Israel and the New Munich


32166D2D967064070F8D4F2A923

Originally published by The Jerusalem Post

Speaking to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Wednesday, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz explained Israel’s concerns about the nuclear negotiations with Iran in Geneva. “We’re worried Geneva 2013 will end up like Munich 1938.”

Well, the time for worrying has passed. The statements from the Obama administration and the EU following the closing of the first round of talks all made clear that Geneva 2013 is Munich 1938.

The White House was unable to restrain its excitement at the prospect of a deal with the genocidal, nuclear weapons-developing mullocracy.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said, “The Iranian proposal was a new proposal with a level of seriousness and substance that we had not seen before.”

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who led the six-power delegation that faced the Iranians, said that the talks were “the most detailed we have ever had, by a long way.”

Ashton also said that she is committed to making concessions to Iran as quickly as possible. In her words, “When we have been talking and in our discussions in these last days we know that we have to look for a first step, a confidencebuilding step, and we know we have to be clear about the last steps and to do that in the context of the objective overall.”

The stunning talks even included a one-on-one discussion between the chief US negotiator Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and the Iranians.

The only problem with all these exciting developments is that all the “serious Iranian proposals” would result in the same outcome: a nuclear-armed Iran. There was nothing in the Iranian proposals that could give anyone any reason whatsoever to believe that Iran is serious about stopping its nuclear weapons development program. Indeed, the only thing we learned this week is that like the Allied powers in 1938, the Obama administration and the Europeans have no stomach for a confrontation and are willing to dress up appeasement of a dangerous foe as “peace” and “progress.”

The Iranians have given no indication that they would be willing to suspend all uranium enrichment.

In his press conference after the current round of talks ended, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif insisted that Iran has the right to continue enriching uranium. The Iranian offer appears to involve suspending its 20 percent uranium enrichment activities and sufficing with enriching uranium to 3.5%.

As everyone from US Sen. Mark Kirk to the Washington Post editorial board to US President Barack Obama’s former chief pointman on Iran’s nuclear program Gary Samore have stated over the past several days, given Iran’s current enrichment capabilities, Iran’s offer is meaningless.

Over the past year, Iran has installed a thousand sophisticated centrifuges at its nuclear installation at Natanz. These new centrifuges allow Iran to transform 3.5% enriched uranium to bomb-grade material (enriched to 90%) as quickly as its old centrifuges were capable of transforming 20% enriched uranium to weapons-grade levels. So today, 3.5% enrichment is as comfortable a jumping-off point for the Iranian weapons program as 20% enrichment was a few years ago. Iran’s “serious proposal” is a joke.

As Samore told The New York Times, “Ending production of 20% enriched uranium is not sufficient to prevent breakout, because Iran can produce nuclear weapons using low-enriched uranium and a large number of centrifuge machines.”

In a conference call with the Israel Project Wednesday, Samore explained, “What they’re offering is really no different than what we’ve heard from the previous government, from [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s government for the last couple of years…. They continue to reject any physical limits on their enrichment capacity – meaning the number and type of centrifuge machines, the stockpile of enriched material that they have in country. And as far as I can tell, they have continued to reject closing any of their nuclear facilities… I haven’t heard of any agreement to halt work or to modify the heavy water research reactor that they’re building, and which may be close to operational.”

So the Iranians offered nothing this week that they didn’t offer in the past. And as a senior administration official told the Times, the Iranian program is already so advanced that for there to be time to negotiate a comprehensive agreement, Iran needs to first take steps to halt or even reverse its nuclear program.

And as Samore explained, none of the reports on the conclusion of this week’s round of talks indicated any Iranian willingness to take such actions.

The negotiations in Geneva bear an unsettling resemblance to the negotiations the West held with North Korea as it developed nuclear weapons. There, too, Western negotiators bragged about new, serious and unprecedented North Korean “concessions.”

Pyongyang used the talks to undermine Western resolve to block its nuclear progress.

Just as happened with North Korea, so with Iran, the appeasement-crazed press will bring us endless stories about new, serious negotiations documents that will “ensure the peace.”

The last of the stories will be published the day Iran tests its first atomic bomb.

Since the Iranians are making the same unserious offers they have been making for years, why are the Americans and the Europeans hailing the talks as a new beginning? Why is Ashton talking about confidence-building measures? Why are American commentators and senators talking about various steps the US could take to appease Iran? By midweek, talk was rife in Washington about the prospect of unfreezing some of the $50 billion Iranian funds that have been held in escrow in Western banks. Doing so, we were told, would reward the Iranians for being so “serious,” but it wouldn’t involve directly unraveling the sanctions regime.

All of this is happening because the American and Europeans have changed their game. The only serious development of this week is the revelation of their new game.

The Iranians remain committed to developing nuclear weapons. But the US and Europe have stopped even paying lip service to stopping them. Instead, the US and Europe aim to destroy domestic Western opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. This is the new American/European game plan. This is what stands behind all the nonsensical talk of “serious” Iranian proposals.

Before his reelection, Obama felt constrained to pretend that he was serious about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He opposed but then grudgingly signed comprehensive sanctions passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress. He told AIPAC that he had Israel’s back.

But now that he’s no longer facing reelection, the jig is up. Obama’s new goal, which is enthusiastically supported by Ashton and her comrades in Brussels, is to use the new negotiations with Iran’s phony baloney “moderate” new president to give himself political cover to open the door to Iran acquiring nuclear bombs. Obama doesn’t want to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. He wants to insulate himself from criticism when it gets the bomb.

Not only do the White House’s lies about Iran’s new “level of seriousness” give Obama the maneuver room to pretend he’s acting responsibly, they trap Israel into inaction. After all, how could Israel possibly bomb Iran’s nuclear installations when Iran is negotiating so seriously, and is “this close” to making a groundbreaking agreement?

We shouldn’t be surprised by this state of affairs. Obama has never acted in good faith with Israel.

Take the latest news on Turkey, for example.

On Thursday, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that last year NATO member Turkey gave Iranian intelligence the identities of up to 10 Iranian agents working for the Mossad after they met with their Israeli case officers in Turkey. Turkey’s action was a shocking betrayal of what was supposed to be a goal it shared with Israel and the US – preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Turkey willfully harmed Israeli efforts to achieve this goal by turning in 10 Israeli agents.

Rather than taking action against Turkey, or simply acknowledging that the actions of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan represented a fundamental shift in Turkey’s strategic outlook, Obama shrugged off Turkey’s betrayal. The US didn’t even protest Turkey’s despicable deed. Instead, as Ignatius noted, “Turkish-American relations continued warming last year to the point that Erdogan was among Obama’s key confidants.”

A few months after Turkey colluded with Iran against Israel, Obama coerced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into apologizing to Erdogan for Israel’s lawful maritime interdiction of the Mavi Marmara as it unlawfully sought to breach Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coastline.

No doubt, in making this concession Netanyahu believed that he would win Obama’s goodwill. In a similar fashion, in the hope of appeasing Obama, Netanyahu has made concession after concession to the Palestinians – from drastically downgrading Jewish property rights in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to releasing Palestinian murderers from prison.

Yet in all of these cases, Obama has pocketed Israel’s concessions and demanded more concessions.

In all these cases, Obama’s allies have used the concessions to present a picture of Israel as both an ungrateful and unhelpful ally, and as a weakling. And in the meantime, Obama has facilitated EU sanctions against Israel. He has leaked top secret Israeli intelligence operations to the media. He has repeatedly threatened to abandon Israel at the UN Security Council. He has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

And now he is involved in negotiations with Iran that will necessarily lead to Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power.

From Netanyahu’s repeated declarations that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, it is unclear whether he realizes what is going on. More than anything else, those statements represent an attempt to negotiate with Obama. Netanyahu is still trying to win Obama over.

If there was ever an argument to be made in favor of Netanyahu’s pleading, their time is long past. In nothing else, the obscene diplomatic theater in Geneva this week made that clear.

Israel is alone. We have no diplomatic option.

No matter what Israel says, no matter what it does, neither the US nor any other Western power is ever going to be convinced to take the only step that would set back Iran’s nuclear program – bombing its nuclear installations. No matter what, neither Obama nor any European leader will ever support an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations.

Israel’s back is to the wall. That is the meaning of the talks in Geneva. If we aren’t prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, we have to stop talking and start acting. And we need to prepare for the diplomatic hell that will break loose thereafter.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Israel is alone, and must act accordingly. They don’t have to strike every nuclear facility in Iran. Take out Iran’s large reactor, and destroy the centrifuges, and they will set back the nuclear program by at least five years.

    It’s time for action …

    • zoomie

      It was time for action a long time ago. Now it’s a brain dead decision. Question is, are they brain dead ?

    • RevnantDream

      An EMP bomb over Iran would sent them back to using clubs

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        That would work, for sure!

      • Scared

        EMP over Iran would harm the Gulf and Israel as well. It’s a continent-wide proposition (i.e. the high altitude fusion blast).

    • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

      1. We blew up IRAQ and murdered millions in that country, to protect Israel. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they were also innocent of keeping chemical weapons.

      2. Our UN helped destroy Libya to protect Israel from Palestine getting a speaking seat in the United Nations. Libya would have helped Palestine get more than Silent Chair membership.

      3. The CIA is getting weapons to the Syrian Rebels to preemptively protect Israel’s battle strength, should Israel again invade Syria. Syria’s chemical weapons can penetrate the Iron Dome defenses of Israel. We even falsely blamed Syria for chemical weapons the rebels had. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/high-level-u-s-intelligence-officers-syrian-government-didnt-launch-chemical-weapons.html

      4. Israel was never Alone. The United States invented the Jewish State in 1948, then the “Paul Nitze” Navy gave them an aircraft carrier and weapons the day before the Six Days War in 1967.

      The General’s Son
      The truth about Israel and Palestine:
      30min summary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZfnpN4Dfc
      1 hour talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

      • Bogdan51

        Hetero Cretinous Mental Masturbatus; It is a rare occasion to read such an ignorant crap like that you have just produced.
        The most absurd spout is about America having murdered “millions” in Iraq to protect Israel.
        It is even greater number than that produced by that fallen medicinal commie rag called Lancet who has accused the Yanks of murdering 600 thousands.
        99,9% of those murdered in Iraq have been killed by the Islamo-fascist terrorists whether related to Saddam Hussein, Al Qaida or any other Islamic group opposed to Yanks’ efforts to establish a resemblance of democracy there.
        The other rants discredit you as a serious participant in a discourse in an equal measure; They are just a stream of almost never ending liquefied pig manure flowing down from an exploded piggery

      • defcon 4

        “Then the “Paul Nitze” Navy gave them an aircraft carrier and weapons the day before the Six Days War in 1967.” Delusional antisemitism — the hallmark of muslimes and nazis everywhere.

        • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

          I am Jewish. Born and raised. Please watch “The General’s Son” and realize people are lying to us.

          • Omar

            Then you are a self-hating Jew and a traitor to your religion, since you think that it is okay to support radical Islamists who want a second Holocaust.

          • Drakken

            What a good little kapo jew you are, please by all means, do not breed and pass on your defective genes to another generation of useful idiots who will go to their doom with eyes wide open.

