of peace talks, suggests that you find it acceptable. Your position is craven and bankrupt, in line with your previous bleatings.

          As for your flowery language, it seems you care less about communicating and more about driving as thick a wedge as you can between you and "the beasts in the front row".

          Have you also not yet begun to "scratch the surface" of all the cliches you know?

          • Schlomotion

            That's funny. You make the Israeli settlements seem like Bedouin tents. How quickly after Qadhafi is cold in the ground do Zionists assume the persona. Israeli settlers are just pitching a town temporarily which they will gladly pack up at a moment's notice should Palestine stop saying that they want to water down the Jewish genome with immigration. You did say that, didn't you, that Palestinians moving back to Israel is a conspiracy to dilute the Jewish genome, the Jewish vote, and the Jewish majority? By extension, Iran's quest for nuclear power is a conspiracy to eradicate the Jewish genome, and really Muslims, Arabs, Persian, and to wit, anybody, cannot live far enough away from Israel or set their civilizational and martial goals too low?

          • Touchstone

            "a conspiracy to dilute the Jewish genome" — Wow, now I know I'm dealing with a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You're not above putting words in the mouths of others and responding to the straw men of your imagination. When the hell did I say that any of this is racial? Your mindset is "Jews are racists", so you view my points through that prism. That's why you interpreted what I wrote as racist. You need it to be.

            How would you like it if America suddenly allowed an influx of some two hundred million people who hate the residents and want to establish a majority so they can fundamentally transform the country's laws and culture, to the detriment of the current inhabitants? I could have stopped after the words: "an influx of some two hundred million people".

            How easily you play God and pressure others to accept an extreme situation you never would in a million years. You're a stone-cold crazy bastard. That you're obscure and insignificant and will likely remain so forever is a mercy.

          • Schlomotion

            "You need it to be."

            You substituted "racial" for "ethnic." It's a common mistake on your part.

            "How would you like it if America suddenly allowed an influx of some two hundred million people who hate the residents"

            It depends. Are they Native American or are they Canadian? They way you personally define "hate" is wonky. Do you mean want to obliterate us or want to criticize us? We don't view hostility and detriment in the same way, as I do not carry a 3000 year history on my back.

            Obscurity and insignificance have their benefits. They are mainstay of real power. Most of what happens in the world happens without being noticed.

          • Touchstone

            From the Random House Dictionary definition of "ethnic":

            "Of or pertaining to a group of people of the same race or nationality sharing common and distinctive cultural characteristics."

            Some polymath YOU are. Time to turn in your badge, racist.

            "It depends." — What unbelievable BS. You know it's ridiculous — not racist, just ridiculous — for Israel to accept the notion that millions of Arabs demanding the Right of Return will suddenly take up residence in the country. You're asking Israel to accept something no other country ever would, or ever has: to welcome the influx of a population not only of equivalent size to the current population of residents, but a hostile incoming group at that. And in one of the tiniest nations in the world, to boot. Good grief ! ! !

            If my points are "quaint", yours on this topic are either completely insane or the most disingenuous attempt at a reasonable argument I've ever seen. No American would EVER allow the equivalent of what you ask of Israel, which would amount to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF IMMIGRANTS, all with an axe to grind to boot. You're too proud to concede this point, but I think your despicable double standard has been exposed more than adequately.

            As for obscurity, your remarks are full of cheer-yourself-up-with-lies sour grapes and the wistful sadness that comes with realizing the folly of dreaming you were going to change the world with your internet connection. The supremacy of Alexander is safe.

          • Schlomotion

            Actually, heritage, culture or language, but not specifically race unless using the term ethnic minority group. But you want to glide between race, religion, ethnicity, and culture as is the Zionist rhetorical custom.

            If you want to call me a racist, feel free. If Jews are not a race, then it shouldn't matter. This is really an academic squabble and a dinosaur sideshow one at that. Whatever Jews want to call themselves, the issue remains that two competing teams of live bodies are trying to nab the same territory at the same time.

            They should kindly leave the United States out of it.

    • Drakken

      The problem I have is you speak so lovely about the fakestinians and I am left wondering why you are such a coward that you don't join them? Thy doth protest too much hadji.

    • Ghostwriter

      Another fact-free rant from Shariamotion,the Jew hating swine who never met a Jew hater he didn't like.

    • Omar

      Israel has repeatedly wanted peace in the region. The Israeli government has wanted to recognize another state in the former Palestine Mandate for a long time. The Islamists are bigots who do not want to make peace with Israel and the Jews.

  • chowching259

    The most popular statement a Muslim politician can make would be one that declares Jews should be decapitated; it would result in endless applause from the Muslim audience. The most dangerous statement would be one that declares Jews have the right to fight for survival; it would result in the politician being the one that is decapitated.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      That's why Sadat was killed at the military parade in Egypt.

  • Arius

    The front groups for the attackers are pushing a very clever strategy. By blaming the movie (which had been on YouTube for over four months which almost also no one had seen) they are causing us to be in conflict with ourselves concerning first amendment rights of free speech. Note that the US State Dept has already started talking to the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation about limiting criticism of Islam, inside the US! If we start infringing on the freedom of expression in the US we are playing right into their strategy; we will be enforcing dhimmitude on ourselves. I for one will never bow my head like a dhimmi like our people did for hundreds of years under Turkish occupation, and will continue to speak out for justice for the Copts and other Christians in the Middle East that are enduring immense suffering from Muslims and Islamic authority. The Copts are now suffering crucifixion in Egypt. The US government has been and still is the enabler and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis that are the instigators of this horror. And next on their agenda is Syria where more of our people will suffer the US policy to put the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis in power there. Then more Christians will suffer and we can again blame some movie instead of pointing the finger at the lies of the Obama administration.

  • chowching259

    Poison gas has been generously used in world war one and against Jews and Kurds. Nobody but the victims and their families gave a hoot. There is no doubt that poison gas will be used again to control unruly mobs and burdensome populations. Nobody but the victims and their families will give a hoot.

  • Drakken

    I say let the muzzys rage, and let the most brain damaged of leftist see them for what they are, pure unadultered savages.

  • Ghostwriter

    Now,America sees how the Muslim world REALLY feels about us. The majority of them hate us and want us dead.

  • sarah

    Through this website you can get the idea about the latest news of the world. This post is very informative regarding latest news. Thanks for this info
    http://www.toronto.kijijia2z.com/

  • Bill Bat

    Paleseth is an English transliteration of an Aramaic and Hebrew word meaning "Flat Land" that denoted the coastal plains around modern Gaza.
    Philistine is an English transliteration of a Greek word derived from "Paleseth".
    Palestine is an English transliteration of a Latin word derived from the Greek word that was derived from the Hebrew word.
    The "flatlanders" were decendents of the same group that settled Egypt and is referred to as Mizzraim in Genesis. The Coptic people of Egypt are distant cousins to flatlanders.
    Europeans called the land "Palestine" as an insult to the Jews who lived there during the Middle Ages. Anti-Semitism is a new name to an old practice.