          • defcon 4

            He could just as easily be a lying muslime swine.

        • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

          Defcon 4, I am Jewish. Please watch “The General’s Son” and realize people are lying to us.

          • Omar

            Then you are a self-hating Jew who thinks that it is okay to support terrorists who openly advocate a second Holocaust. Learn from facts, instead of repeating Communist/Islamist propaganda

          • Philip Eton-Hogg

            Israel began as a Marxist nation and is still militantly socialist. The US should sever ties with it and cut off all aid.

          • defcon 4

            You’ve already been caught in one lie, why should I believe you now?

      • therealpm

        If Iraq was so innocent of keeping chemical weapons then perhaps you’d like to explain about the sarin and mustard gas that were used against Halabja and killed up to 5,000 Kurds.

        I’m sure the Iranians would also love to know that it was just scotch mist that killed so many of their men during the Gulf War.

      • iluvisrael

        saddam hussein personally gave checks for 25 grand to the families of palestinian savages who blew themselves up but made sure to take as many Jewish lives with them – but that’s probably a good thing to a Jew hating piece of $hit like you.

      • Omar

        You are such a liar. First of all, America had every reason to be in Iraq. Saddam’s dictatorship had violated about 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding armed weapons from the truce ending the Persian Gulf War back in 1991. In January 2002 and throughout that year and continuing to early 2003, President Bush had continuously warned Saddam Hussein to obey the Security Council resolutions and disarm, but in late 2002, Saddam decided to throw out all of the UN weapons inspectors from Iraq. In addition, Saddam’s dictatorship has committed massive human rights violations during his 24-year rule, including killing more than 300,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (including 40 of his own family members, as well as gassing many Kurds to death in 1988). In addition, Saddam also invaded and attempted to occupy Kuwait. His occupation failed buse the international community launched a defensive coalition to combat and expel Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait,es. Contrary to your anti-American, pro-Communist propaganda, Saddam had everything to do with the 9/11 attacks (which you support) against the United States. For starters, Saddam was the world’s only head of state to openly praise and celebrate the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In addition, Discover the Networks (which is a website created and managed by the David Horowitz Freedom Center) has sources showing sufficient evidence that there are many connections between Saddam’s regime and Al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamist militant groups. The link to the page is here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=24 .
        Regarding the Arab Spring, you opposed the Libyan Revolution because it was directed against an anti-Western dictator, Moammar Gaddafhi (who took power as Libya’s dictator in a Soviet/KGB-backed coup in 1969). I opposed the Western invervention (which was planned primarily by Britain and France. The Omadministration simply followed the plan) for a different reason: to prevent Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups from taking power in Libya (unfortunately, the Islamists were successful in taking power in Libya. Contrary to what you claim, the current Libyan government is very hostile towards Israel and the West). However, you strongly supported the Egyptian Revolution against then-president Hosni Mubarak, not because he was semi-autocratic, but because he was pro-Western and because he wanted peace with Israel. Let me tell you that it was Russia and China who supported and financed the Muslim Brotherhood and the coup against Mubarak’s government. The Muslim Brotherhood “president” fEgypt, Mohammed Morsi, was Communist puppet of both neo-Communist Russia and Communist China (both countries brought Morsi to power to protect their powerful ally, Islamist Iran, as well as the racist, anti-Semitic, Islamist terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad). Fortunately, in July 2013, Morsi was deposed by the Evyptian military, thus denying the Communists a client state that they once had under the late dictator Gamel Abdel Nasser. You probably also support Communist cChina’s illegal occupation of Tibet and the ongoing genocide of the Tibetan people. You are an America-hating, Israel-hating, Soviet-loving, Chinese Communist-loving, Communist totalitarian-loving Stalinist/Maoist who supports Islamist Sharia Law and a second Holocaust. Learn from facts instead of repeating Communist/Islamist lies and propaganda.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Homo+HermaphroditicManiaHepatitis,

        You give new meaning to insanity. I used to think there were limits to rubber room dementia but you’ve proved me wrong. I don’t even want to know how many voices you hear in your head.

    • Philip Eton-Hogg

      Israel can always go running to China for backing. It may have to sever its relationship with America and go into the orbit of Beijing.

      • Omar

        China is not going to back Israel. Along with Russia, China is backing the Islamists, including the so-called “Palestinians”. Remember, China is still a Communist country (in all except economics), and Communists are hostile to Israel.

        • Philip Eton-Hogg

          They back whoever’s opposed to the people we’re backing.

  • antioli

    The pattern of Obama’s behavior clearly indicates he is not on our side. It is almost as if he had a vendetta against the American people. If we knew nothing about Iran we could see how he ignores the laws and resorts to despotic tactics to crush his enemies. Seeing how he behaves against us we can have little doubt that he is protecting Iran’s bomb program.
    He isn’t smart or even clever . His actions are stupid enough to get him laughed off the stage. But the Media is his shield and the public knows little of what he does. The Moderate Republicans cower under their Senate seats.

    • Diversity Fatigue

      All indications are that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. They are merely stalling for time. Obama (aka Zero) is a useful tool in the hands of the Muslim Bro’hood and is no friend of Israel. How he continues to get massive Jewish support in the US is insane.

    • ziggy zoggy

      You called it – right down to the media enabling him to transmogrify America.

      If he had his way, every Islamic country would have the bomb.

      • Scared

        before his first election as President, 0bumma said: “change is coming to the Muslim World, and when it does, I will stand with the Muslims”.

  • glpage

    When dealing with the Iranians, it appears Obama is too stupid to realize that they are dishing out to him what he has been dishing out to the Republicans. Maybe he thinks he is such a master of it that no one could possibly do to him what he has been doing in DC.

    • 1Indioviejo1

      I think he is pro Iranian an anti Israel.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    So, Mr. Netanyahu, what are you waiting for?

    • Erudite Mavin

      A small country surrounded by several countries with millions more population along with vast more weapons including Nukes. targeted on Israel.
      Thanks to Obama, the Democrats and isolationists, Israel no longer
      can see backup from Obama’s U.S.
      Obama and the Democrats are too busy enabling Radical Islam.

      • defcon 4

        LOL, “radical” islam.

      • TheOrdinaryMan

        Regardless, Israel must strike some time. What’s the alternative?

        • Erudite Mavin

          You obviously want Israel leveled as that is what would happen if they strike without the U.S.
          backing them up.
          Look at a map of that part of the world.

          • defcon 4

            Who in their right mind, would think the zero regime would back Israel under any conditions?

          • Erudite Mavin

            Obama has a hatred for Israel and has put them in a no win position by not backing Israel and making nice with Iran.

  • Ben

    Netanyahu is all bark and no bite. Furthermore, should the IAF bomb
    Iran, it remains to be seen if the IDF can deal with a hizbullah counter strike.

    • Judean.

      As an Israeli I can personally say I rather deal with Islam’s direct hatred and violence, which the west seems to be completely blind to, then the EU and US back stabbing history of us Jews which, how “surprising”, is happening again as we speak.
      “Netanyahu is all bark and no bite” – a load of crap. He tries to avoid a huge confrontation with an awful cost in human lives and economy until the very last minute. Unlike the US our enemies are on our borders and not on the other side of the world. He is the single most influential figure on the fact there are sanctions on Iran and that the west regarded that threat yet he can not educate the west to stop living in its “we’re one day away from a world utopia” delusion.

      Put Obama’s brains’ into a bird, and the bird will fly backwards. Teewt.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Not all of us Americans have abandoned you, my friend. Unfortunately, the wrong people are in power, despite the expenditure of vast amounts of money and effort, on the part of those of us who respect and admire Israel. Give us one more chance, before you give up on us! …

      • Anamah

        Stand up dear Israel… your enemies are also ours.
        The world has failed glued to obtuse ideas, choosing wrong leaders, who do not want anything but betray it.
        For some reason Western world did not generated the required antibodies to reject this pathological threats.
        Even at the height of folly mistakenly selected nourish and fatten them.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    Caroline, you are absolutely right. Israel is alone and must act in self defense if it is to survive. Iran first and then deal with the fallout, because the world is anti-semitic and and it is fact to be dealt with.

  • herb benty

    Ashton, rabid anti-Semite, the EU who are using Ashton, Turkey, the leader who wishes to become a Saladin clone and of course, appropriately last, Obama, the leader of a newly Communist country, who eagerly cheers the others on. God is coming and a large portion of America will be destroyed. Soon. American’s voted this man and his cohorts in, twice, so it’s the people’s own fault.

    • Al-Afdal ibn Salah al-din

      Saladin was an ethnic Kurd not a Turk.

      • herb benty

        My comment about the Turkish leader was reiterating his apparent dream of the Islamic Califate being centered in Turkey with himself as supreme leader….twit!

        • therealpm

          He is wanting to resurrect the Ottoman Empire of Selim I rather than that of Saladin. When Selim conquered the Mamelukes of Egypt in 1517 and took Mecca and Medina from them he gave himself the title of Caliph, which all Ottoman sultans claimed afterwards. In reality the Caliphate had been defunct since 1258 when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and killed the last of the Abbasids.

          • herb benty

            Of course you’re bang on. I was just saying that he wanted Turkey to be the center with himself as the, “big boss”.

        • Al-Afdal ibn Salah al-din

          herb,
          Take it easy. I was pointing out that he was a Kurd a fact, but more so because it is so ironic.

          Saldadin crushed the Crusaders at the battle of the Horns of Hattin. It is an interesting battle to study.

          First, it contrasts the wise counsel of people who had been born or lived in country for a long time versus the “hot brand” of the fervent Frank crusaders recently arrived at the Holy Land. The latter counsel marching forth to relieve a siege at all costs. It cost them all right.

          Second the use of fire in shaping the battle field. Fire was used to parch the Crusaders in the Battle of the Horns of Hattin. Fire was used at Yarmouk too, to obscure tactical retreats. Fire was also an elemtn in the American victory over Mexican forces at the start of the Mexican American war. A natural brush fire hindered the Mexican troops. the other element that helped American forces was the use of flying artillery (lightweight horse frown artillery rapidly redeployed over the field. Also the sun was in the eyes of the Mexicans.

          Here is the ironic part about Saladin. He, a Kurd, delivered Palestine to the Muslim cause yet the Arabs and the Turks to this day hate & discriminate the Kurds. They downplay his importance in the Crusades.
          My above post did not convey that irony and that is my fault due to my poor writing skills.

          • herb benty

            Thanks, Al Afdal( thats a long name), I get impatient with some others who are clearly out to,”muddy the waters”. Your answer is very good and you didn’t deserve my flippant,”twit” remark. We were taught in school about the Crusades. Saladin was a great warrior that we learned about too. The irony you pointed out is odd to me also, and I appreciate your info on war. Your writing skills are fine, I was just defensive, expecting to be arguing with what are called “trolls”.You are not that, Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments. As a Christian, I support Israel, though I realize the Almighty Creator God loves all humanity, and does not desire the destruction of any human soul. Some choose that, however. Good day,

          • defcon 4

            Saladin was the archetypal muslime psychopath, murdering, pillaging, enslaving and looting. Of course, that’s what makes him admirable in islam.

    • shaun

      Catherine’s Ashton’s picture that is at the top of this article may be telling. She shows up early or on time for this worthless meeting because it gives meaning to her waster, worthless life.

      None of the other member of the meeting give a sh__, because they know the meeting is a sham and it does not effect their careers. they have to show up to keep the kabuki theatre going, but they have real meetings to go to as well.

      • herb benty

        This appeasement of Iran suits them to a T., is the point.

  • therealpm

    Geneva 2013 is not quite the same as Munich 1938. At Munich Chamberlain and Daladier genuinely believed Hitler when he said he had no more territorial demands and wanted no Czechs in his Reich. They were played for fools and realised it six months later when the Germans marched into Prague.

    Obama and Ashton however know exactly what game the Iranians are playing and are quite happy to play along with them. Obama has always hated Israel and, like Ahmadinejad, would love to see it wiped off the map. His first loyalty is, and always has been, to Islam. Ashton is just a communist nonentity who has been promoted way above her competence. She has always followed a hard left, marxist agenda and as such also hates Israel.

    Therefore Obama and Ashton are not dupes, but malevolent fifth columnists openly supporting the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Wahhabis and Salafists elsewhere. They seek the destruction not only of Israel but of the whole of Western civilisation. As such they are more akin to Vidkun Quisling, who openly co-operated with the Nazis trying to destroy his country.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Obama and Ashton however know exactly what game the Iranians are playing and are quite happy to play along with them.”

      I agree. Which makes it that much worse. We know already what they’ll do when the “cat is out of the bag.” Precisely the same thing they did after Benghazi: Go to the UN and remind us not to disrespect sensitive Muslim feelings.

      • ziggy zoggy

        He’ll also proclaim that we have to live with it and accept it. He’ll claim that Iran has as much a right to a nuclear “defense/deterrent” as America or any other country does – especially Israel. He will reveal the exact number of how many weapons Israel has (according to American intelligence) and blather about the fairness and justice of Iran being able to protect itself from dem J00s.

        Unless Netanyahu takes out Iran’s nuclear capability.

    • Foolbuster

      Played for fools?

      No sir, they simply did what was fair, honorable and decent: corrected one injustice of many of the horrible Versailles Diktat.
      Woodrow Wilson ‘s 14 points included the right to national self determination and therefore the right of the Sudeten Germans not to live under foreign rule, in a state that did not exist until 1918.
      Chamberlain should have gone one step further and ask for a plebiscite in Elsass-Lothringen and the South Tyrol to see if the German population there wanted to continue living under foreign rule as well.
      The same goes for the Hungarians in Transylvania and other parts of Hungary forcibly annexed by Serbia and Chekoslovakia.

      That Hitler broke his promises has nothing to do with the fact that the Munich agreement corrected one of the many injustices of Versailles.
      Hitler also betrayed the Germans of South Tyrol to Mussolini, who forcibly colonized this German land with southern Italians and forbade the speaking of German.

      • therealpm

        Chamberlain and Daladier were played for fools because Hitler never had any intention of keeping his word. His goal was not to just bring the Sudeten Germans into the Fatherland but to subject the whole of Central and Eastern Europe to the German Reich. Chamberlain and Daladier would never have agreed to that, as Hitler knew, so he fooled them by saying he had no more claims.

        The injustices of the Versailles Treaty is another matter altogether. Germany was indeed very harshly treated at Versailles. This was widely believed in Britain and was the main reason why no action was taken against Hitler before Munich, as it was widely felt that he was just correcting those injustices.

        The Sudeten Germans themselves had never previously been part of the German Reich, as prior to 1918 they had been in the Hapsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary. The Allied leaders were also well aware that stripping it of the natural defences and fortifications of the Sudetenland would leave Czechoslovakia defenceless against any future German aggression.

        • defcon 4

          There were also Austrians who never wanted to be annexed into the Reich either.

          • therealpm

            There were indeed many Austrians who opposed the Anschluss, but there were many others who supported it. It is easy to understand why it would have been popular. Up until 1918 Austria had been one of the European Great Powers for several centuries. The Versailles Treaty stripped her of about 90% of her lands, leaving just the German heartland. Becoming part of a Greater Germany, being once again a Great Power, was obviously going to appeal even if it meant losing Austrian independence, particularly as Hitler was himself Austrian.

            In practice there is no difference between the Germans and the Austrians anyway, so it wouldn’t have been like being annexed by a foreign state. Even today the South German people have much more in common with the Austrians than with those of Berlin or Hamburg.

          • defcon 4

            I had an Austrian woman practically screaming at me when I suggested Austrians were nothing more than Germans. She categorically denounced the Anschluss as well.

  • Aaron

    Israel has been throw under the bus, that much is clear. Most of the world has tacitly agreed that being friends with the Arab/Moslem world is more advantageous than justice and morality. Certainly Obama with his demagogic approach and lack of backbone was destined to cater to international anti-Semitism.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Obama was raised in a cesspool of anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism and hatred for Whites – even though his protectors and friends growing up were all White.

      He is not going along to get along. He fervently believes the islamic doctrine to hate Jews.

  • EVILHASWONAGAIN

    ISRAEL should stop all this -B S- and use nuclear bombs on every Muslim country in the world, God willing….

    • defcon 4

      Don’t count India out of the fun — after all tens of millions of Hindus have been slaughtered and enslaved by muslimes over centuries of typical islamic brutality that continues to this day.

  • Wally Right

    Ashton said “in our discussion IN THESE LAST DAYS”, at least the ugly-bugly vomitous b*tch got that part right! We are living in these last days….

  • achantus

    I am truly ashamed of belonging to the stupid, backstabbing, marxist-infested, muslim-loving people of the western world. It’s hard to believe that we have detoriated to this level, and that we are repeating just about every historical mistake ever done.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Catherine’s Ashton is Neville Chamberlain in a dress.

    • therealpm

      That comparison is an insult to Chamberlain. He was a patriotic Englishman who believed he could keep the peace in Europe. Ashton is just a commie bitch who is obviously right in her element in the EUSSR.

  • glennd1

    Lol. Maybe the radical Zionists shouldn’t have invaded, occupied and colonized other people’s land. Maybe they shouldn’t have ethnically cleansed almost a million Arab Muslims living in Palestine from 500 villages, towns and cities and stolen their homes.Maybe they should stop the continued theft of land awarded to the Palestinians, including the most arable land and best water sources.

    In other words. I don’t give a crap if Israel is nuked by Israel – they have it coming. Not all Jews, just the rabid, hateful Zionists living Israel. Any Jew who wants to stop being a war criminal and live a moral life should leave Israel now and give up their Jewish supremacism, and the U.S. should welcome those who’ve decided they can no longer bear the blood of the millions of Arabs and Muslims they’ve treated like animals.

    I know, nobody here sees it this way. But that’s because most of you have no idea what the Zionists have been doing. Today, it’s even worse in many real ways. The ongoing, large scale theft of land via “settlements” the two tier legal and security system that treats all Arabs and Muslims like defective, second class citizens and the intent of Netanyahu and the even more vicious radicals to take over all of Palestine is sickening and a horror. Anyone who supports them is either utterly ignorant of the truth or a vicious bigot and thug.

    Wake up – the Zionists and Islamists should be shunned by all Americans who value freedom and justice. And don’t bother calling me anti-semitic – I’m not. I loathe radical Zionists though – any thinking person with a conscience should.

    • Drakken

      Hey Glen, why don’t you put your money where your big mouth is and go join those inbred pali savages, I am sure that Rachel(st pancake) Corrie could use the company, and you could use a well deserved Darwin Award. If you side with the muslims, may you bloody well perish with them.

      • glennd1

        As I’ve said to you many times, Drakken, I’m anti-Islamist and anti-Zionist. I want to wash my hands of both. But your Manichean, feral mind can’t handle that. Go back to jacking off to Sarah Palin pix.

        • Drakken

          Here let me help you out there shortbus, Israel, is a western country and an ally to us in the west, you following me so far? The effing raghead muslims are not allies, they are not friends and they will always be at our infidel throats one way or another. So go blow your pali boyfriend shortbus just like your hero Arafat.

        • defcon 4

          “anti-islamist” that really says it all Hajji.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          But wait…

          The point is that you claim the Israelis have no just cause. The “Palestinians” are just innocent “peaceful” people. So you’re anti-Islam but why are you against the peaceful “secular national movement” in “Palestine?”

          “But your Manichean, feral mind can’t handle that.”

          You can’t even handle the gymnastics required for your arguments. One minute your arguments depend on moral equivalence and the next minute you’re denouncing Islam.

          And by the way, drawing distinctions between cultures is not usually dualism. Just like drawing a line is not the same thing is saying that each side of the line is either one color or the other. Just that there is a line. Nice slur attempt that’s typical of leftists.

          • hiernonymous

            “…and the next minute you’re denouncing Islam.”

            Not in that post, he didn’t. “Islamist” is a term that was coined to refer to extremist supporters of political Islam. When glennd1 said “I’m anti-Islamist,” he was offering no opinion one way or the other on “Islam.”

            You’ve professed to be interested in engaging in constructive debate of ideas; that can’t happen if you don’t honestly try to understand and characterize the other’s posts.

            “And by the way, drawing distinctions between cultures is not usually dualism.”

            Insisting that there are only two positions vis-a-vis those cultures – e.g. “you’re either with us or against us” – most certainly is dualism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Not in that post, he didn’t. “Islamist” is a term that was coined to refer to extremist supporters of political Islam. When glennd1 said “I’m anti-Islamist,” he was offering no opinion one way or the other on “Islam.”"

            Glenn has been around for much longer than you.

            “Insisting that there are only two positions vis-a-vis those cultures – e.g. “you’re either with us or against us” – most certainly is dualism.”

            Yeah, OK.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manichaean

            Pushing for a decision is Manichean dualism. If you say so.

          • defcon 4

            LOL, “Manichean” must be the word of the day. Along w/improper use of the word “dyad”.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Manichean” is a leftist dog whistle, if you pardon the additional leftist expression. They’re trying to imply that your worldview is based on simplistic religious dogma.

            Dupes pick it up and repeat it. But the Islamic supremacists posing as “secular” use it all the time. They want to make ignorant leftist intellectual feel like, just like Ed Said warned them, if you’re not an Arab Muslim you can’t understand that world deeply enough to understand the need for them to fight. To judge jihadis would be “Manichean” and would assume that one can judge good and evil. Leftists don’t believe in that at all. All morality is relative.

            So Manichean Dualism is just about the most abhorrent thing a leftist intellectual can think of. It implies not only that there just might be an objective way to look at morality but that some people might think that it would be formed on the basis of religious dogma. It makes their heads spin. So Jihadi intellectuals can shut down the questions quickly by carefully inserting that term in to the discussion. Basically in a leftist audience they can smear anyone that judges the morality of the jihadis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’ve professed to be interested in engaging in constructive debate of ideas; that can’t happen if you don’t honestly try to understand and characterize the other’s posts.”

            How did I mischaracterize or fail to understand his points? He wasn’t at all trying to distinguish between “Islamists” and “Islam” the way that lunatics like you try to.

            Islamists are Islamic fundamentalists. They are pious religious Muslims. That’s not an indictment of “all” Muslims or even an indictment of cultural Muslims. But if you object to “Islamism” or to “Islamists” you are objecting to fundamental Islam. Islam is political and religious.

            Furthermore, he wasn’t defending Muslims or Islamic cultural variations within Islam as you do in any way. I think I’ve probably done more of that than he has ever done. A lot more.

            I don’t think for example that he’s ever claimed that the Palestinian jihad is “secular.” Most people understand that the PLO was a front organization created in order to present an image palatable to the West and to the Soviets to dupe them or at least give them a cover story for local consumption. And of course it worked very well, even resulting in more than a few leftist idiots dying for Islamic colonialism. Ironic that.

          • defcon 4

            The deluded Communists who were involved in the Entebbe hijacking come to mind WRT your last sentence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There were a few attracted like flies to the high profile of the “Palestinian cause” but there were also a few local Palestinian dupes. Not many though.

          • defcon 4

            Gee your last sentence applies to all islamic states in the here and now hypocrite.

    • therealpm

      “Anyone who supports them is either utterly ignorant of the truth or a vicious bigot and thug”

      How typical of the modern, totalitarian left you are. So convinced of your own self-righteousness and moral superiority. So anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or a bigot, are they? Have you stopped to consider that it may be you who is the bigot?

      • glennd1

        Presumptuous little dingbat, aren’t you? I”m a conservative libertarian type – no leftist here. I’m not convinced I’m morally superior – I said no such thing. But the record of Zionism in Palestine is disgusting. Try reading Benny Morris’s 1948 – he a Zionist, Jewish, israelis historian of renown. He readily admits Zionism was a campaign of colonization and cleansing. He just claims that the Zionists didn’t mean to do so – which is truly giggleworthy.

        Tell me, have you read any factual accounts of political Zionism and its history? Are you aware of the movement in Israel to cleanse more and more Arab Muslims from there homes even today? If you are actually interested in history, just read up on the history of Jaffa and tell me it doesn’t turn your stomach.

        • defcon 4

          Waaaa, let’s all cry for muslimes — the most murderous, psychopathic religious nuts ever defecated onto the face of the earth.

          • glennd1

            So that gives the Zionists the right ethnically cleanse almost 1 million Arab Muslims from their ancient homes in Palestine? Again, do so if you want to. It’s a rough world out there. The Zionists are welcome to fight it out with the Muslims – I don’t care. Just don’t tell me it’s a moral cause or one the U.S. should side with. Why is that so hard for American clapping seals for Zionism to understand?

          • Drakken

            If the Israeli’s are so called ethnically cleansing the pali’s , they are doing an absolutely awful job of it. So yes it is us westerners siding with fellow western Israeli’s over the savage pali’s, simple really.

          • defcon 4

            I hope Israel gets better at it.

          • defcon 4

            Funnily enough, that’s exactly what muslimes did to the Jews of Syria, Egypt, Iraq and the rest of N. Africa. Funnily enough, that’s exactly what your fellow islam0fascsists are doing to everyone non-muslim in all your muslime misery theme parks Hajji.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So that gives the Zionists the right ethnically cleanse almost 1 million Arab Muslims from their ancient homes in Palestine?”

            The same rights the Soviets had resisting the invasion of German Nawzees. Higher actually, depending on your point of view. But as a communist I thought you’d appreciate my analogy.

        • therealpm

          When you write such sentences as I quoted above then you’re claiming to be morally superior, even if you don’t say so in so many words. Your whole post smacks of the attitude that only you know the truth and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot, or a “presumptious little dingbat”.

          • glennd1

            No, that’s just not true. You are making inferences with no data – no matter what you say. I do think I’m intellectually superior to you, which is why I called you a presumptuous little dingbat. But morally? Who knows? My issue is the assumption of moral superiority by Zionists of their cause when the history shows the opposite. I’m debunking their claims of moral superiority, which is the basis of U.S. support of Israel.

            Think much?

          • therealpm

            You can believe you’re intellectually superior if you please, although I would most certainly disagree with you. I know for example that you need to refer to more than one source to see both sides of an argument, yet you just keep quoting Benny Morris. I also know that the events in Palestine during and after the British mandate were by no means as one sided as you seem to think, as there were also many massacres of Jews by Arab terrorists. You also conveniently ignore the almost one million Jews who were evicted from numerous Arab countries after 1948, frequently with only the clothes they were wearing as all of their possessions were confiscated.

            Your replies to other comments tell me that you are an American. Y

          • defcon 4

            Like any nazi or islam0nazi you rant and rave about the one Jewish state on the face of the earth, the one Jewish state that doesn’t persecute people of other faiths and women, yet have no problem w/the 57 states of the OIC, some of which are religious and gender apartheids.

          • defcon 4

            Dear islam0tard, ask the Christians, Baha’i and Druze who live in Israel if they would rather live in any one of your islam0fascist misery theme parks or Israel.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But morally? Who knows? My issue is the assumption of moral superiority by Zionists of their cause when the history shows the opposite. I’m debunking their claims of moral superiority, which is the basis of U.S. support of Israel.”

            Dude,

            The Jews get their morals from the Bible. The Jihadis get their morals from the Islamic texts. Your claim is that you’re can’t figure out moral distinctions?

            Aren’t you also someone that sticks up for “gay rights” and so forth? Go try that in any “Palestinian” area of control. Just go and try to defend your positions rhetorically there, never mind actually trying to get married to another guy.

            Arguing that you are both clear on the objective facts of history and that you can’t distinguish between the cultures and movements is more or less like saying you can’t decide of there is a difference between the Bible and the Islamic texts. Both can’t be true.

            Maybe it’s time to admit that it’s over your head if this is the only progress you’ve experienced.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Glenn while giggling: “I do think I’m intellectually superior to you, which is why I called you a presumptuous little dingbat.”

            Did your parents also tell you constantly that you can do anything with positive thinking and great enough self-love?

            “I’m debunking their claims of moral superiority, which is the basis of U.S. support of Israel.”

            Did you know that self-love can lead to delusions of grandeur?

            “Think much?”

            Not about you.

          • glennd1

            Who cares what you have to say? You are a rabid apologist for Zionism, who’s views are out of step with many brilliant people who study the topic. You can’t agree to disagree, no, you have to attack, attack, attack. It’s boring. I could care less what you think of me. As I said, I’m hoping someone else on the right will notice this and get curious because they didn’t know the basic facts of Zionism or say what happened in ’48.

          • Drakken

            Your side lost haji lover, let me clue you in, when those pesky jews tell you never again, you had better believe them. As for your intellectual superiority? I am laughing so hard at your ignorant leftist stupidity, that it hurts, but then again, little genius’s like you always find out the painfully hard way. I already explained it to you, but your too effing stupid to get it.

          • defcon 4

            In ’48′ muslime armies attacked the state of Israel w/genocidal intent against the Jews living there. A genocidal intent exhibited by the fact muslime Arabs sold their properties to Jews with the intent that they would get back the properties after the Jews had been slaughtered.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are a rabid apologist for Zionism, who’s views are out of step with many brilliant people who study the topic.”

            Huh. You don’t say?

            “You can’t agree to disagree, no, you have to attack, attack, attack.”

            Trying to balance out your statements is seen as an attack by you because you’re pushing false narratives. And you’re also very sensitive.

            “As I said, I’m hoping someone else on the right will notice this and get curious because they didn’t know the basic facts of Zionism or say what happened in ’48.”

            Well I actually like it when you start each new tear. So feel free to use any tactic you wish. Eventually after each thread I think people learn a little more about the truth, although not directly from you.

          • defcon 4

            In the here and now, there’s no doubt that Israel is the superior state — superior in freedom, liberty and equality to any and all of your islam0nazi misery theme parks.

        • Mladen_Andrijasevic

          Benny Morris: “The 1948 War Was an Islamic Holy War”
          http://www.meforum.org/2769/benny-morris-1948-islamic-holy-war

          • glennd1

            So? Are you using this to claim that the Zionists didn’t cleanse almost 1 million Arab Muslims from 500 villages, towns and cities in Palestine? And then appropriate their homes, land and possessions for Jewish settlers? Benny Morris acknowledges all this – so if you want to use Morris as a basis of fact, then we are in agreement. Zionism is covered in blood and immorality. You and he, just think Jews deserved a homeland so whatever was done to take it was justified. Fair enough, just don’t tell me that’s a moral cause. And don’t tell me the U.S. must take Israel’s side.

            Okay?

          • Mladen_Andrijasevic

            You apparently do not understand what the holy war means and what the Palestinians stand for.

            So you want the US to take the side of Hamas? Article 7 of the Hamas Charter reads:

            http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1609.htm
            “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

            Article 7 is taken from Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 and quotes the Prophet Muhammad, and he is revered by both Hamas and Fatah:

            http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/85/3715-sahih-bukhari-volume-004-book-052-hadith-number-177.html

            Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

          • Drakken

            Well put your money where your big mouth is and go join the ragheads since you love them so much, and there is no moral equivalency between western jews and eastern arab muslims dumbazz.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So? Are you using this to claim that the Zionists didn’t cleanse almost 1 million Arab Muslims from 500 villages, towns and cities in Palestine?”

            The rebels brought their own misery upon themselves. They tried to fight a war of aggression and lost. The rest is a bunch of propaganda to fool the likes of you.

            “Benny Morris acknowledges all this – so if you want to use Morris as a basis of fact, then we are in agreement.”

            Here you are, referencing Morris as your buddy and your enemy at the same time. And of course you only paraphrase with your references.

            You are so boring and predictable. You can’t even think for yourself. I don’t recall ever reading an original idea from you. You just repeat propaganda even after it’s been refuting and you don’t even acknowledge that it’s controversial.

            You’re a long-winded liar.

          • Avi

            First, the true figure of Arab emigrants was about 400,000 – this was 1947-8, there were not millions of “Palestinians” around at the time. Secondly, they were not cleansed – most left because they were told by the invading Arab armies in loud radio broadcasts to get out of the way till the Jews were all killed. Read the history, check the sources of your statistics.

            Thirdly, if you are such a compassionate humanitarian, as you pretend, how come you are not concerned about the 900,000 Jews who were kicked out, or escaped under threat, leaving most of their possessions behind in the years 1946-1967. It seems that their tragic fate is of no concern to you. This shows that you are an anti-Semite, and your anti-Zionist rant is only a way for you to express your deep seated hatred towards Jews.

            I tend to think, judging by your tone and positions, that you are not what you pretend to be (a conservative, etc.), but rather a leftist or an Arab masquerading. This often occurs on forums.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “I”m a conservative libertarian type – no leftist here.”

          “Conservative libertarian” dupe of the communists? Really? In 2013? Who could have guessed?

          But private property is theft. You’re trying to “conserve” the “liberty” of anarchy and this makes you susceptible to communist propaganda targeting people like you.

          “Tell me, have you read any factual accounts of political Zionism and its history? Are you aware of the movement in Israel to cleanse more and more Arab Muslims from there homes even today?”

          Yeah sure. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0mi91uIgw1r8jh8l.jpg

          “If you are actually interested in history, just read up on the history of Jaffa and tell me it doesn’t turn your stomach.”

          Reading about Martians taking over Krypton can also make stomachs turn, but then again why torture yourself just to read fiction?

          Try to distinguish between propaganda, dogma and objective history. I know that you can’t because you quote 1 phrase from Benny Morris as if he’s got your back, and then attack him for his conclusions.

    • RevnantDream

      An historical buffoon folks. Another communist collectivist revising history.
      Ever heard of King David? Who’s land again?
      How many Muslims have slaughtered how many millions from India to Moscow, from the Byzantine Empire takeover, to invading Spain? To invading Egypt & Persia, Including the middle of France. Yet you condemn people for coming back home because they have been treated like pariahs, killed, murdered in every Nation they have lived in? Yet never took over any Others Jews lived in . Unlike your Islamists.
      You buddy are a clown. Read some history latter than 10 years ago

      • glennd1

        Giggling. No leftist here – what are each of you going to accuse me of that separately? Oh, so Jews get that land because of Kind David? That overrides the rights of people who lived for more than a thousand years more recently? Are you kidding? Do you know of any similar land claim so ancient that has any relevance today? Answer, of course not. In fact, many peoples have suffered and have much better claims to land. Let me put it another way. You demand the “right of return” after almost 2000 years, but deny it to Arab Muslims living in Palestine after a mere 60 years. It’s incredibly hypocritical and arrogant. Do you realize that is the very essence of Jewish supremacism? And of course, Islam’s bloody history of conquest has nothing to do with Israel’s crimes against humanity.

        I read a lot of history. Do you? Have you read Benny Morris’s 1948? He at least admits what the Zionists did, but just shrugs, claiming all nations are born in blood. Well, okay, that makes the Zionists hands covered in blood. Meaning they have no moral claim on the U.S, and their is no moral reason for us to support them.

        Even more dopey is your assumption that I’m pro-Muslim – I’m not. I’m even more anti-Islamist than I am anti-Zionist – as any thinking, informed and moral person must be. You? You’re a joke and an ignorant thug, lecturing those far more informed than you and insulting them based on garbage stereotypes you made up in your head. It really must suck to be you.

        • defcon 4

          “I’m even more anti-Islamist than I am anti-Zionist” Strange how you only rant and rave about Israel though.
          The word “islamist” is a word that stinks about as badly as that other neologism coined by islam0nazis: islamophobia.

          • glennd1

            Not true. My comments on this site and elsewhere are often critical of Islam. But I do weigh in here on Zionism from time to time to try and get through to just one right-winger who’s been lied to his entire life about the history of Zionism, just as I was.

            As for your insipid comments on language, all I can do is laugh at your pretense to intellectuality. It’s like watching a Bonobo try to use an iPad.

          • defcon 4

            Blah, blah, blah. I’ve never come across any comments by you critical of islam “glennd1″. The thing is, Israel is the only free state in the Mid-East and N. Africa. The only place where Christians, Jews, Baha’i and Druze aren’t being raped, murdered and persecuted by your fellow islam0nazis w/impunity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The most salient fact this guy ever comes up with is that Benny Morris once used the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the effect the Jihadis – who caused their own problems by rebelling against the sovereign and fighting out of uniform from their homes – had on their own fate. They militarized their homes and then complained when they were swept from the war zone they created.

            They “ethnically cleansed” themselves.

            But collectivists can make up all kinds of evil sounding claims by using Marxist definitions and ideology. Remember, private property is theft to them, so…we’re all a bunch of thieves.

            His rhetoric has little meaning other than complaining that the Israelis rejected communism. Oh yeah, they’re also mostly Jews.

          • glennd1

            Oooh, a little gem here. Apparently, according to ObjectiveFactsMatter, the almost 1 million Arab Muslims living in Palestine who were cleansed from their homes and land in ’48 “brought it on themselves”. I wonder, when has anyone brought ethnic cleansing upon themselves? Like that is a legitimate response to any action? On what planet?

            And Morris said “amounts to ethnic cleansing” – get the quotes right you vicious punk. And I cite many other things Morris has to say, so yeah, go pound sand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I wonder, when has anyone brought ethnic cleansing upon themselves?”

            1948 “Nakba.”

            “And Morris said “amounts to ethnic cleansing” – get the quotes right you vicious punk.”

            You think that “amounts to” is different than “in effect.” OK. What he’s saying is that the result is more or less the same as other examples of “ethnic cleansing” which in today’s jargon can be anything from the Nawzee holocaust to asking jihadis not to scream the call to prayer in downtown San Francisco.

            “And I cite many other things Morris has to say, so yeah, go pound sand.”

            Many many many things.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But I do weigh in here on Zionism from time to time to try and get through to just one right-winger who’s been lied to his entire life about the history of Zionism, just as I was.”

            LOL

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Bigots are usually irrational. It doesn’t matter that he claims to hate Islam. It doesn’t justify his lies.Maybe he hates everyone. That’s hardly a rational defense.

        • Avi

          Zionism is Not Colonialism

          Zionism is neither imperialism nor colonialism. A standard argument of anti-Israelis is that the Jews stole the land now called Israel. It is important to debunk this claim because it is alleged by leftist opponents of Israel to be the basic cause of their opposition to it. They claim the local Arabs, or ‘Palestinians’, were there before the Jews, natives living peacefully, minding their own business, when they were invaded by foreign imperialists (i.e. the Jews) who displaced them and colonized their land. This argument is not only historically false, but logically absurd.

          If the Jews had gone to Uganda (as was proposed to them at the beginning of the 20th Century), they could have been labeled invaders and settlers, for they had no historical connection to that land. But when the Jews came to the land then called Palestine, they were returning home, to the land of their direct ancestors. Their situation at the time was analogous to that of exiled Tibetans today.

          It is well known since antiquity that the Jews have inhabited the land of Israel since 1300 BCE (counting as of the Exodus from Egypt) or since 1700 BCE (counting from the Patriarch Abraham’s immigration from Mesopotamia). These are traditional Biblical dates (some anti-Zionist historians dispute them, but even if a few hundred years are subtracted, our arguments will hold, so this issue does not matter here).

          When the Jews arrived, there were other peoples there; but they have all since disappeared from history – either killed in wars or exiled abroad (as many Jews were) by Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, etc. The peoples who were present were in any case not ‘home grown’, but themselves immigrants or parts of peoples spread further afield. Thus, the Philistines (a non-Semitic people) probably came from the Greek islands, the Hittites (also non-Semites) came from Anatolia, the Amorites (Semites, like Abraham) came from Mesopotamia, the Canaanites were Hamites according to the Bible or Semites from Arabia according to some historians, and so forth. All these disappeared by the time of the First Exile, i.e. the 6th Century BCE.

          This country being at the crossroads of three continents has always been a melting pot of different peoples. Humanity, remember, has always been in motion, ever since the first men emigrated from East Africa. None of the peoples who antedated the Jewish presence, note well, were the progenitors of present-day ‘Palestinian’ Arabs. The latter arrived much later: some conceivably came in the wake of the 7th Century CE invasion of the land of Israel by Arab hordes recently converted to Islam; but many came much more recently, in the 19th and 20th Centuries (at the same time as Jews were returning from Europe and surrounding Arab countries).

          Reading current ‘Palestinian’ narratives, one might suppose that these Arabs were created in situ. But this is of course a story lately concocted for propaganda purposes by pseudo-historians. European and Jewish travelers to the Holy Land in the 19th Century all testified to the depopulation and desolation of the land.

          So the Jews came here a couple of thousand years before the Arabs. Moreover, the Jews have inhabited that land much longer than the Arabs have. If any people is ‘indigenous’ to that land, then, it is undoubtedly the Jewish people. Furthermore, the fact on the ground that the Jews are now in control of the land is significant. These three factors – who came first, who was there the longest and who is now sovereign – determine the superiority of the claim to the land (the whole land) by the Jews in any rational and fair assessment.

          Prior to the Arab arrival, the Jewish nation lost its sovereignty to the Greeks, then the Romans (who renamed the country as Palestine in an effort to conceal its Jewish ownership). Many Jews were exiled after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, but many stayed on. Dominion passed on to the Byzantine successors of Rome and (briefly) to Persian conquerors, until the Moslem Arabs came as conquerors and settlers about 636 AD. If any group in the region can be accused of imperialism and colonialism it is demonstrably the Arabs, who left their native peninsula to spread by the force of arms from India to Spain in a matter of decades.

          They still today occupy most of these stolen lands – from Iraq to Morocco. It is therefore ironic that these very people accuse Jews of those particular crimes. They claim that Israel is ‘occupied Arab land’ and complain of ‘settlements’ in it – but forget or conceal that all the land outside of Arabia proper that they stand on today – and not just Israel – is land the Arabs stole from other peoples! This is, of course, a logical mistake in their argumentum.

          There is however another, more subtle, inconsistency that I wish to bring to your attention. Anti-Israelis answer the above historical arguments by saying: “well, but this is all ancient history – the fact is that in the mid-20th Century, the Jews displaced the Palestinians [i.e. Arabs] and took over their lands.” Why is this inconsistent? I will now explain.

          If we accept that ancient Jewish history is irrelevant and what counts is who was in fact inhabiting most of the land some decades before the Israeli War of Independence – then we could equally well argue that recent Arab history is irrelevant and what counts is who is in fact inhabiting most of the land today. If the fait accompli of the Arab takeover of the land of Israel in the 7th Century (and later by other conquerors, most recently the Moslem Ottoman Turks) is morally acceptable, why is the fait accompli of the Jewish takeover in the 20th Century morally unacceptable? Who decides how many years of de facto possession constitutes legal ownership?

          Clearly, those who deny Israel its right to exist use an arbitrary double standard, which cuts history up in ways convenient to Arab claims. If might is effectively right in the case of the Arabs, then it is logically also right in the case of the Jews. If we are going to be Machiavellian about it, we must be so all the way. So long as the Jews are able to maintain their independence from Arab hegemonic ambitions by the force of arms, they have full right to the land. If they are fool enough to let themselves be weakened by the psychological war their enemies wage against them, and they give up their possessions, no one will defend their rights.

          But in any case, we do not need to advocate that might is right. Jews have a much better and more lasting claim to the land of Israel. This is the land of their ancestors, which they have in part at least inhabited for about three and a half thousand years. The fact that other peoples (including the Arabs) invaded that land since their arrival, and often killed or chased many of them off does not diminish the Jewish claim, because there were demonstrably (through plentiful documentary and archeological evidence) some Jews in the land throughout this historical period, and because Jews have survived history and continued to claim that land. This argument has force irrespective of one’s religious convictions (or lack of them), note well.

          As for the ‘Palestinians’, it should be added that they were never a distinct people, with a distinct history and culture, until some smart propagandists invented them a few decades ago. They always existed as undifferentiated Arabs, scattered throughout the Middle East since the Arab invasion of it. The land they lived on was always part of or possessed by a larger political entity. There was never an Arab nation or sovereignty specifically on Palestinian soil. The last effective sovereign before Israel was the British Mandate, and before that was the Ottoman Empire. So the Arabs have no national claim to the land.

          There would be no Arab-Israeli conflict if the Arabs had done the right thing from the start and left the land to its rightful owners, the Jews. The surrounding Arab countries ought to invite their brethren back home – if necessary, all the way back to their original Arabian homeland (now oil-rich and quite able to sustain them). Nearly a million Jews were expelled or escaped from the Arab countries in the years surrounding the creation of the State of Israel; and most of these refugees (and millions more from other countries) were lovingly absorbed by that country. There is no reason why the Arabs should not likewise show hospitality to their kin, for the sake of lasting peace.

          No good can emerge from perpetuating the problem of conflicting claims to the same land. The ‘two state solution’ currently proposed is a road map to hell. Only tension, hatred, war and suffering can come from it. It is designed to so narrow and weaken the Jewish State as to ensure its eventual destruction. Everyone knows this is the secretly desired outcome of that ‘peace plan’ – it promises the peace of the (Jewish) grave. Israel cannot rationally be expected to commit suicide. Those who sincerely want peace should advocate, facilitate and help finance the obvious solution of an international program encouraging voluntary emigration of Arabs.

        • Avi

          Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism

          The world’s media nowadays are overwhelmingly biased against Zionism and Israel. This posture has lately become more than a mere fashion – it is now the ‘spirit of the times’, a popular ‘axiom’ that it is forbidden to even question. As an acquaintance remarked to me during the recent Gaza war – it is really an emotional burden for us Jews to have to bear this massive negative vibration emanating from so many of our fellow human beings at once. Indeed, never before in history have so few been blindly hated by so many. In the past, such hatred was concentrated on some communities more than others – but nowadays, due to media hype, the orchestration of anti-Semitism has taken literally world-wide proportions.

          Because, for the moment, anti-Zionists vehemently deny that they are anti-Semites, it is important to demonstrate their equivalence. The simplest way to do so is to examine whether the passions aroused in anti-Israelis by events in Israel are proportional or disproportional, in comparison with the passions aroused in them by events elsewhere. This is an appeal to the logic of causation, the branch of formal logic that tells us how to identify causes and effects. If a person reacts differently to similar circumstances, we naturally ask why; if we discern a pattern of behavior such that when Jews are involved the reaction is one way and when they are not involved it is another way, we may fairly infer that the observed difference in behavior is due to this differentiating factor.

          The question is: are the current opponents of Israel simply ‘pro-Palestinian’ or ‘humanitarian’ (as they claim) – or are they prejudicially anti-Israeli? If Israel was not Jewish (but the creation of some other ethnic group) would reactions to it be the same? The empirical facts are the following. When Palestinians are subject to similar or worse sufferings due to the actions of other Arabs or Moslems (for example, when thousands of them were killed in Jordan in September 1970, or more recently in 2007, during the bombardment of a ‘Palestinian’ refugee camp by Lebanese forces trying to destroy a terrorist group there), the public outcry is much smaller or non-existent. When similar or worse sufferings happen to Jews by the hand of Palestinians (women and children deliberately killed by terrorists) or to other peoples elsewhere (for example, the Darfur minority in the Sudan), again the public outcry is noticeably less or almost nil.

          The reactions to Israel are evidently out of all proportion, compared to usual reactions. Such observable discrepancies clearly and irrefutably prove that anti-Israeli sentiments are rooted in anti-Semitism and nothing else, for a majority Jewish population is the distinguishing mark of the Jewish State. The importance of this argument cannot be exaggerated: the evidence at hand proves the true cause. However much anti-Israelis protest their objectivity and even-handedness, their actions speak louder than their words: their basic motive is manifestly anti-Jewish racism and their reactions are manifestly based on double-standards.

          They protest that “it is surely possible to criticize the Israeli government’s behavior without being an anti-Semite” – but the question they do not answer, note well, is: how come that criticism is so much more virulent than the criticism towards other countries or peoples for comparable behavior? Criticism is legitimate – but unfair criticism, criticism using double standards, is not legitimate. If all humans are equal in their hearts, then their indignation, anger and hatred should be commensurate with actual events. For instance, if a couple of thousand Palestinians die in anti-terrorist operations, while 400,000 Darfur people die in ethnic cleansing operations – the emotions aroused by the latter events should objectively be at least 200 times more intense than in the former. Yet the opposite occurs. This proves double standards are involved.

          Some anti-Semites moronically claim they are not anti-Semitic, since they are Jewish or Arab and therefore themselves Semitic! This is just word-play. The word ‘anti-Semite’ originally (19th Cent.) meant anti-Jewish – if now some sophists wish to change its meaning to include hatred of all Semites (so as to dilute its significance), then we could simply have to start using the word ‘anti-Jewish’ instead. And of course, there is no denying that some Jews are anti-Jewish (we call these ‘self-hating’ Jews).

          In conclusion, the pseudo-reasoning that leads many people into anti-Israeli views has to be challenged. Double standards are clearly involved, as above shown. This is not entirely due to dishonesty – in some cases, the fake arguments are difficult to unravel and expose. Even so, there is obviously a great deal of dishonesty out there. There is a perverse will to mislead public opinion; most of the journalists, professors and politicians involved are not innocent bystanders, but active enemies of Israel. As other commentators have already pointed out, they adhere to a new secular religion – one in which the nation of Israel (“le juif des nations”) plays a central role as the bad guy, towards which negative passions are deliberately channeled.

          We are indeed witnessing ‘lynch-mobbing’ on an unprecedented international scale – totally unfair and unrelenting criticism of Israel, without concern for the destructive consequences, indeed relishing them. This is objectively not just anti-Israeli propaganda; its ultimate aim has got to be the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole. Israel houses almost half the world Jewish population, and has the sympathy and support of the vast majority of Diaspora Jewry. As Arab propaganda makes clear, the Arabs make little distinction between the groups. When they speak of Israelis, they call them simply el-yahud – the Jews. They openly and explicitly dream of Jewish genocide, even while loudly accusing Israel of having genocidal intentions against the Palestinian Arabs. But of course there are no such velleities among Jews – it is a pure invention of Israel’s enemies.

          If anything proves the need for Jews to have their own independent and strong country, even today after the Holocaust, it is precisely this world-wide anti-Israel media campaign. We see here again, barely half a century after the murder of 6 million Jews of Europe by apparently civilized peoples, how easy it is for the modern media to excite the masses against Jews. Journalists are the new priests, preaching hatred. Some do so explicitly – but most do it in a more ‘politically correct’ manner: by selective information (i.e. withholding relevant information) and by disinformation (i.e. peddling false information). The message “Israel is the bad guy” can be transmitted loud and clear in tacit, subliminal ways – by the choice of pictures, by background music, by the tonality of voiceover, by the wording used, and many similar propaganda tricks.

          The way things are going, I sometimes fear that one day soon, if we are not careful and we do not react energetically to this new war against the Jews, the world as a whole will conspire to erase our race from this planet. The United Nations will vote to annihilate us, using all sorts of pious arguments to give themselves a good conscience about it. They will say it is a necessity for the sake of world peace and international progress. Everyone will be relieved and happy at last; a sense of unity and common purpose will pervade the world.

          An agency will be created and funded to overview the complex operation. Employment will increase and the economy will be stimulated. The Red Cross and Red Crescent will be appointed to ensure that humanitarian standards are maintained in this worthy cause. They will visit the construction sites of modern, computerized killing factories, and certify their painlessness and hygiene. If some of the Jews dare object or rebel, Amnesty International and Peace Now will brand them as terrorists. Other registered NGOs will make sure that, to be fair, all Jews are included in this Final Solution, and none are allowed to convert to other religions or to plead to have been Israel-bashing atheists. It will all be done cleanly and efficiently, putting Hitler and other predecessors to shame.

          This is I hope an extreme, nightmare scenario – but who would have imagined the previous Shoah humanly conceivable a few years before it happened? We cannot ignore that Iran’s current threat of nuclear war against Israel is looked upon with utter insouciance by the world’s political authorities, media and populations. Many may be suspected to hope Israel will indeed be “wiped off the map”. This is not a mere Islamist or Palestinian/Arab dream, but the secret desire of many anti-Semites in the West, on the Left as well as the Right. The bloodbath will surely not end there. Experience of past pogroms shows that once the killing orgy starts, it is hard to stop. No Jew in the world, whatever his or her political leanings, will be safe.

          People of good faith must rally fully behind Israel. The Jewish State was created for a purpose, to ensure the future protection of all Jews against any velleity of genocide. Its necessity is manifest still today.

          • glennd1

            Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. Zionism is a term widely used in Israel without any connotation of bigotry, and in many other circles, including all academic circles. Your long, uninteresting, thuggish and silly disposition on the topic does nothing to prove a thing other than the fact that you will go to any lengths to eliminate any criticism of Zionism’s bloody history, and it’s current abominations. Zionism is Jewish Supremacism.

          • Avi

            Zionism is Not Colonialism

            Zionism is neither imperialism nor colonialism. A standard argument of anti-Israelis is that the Jews stole the land now called Israel. It is important to debunk this claim because it is alleged by leftist opponents of Israel to be the basic cause of their opposition to it. They claim the local Arabs, or ‘Palestinians’, were there before the Jews, natives living peacefully, minding their own business, when they were invaded by foreign imperialists (i.e. the Jews) who displaced them and colonized their land. This argument is not only historically false, but logically absurd.

            If the Jews had gone to Uganda (as was proposed to them at the beginning of the 20th Century), they could have been labeled invaders and settlers, for they had no historical connection to that land. But when the Jews came to the land then called Palestine, they were returning home, to the land of their direct ancestors. Their situation at the time was analogous to that of exiled Tibetans today.

            It is well known since antiquity that the Jews have inhabited the land of Israel since 1300 BCE (counting as of the Exodus from Egypt) or since 1700 BCE (counting from the Patriarch Abraham’s immigration from Mesopotamia). These are traditional Biblical dates (some anti-Zionist historians dispute them, but even if a few hundred years are subtracted, our arguments will hold, so this issue does not matter here).

            When the Jews arrived, there were other peoples there; but they have all since disappeared from history – either killed in wars or exiled abroad (as many Jews were) by Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, etc. The peoples who were present were in any case not ‘home grown’, but themselves immigrants or parts of peoples spread further afield. Thus, the Philistines (a non-Semitic people) probably came from the Greek islands, the Hittites (also non-Semites) came from Anatolia, the Amorites (Semites, like Abraham) came from Mesopotamia, the Canaanites were Hamites according to the Bible or Semites from Arabia according to some historians, and so forth. All these disappeared by the time of the First Exile, i.e. the 6th Century BCE.

            This country being at the crossroads of three continents has always been a melting pot of different peoples. Humanity, remember, has always been in motion, ever since the first men emigrated from East Africa. None of the peoples who antedated the Jewish presence, note well, were the progenitors of present-day ‘Palestinian’ Arabs. The latter arrived much later: some conceivably came in the wake of the 7th Century CE invasion of the land of Israel by Arab hordes recently converted to Islam; but many came much more recently, in the 19th and 20th Centuries (at the same time as Jews were returning from Europe and surrounding Arab countries).

            Reading current ‘Palestinian’ narratives, one might suppose that these Arabs were created in situ. But this is of course a story lately concocted for propaganda purposes by pseudo-historians. European and Jewish travelers to the Holy Land in the 19th Century all testified to the depopulation and desolation of the land.

            So the Jews came here a couple of thousand years before the Arabs. Moreover, the Jews have inhabited that land much longer than the Arabs have. If any people is ‘indigenous’ to that land, then, it is undoubtedly the Jewish people. Furthermore, the fact on the ground that the Jews are now in control of the land is significant. These three factors – who came first, who was there the longest and who is now sovereign – determine the superiority of the claim to the land (the whole land) by the Jews in any rational and fair assessment.

            Prior to the Arab arrival, the Jewish nation lost its sovereignty to the Greeks, then the Romans (who renamed the country as Palestine in an effort to conceal its Jewish ownership). Many Jews were exiled after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, but many stayed on. Dominion passed on to the Byzantine successors of Rome and (briefly) to Persian conquerors, until the Moslem Arabs came as conquerors and settlers about 636 AD. If any group in the region can be accused of imperialism and colonialism it is demonstrably the Arabs, who left their native peninsula to spread by the force of arms from India to Spain in a matter of decades.

            They still today occupy most of these stolen lands – from Iraq to Morocco. It is therefore ironic that these very people accuse Jews of those particular crimes. They claim that Israel is ‘occupied Arab land’ and complain of ‘settlements’ in it – but forget or conceal that all the land outside of Arabia proper that they stand on today – and not just Israel – is land the Arabs stole from other peoples! This is, of course, a logical mistake in their argumentum.

            There is however another, more subtle, inconsistency that I wish to bring to your attention. Anti-Israelis answer the above historical arguments by saying: “well, but this is all ancient history – the fact is that in the mid-20th Century, the Jews displaced the Palestinians [i.e. Arabs] and took over their lands.” Why is this inconsistent? I will now explain.

            If we accept that ancient Jewish history is irrelevant and what counts is who was in fact inhabiting most of the land some decades before the Israeli War of Independence – then we could equally well argue that recent Arab history is irrelevant and what counts is who is in fact inhabiting most of the land today. If the fait accompli of the Arab takeover of the land of Israel in the 7th Century (and later by other conquerors, most recently the Moslem Ottoman Turks) is morally acceptable, why is the fait accompli of the Jewish takeover in the 20th Century morally unacceptable? Who decides how many years of de facto possession constitutes legal ownership?

            Clearly, those who deny Israel its right to exist use an arbitrary double standard, which cuts history up in ways convenient to Arab claims. If might is effectively right in the case of the Arabs, then it is logically also right in the case of the Jews. If we are going to be Machiavellian about it, we must be so all the way. So long as the Jews are able to maintain their independence from Arab hegemonic ambitions by the force of arms, they have full right to the land. If they are fool enough to let themselves be weakened by the psychological war their enemies wage against them, and they give up their possessions, no one will defend their rights.

          • Avi

            But in any case, we do not need to advocate that might is right. Jews have a much better and more lasting claim to the land of Israel. This is the land of their ancestors, which they have in part at least inhabited for about three and a half thousand years. The fact that other peoples (including the Arabs) invaded that land since their arrival, and often killed or chased many of them off does not diminish the Jewish claim, because there were demonstrably (through plentiful documentary and archeological evidence) some Jews in the land throughout this historical period, and because Jews have survived history and continued to claim that land. This argument has force irrespective of one’s religious convictions (or lack of them), note well.

            As for the ‘Palestinians’, it should be added that they were never a distinct people, with a distinct history and culture, until some smart propagandists invented them a few decades ago. They always existed as undifferentiated Arabs, scattered throughout the Middle East since the Arab invasion of it. The land they lived on was always part of or possessed by a larger political entity. There was never an Arab nation or sovereignty specifically on Palestinian soil. The last effective sovereign before Israel was the British Mandate, and before that was the Ottoman Empire. So the Arabs have no national claim to the land.

            There would be no Arab-Israeli conflict if the Arabs had done the right thing from the start and left the land to its rightful owners, the Jews. The surrounding Arab countries ought to invite their brethren back home – if necessary, all the way back to their original Arabian homeland (now oil-rich and quite able to sustain them). Nearly a million Jews were expelled or escaped from the Arab countries in the years surrounding the creation of the State of Israel; and most of these refugees (and millions more from other countries) were lovingly absorbed by that country. There is no reason why the Arabs should not likewise show hospitality to their kin, for the sake of lasting peace.

            No good can emerge from perpetuating the problem of conflicting claims to the same land. The ‘two state solution’ currently proposed is a road map to hell. Only tension, hatred, war and suffering can come from it. It is designed to so narrow and weaken the Jewish State as to ensure its eventual destruction. Everyone knows this is the secretly desired outcome of that ‘peace plan’ – it promises the peace of the (Jewish) grave. Israel cannot rationally be expected to commit suicide. Those who sincerely want peace should advocate, facilitate and help finance the obvious solution of an international program encouraging voluntary emigration of Arabs.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Zionism is anti-colonialism, obviously.

            Unless of course allah is the one true god of the universe. Then we’ve got to radically revise all of our history books. I’m not convinced.

          • glennd1

            “Zionism is anti-colonialism, obviously”. Giggling – do you think if you keep saying something, that it becomes more true because you say it? And to boil it down to whether Allah exists or not is imbecilic. What’s wrong with you, seriously?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…do you think if you keep saying something, that it becomes more true because you say it?”

            Mr. Giggles,

            If I keep repeating facts, some might get through your think head. Based on history with you, it’s a bit of a long shot but still the only chance we really have.

            “And to boil it down to whether Allah exists or not is imbecilic.”

            Precisely. Your statements are delusional unless you can undo everything we know by proving that Allah exists, and therefore the jihadis narratives are – gee – the fact based ones after all.

            So the real question is what is wrong with you?

          • defcon 4

            Martin Luther King saw through the Zionist euphemism for Jew some 40 years ago. It’s a clever way to whitewash away apparent Jew hatred.

          • glennd1

            So? Because MLK says it, it’s true?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…does nothing to prove a thing other than the fact that you will go to any lengths to eliminate any criticism of Zionism’s bloody history, and it’s current abominations.”

            It’s actually you that tries to suppress rational replies to your bigoted lies. Your only defense is that you’re a dupe and not an actual bigot.

            That might have worked the first time. But obviously you’ve spent zero time recently in looking at the history objectively because you have nothing new to say. Your propaganda is stale and has been thoroughly debunked. You’ve had time to verify this. But you still return with the same nonsense.

            You are in fact a bigot. Perhaps you are also in denial. Which doesn’t really matter much. You’re on the anti-truth, anti-Western side. We’re the bigots against allah.

            So we all know the score.

          • glennd1

            You can keep saying it, but that doesn’t make it so. And you are doing to me exactly what the left does to the right all the time, dismissing us as crazy and bigoted. You can’t handle disagreement.

            And fyi, your arguments almost never counter my basic factual assertions about the nature of the Zionist conquest of Palestine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You can keep saying it, but that doesn’t make it so. And you are doing to me exactly what the left does to the right all the time, dismissing us as crazy and bigoted. You can’t handle disagreement.”

            OK Glenn,

            Let ‘s imagine we haven’t gone over this a number of times. Why don’t we “reboot” the entire conversation. Why don’t you explain to me from the beginning in chronological order the sins of the Israelis and Zionists, and step by step we’ll see if your missing any facts that might balance out your statements.

            OK?

            So, who had sovereignty in the region when the modern Zionist movement began? Shall we start there, or would you like to go back to the start of Islamic colonialism? It’s your call but once we start we must stick to the timeline and have a logical discussion rather than you sniping with stupid culled facts turned in to Islamic leftist propaganda. Deal?

            “And fyi, your arguments almost never counter my basic factual assertions about the nature of the Zionist conquest of Palestine.”

            I understand how you feel and there is little I can do about that. Take responsibility for your own feelings.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Oh, so Jews get that land because of Kind David?”

          No, they got the land through non-coercive property transactions. Communists are collectivists and don’t believe in private property or individualism. They gloss over facts and say simple things like, “Look at all the Jews, they must have stolen the land because how else could they be there?” And after all, private property is theft. Therefore according to communists, the Jews are thieves. I wonder if you own anything?

          You’re a thief too by your own standards if you do.

          • glennd1

            Listen, just admit it. You don’t care about the claims of Arab Muslims in Palestine. You just want to give it all to the Jews and want the Arab Muslims to move to Jordan or something. At least be honest. You want Eretz Israel for Jews at any cost.

            Okay, that makes you a Jewish supremacist as you will not consider the rights of the people you trample on to get to the Zionists dream. That is your prerogative, just as it is mine to adjudge it as morally despicable.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You don’t care about the claims of Arab Muslims in Palestine.”

            I care about all legitimate claims.

            “You just want to give it all to the Jews and want the Arab Muslims to move to Jordan or something.”

            For all your extensive rants and claims of objectivity you still can’t even distinguish between sovereignty and private property ownership, residency, etc?

            If people want to rule, they need to build legitimate means of doing so. It’s simple to describe but more difficult to execute. It takes a lot more than dreams and hopes. It takes productive work.

            “You want Eretz Israel for Jews at any cost.”

            I want Israel to be treated like any other legitimate Western sovereign, based on true facts rather than stupid leftist and Islamic supremacist lies.

            “Okay, that makes you a Jewish supremacist as you will not consider the rights of the people you trample on to get to the Zionists dream.”

            Whatever. I consider everyone’s rights equal. I think you do not understand the term.

            “That is your prerogative, just as it is mine to adjudge it as morally despicable.”

            Now that is truly devastating. But we’re still dealing with your feelings rather than objectively weighing the facts.

          • defcon 4

            And the muslimes want the entire world for their own.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “I read a lot of history. Do you? Have you read Benny Morris’s 1948? He at least admits what the Zionists did, but just shrugs, claiming all nations are born in blood.”

          Your direct quotes are so brutal.

          Morris on Israeli moral authority:

          http://yourpopfilter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/shoulder_shrug.jpg

          “Well, okay, that makes the Zionists hands covered in blood. Meaning they have no moral claim on the U.S, and their is no moral reason for us to support them.”

          Oh yeah, case closed. What was your argument again?

          Glennd1: Morris said:

          http://yourpopfilter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/shoulder_shrug.jpg

      • Guest

        Here’s some helpful advice.

        If you wish to understand the truth, you need to learn facts, not interpretations. The two are completely different. Initial errors pollute further learning, sort of like practicing poor technique on a musical instrument.

        You should realize that Israel has never invaded any other country. It has however fought many conflicts defensively.

        You mention that you read history. Not all narratives outline the truth. I would suggest that you consult sources which give honest assessments of the events. Actually gaining some experience of the region will also be valuable.

        That is, if it’s the truth you seek.

        • Revnant Dream

          Frankly I lived a lot of this modern history to see how twisted the narrative has become.
          Isreal even in the 19th century was mostly Jewish settlements. Read Mark Twain on his holiday there, if you doubt it. Only wandering tribes of beduin lived in this Country that was utterly desolate. Besides many Jews who where returning from Europe that kicked them out. People also forget that Isreal was promised back to them as a Jewish State again, for inventing smokeless gun powder in the first World war. Which England went back on. Most Islamic States thier now where invented by Europians spliting it up. It all used to be run by the Turkish Sultanate.
          Even the Arabs eskewed it.
          Jews have never even tried to take over any Gentile Nation. Unlike Islamists that have forced thier food laws on the Countrys they claim to come to.Cry for sharia law. Demand we follow thier laws that killed the Nations they where fleeing from. Cause riots. Kill people who don’t follow the moon god of human sacrifice. Which is actually colonization. Most Jews assimulate to the common culture. Not so Islam.
          The so called Palistinines, are Jordainans living on UN welfare.
          The best way to read history is biographies from the time, or archelogical finds.

          • Omar

            England is not a country. England is one of four internal divisions (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) of the country called the United Kingdom (or Britain). Calling the UK “England” is offensive to people living in the other three internal divisions.

          • therealpm

            Of course England is a country, and one whose history can be traced back for over a thousand years. Athelstan, who ruled from 924-39, is regarded as the first King of England as he was the first to rule over pretty much the whole territory of what is now England. The English people can be traced back several centuries earlier than that, and Bede wrote about the English people in the early eighth century.

            The UK is a different entity which also encompasses Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It did not come into existence until 1801 with the Act of Union, which united the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. England and Scotland had been united in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, although the crowns of the two countries had joined in 1603 when James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English throne on the death of Elizabeth I. Wales had been ruled by the English king since the reign of Edward I, but was not formally united with England until the 1530s.

          • Omar

            Yes. What you stated is historically true. However, you missed an important point. In 1707, England gave up its sovereignty when it merged with Scotland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Scotland did not become part of England, but merged with it to form Britain. The Uk expanded its borders in 1800, with Ireland’s inclusion. But the UK shrunk in size in 1921, when Ireland seceded to form its own country. The UK, however, retained Northern Ireland. The fact of the matter is that England has not been a sovereign country since 1707. Calling the whole UK “England” is simply wrong. at would be like calling the United States “Maryland” or “Texas”, or calling Canada “Ontario” or “Alberta”. Since that is not the case with either country, then the UK should be referred to by its proper name and not the names of any of its internal divisions (unless the news is pertaining to any particular internal division).

          • therealpm

            You are of course correct that England is not a sovereign country, but you missed out the word sovereign in your earlier post. The UK, or Britain, should not be referred to as England, although this is a common error in many parts of the world and one which infuriates the Scots and the Welsh.

            England, Scotland and Wales are however much more than just internal divisions of Britain. Indeed the indigenous British people are increasingly regarding themselves as first and foremost English, Scottish or Welsh. To a large extent this has always been true for the Scots and Welsh, but it is a recent development among the English and a reaction to the mass third world immigration encouraged by recent governments in Westminster.

          • therealpm

            Smokeless powder was developed several decades before the First World War. Chaim Weizmann actually developed a method for producing acetone from starch by fermentation. Acetone was required in large quantities for the manufacture of cordite used in munitions. Britain had lacked the capacity to produce a sufficient quantity of acetone as the major pre-war source was controlled by the Germans.

            The Balfour Declaration did not actually promise a Jewish state, but stated that the British government favoured the formation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. It is true that the actions of subsequent British governments often seemed to run counter to this declaration, but they were trying to balance opposing interests and keep the lid on an increasingly explosive situation. Certainly by 1948 Stalin was convinced that Britain opposed the creation of Israel and supplied arms to the Jews, via the Czechs, for that reason.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Balfour Declaration did not actually promise a Jewish state…”

            They rarely promise states to anyone that I can think of. Most states are responsible for their own development. Actually, I think all of them are. It’s part of the definition of sovereignty.

            “It is true that the actions of subsequent British governments often seemed to run counter to this declaration, but they were trying to balance opposing interests and keep the lid on an increasingly explosive situation.”

            Maybe telling their Arab allies against the Turks that they should fight their own jihad was not the brightest idea they could have come up with.

          • Oracle9

            The whole thing as regards nationalism for the various groups was pretty much bungled due to the many conflicting interests of the Brits, French and Arabs, as well as others, in the dissolution of the Ottomans’ influences.

            I just read the book by Scott Anderson “Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East” and in my lack of knowledge of the diplomatic events of the time, I was impressed with the amazing complexity of the way all that went down.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The whole thing as regards nationalism for the various groups was pretty much bungled due to the many conflicting interests of the Brits, French and Arabs, as well as others, in the dissolution of the Ottomans’ influences.”

            The empires were paternalistic in attitudes and actions but it’s easy to understand why in context. But understanding full context is not easy.

            Think of all the inventions since the Industrial Revolution started to really “gather steam” and then remember that the ideas of Darwinism were being debated and applied to almost every aspect of life. It’s very difficult for me to judge them for being paternalistic or for worrying that another empire was going to survive as the fittest one by destroying the others.

            It’s almost miraculous that we have as much peace as we do today. Things could easily have gotten so much uglier. And now we’ve got a global forum for debating and reasoning through these issues. If we blow it at this point…

          • Oracle9

            It is the age of information but wisdom seems to be stagnant. And what I have learned from studying history, something of which I was not really aware in years past, is that the history was usually written by the victors in conquest.

            The points of view of others besides the victors is fascinating, for example relatively recent research into the cultures known as “barbarians” (anyone non-Roman), like the Celts, Dacians, even Ghenghis Khan’s empire.

            Honest research by archaeologists and historians is much welcomed – and then there’s the storm of revisionism in 30-second sound bytes springing from political agenda, and the outrages of active destruction of our human heritage, like the actions of the radicals in North Africa, the Taliban and the Bhuddist statues and God-knows-what else, and the active destruction by backhoe of the priceless records buried in the substrates of the Temple Mount. All in the name of supremacy.

            And then there’s the West, terrified by P-C and the decades of self-flagellation from the red-green propaganda that the British Empire was (is) the cause of all the evil in the world. Time for them to either get over it or go back to medieval lifestyles.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re reading my mind from thoughts I’ve had many times over the years.

          • defcon 4

            The history dept. at UCLA had a Turkish muslime professor teaching Turkish history. Guess what wasn’t taught in his version of Turkish history around WW1? The Armenian Genocide, which, according to this muslime professor, never happened.

          • glennd1

            But of course this doesn’t relieve the Brits of their imperial sins. The history of the British empire and it’s legacy are shameful in many very real ways.

            You make a great point about understanding history from numerous perspectives. Try looking at WWII from the Russian, Polish, Romanian or Austrian perspective. Or heaven forbid, the German perspective. It’s very illuminating.

          • therealpm

            There is nothing whatsoever shameful about the British Empire or its legacy. Like the Romans we left every country in a far better condition than that in which we found it. Just take a look at that legacy for a minute.

            India is the world’s largest democracy, while Hong Kong and Singapore are centres of world trade with booming economies. It was once feared that when the lease ran out in 1997 Hong Kong would become like China, but the opposite is happening instead. The British Empire trumps Communism. The fact is that most of the countries where people are free to make a life for themselves and their families without excessive interference from an oppressive state were once ruled by Britain. That is a legacy of which the British should be enormously proud.

          • Drakken

            Thank God for European Imperialism, otherwise we would still be in the bloody dark ages you dolt.

          • glennd1

            Indeed, the truth of it all is labyrinthian and far more complex than most know. At the end of the day the “Zionists are the good guys and the Arab Muslims are the bad guys” formulation is idiotic.

          • defcon 4

            LOL, yeah tell it to Israel’s Baha’i, Christians and Druze population. Tell them how muslimes are really the good guys in the Mid-East.

          • glennd1

            In fact, according to Benny Morris here http://youtu.be/oEn2o_Jr3VA Zioniss would never have been able to erect the state of Israel in ’48 without massive support from the British. Or are going to call him a psychopath and bigot as well? It’s also true that the Brits betrayed the Arabs horribly, read up on the Syke-Piccoult agreement.

          • defcon 4

            “massive support from the British” ONly in your islamic delusions Ahmed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”massive support from the British” ONly in your islamic delusions Ahmed.”

            They should have but didn’t. There are reports of individual British helping. So it’s not worth arguing given all of the other lies he’s managed to throw up in the air.

          • defcon 4

            I did read about some British soldiers turning over police stations to Jewish freedom fighters, but the UK as a country did nothing to help Israel. I believe the only country that did assist the Jewish freedom fighters was Czechoslovakia.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I did read about some British soldiers turning over police stations to Jewish freedom fighters, but the UK as a country did nothing to help Israel.”

            Police stations are a great example. Many were built in to small old fortresses. Not huge, but still helpful.

            I have video from a few speeches the government officials made before bugging out with their shoulders shrugged. What’s an empire to do in the face of jihad when it wants oil contracts and safe passage to and from India?

            OTOH, many soldiers and others on the scene did feel they were wrong to abandon the Israelis. But by and large the UK government did more harm than good, and helped the jihadis many times when they should not have.

          • defcon 4

            The Brits trained and formed the Arab Legion, a legion that would’ve been a lot happier fighting for the nazis and was complicit in the anti-Jewish pogrom in Baghdad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In fact, according to Benny Morris herehttp://youtu.be/oEn2o_Jr3VA Zioniss would never have been able to erect the state of Israel in ’48 without massive support from the British. Or are going to call him a psychopath and bigot as well? It’s also true that the Brits betrayed the Arabs horribly, read up on the Syke-Piccoult agreement.”

            This particular comment only proves that you’re a bit scatterbrained as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://history1900s.about.com/cs/holocaust/p/balfourdeclare.htm

            Balfour Declaration: 1917. But what’s 31 years between a few friends and a few million people that want to kill each other?

            “It’s also true that the Brits betrayed the Arabs horribly, read up on the Syke-Piccoult agreement.”

            If we assume that the UK are the parents of the Arabs, and that the Arabs are too young to be accountable for their own actions. Typical leftist BS.

    • Oracle9

      Some helpful advice for you…

      If you wish to understand the truth, you need to learn facts, not interpretations. The two are completely different. Initial errors pollute further learning, sort of like practicing poor technique on a musical instrument.

      You should realize that Israel has never invaded any other country. It has however fought many conflicts defensively.

      You mention that you read history. Not all narratives outline the truth. I would suggest that you consult sources which give honest assessments of the events. Actually gaining some experience of the region will also be valuable.

      That is, if it’s the truth you seek.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        He likes to quote radicals that quote Benny Morris out of context. He’s got nothing new. We’ve been through this a number of times before with fairly extensive conversation threads.

        • Oracle9

          Yeah, there is a seemingly endless quantity of useful idiots for the jihad, and it feels like talking to a wall trying to get a concept into a crystallized mind. There is little hope for the likes of glennd1 and his brainwashed brethren – the damage is for the most part incurable.

          The value in debunking is not for his benefit, but for bystanders who have not particularly formed any ideas on the big picture and are therefore vulnerable to propaganda.

          We need to check in with our youth for this reason, and within a generation or so we can undo the damage of six decades of self-hating anti-Western propaganda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The value in debunking is not for his benefit, but for bystanders who have not particularly formed any ideas on the big picture and are therefore vulnerable to propaganda.”

            Agreed 100%. If not for that I’d ignore him completely. You can see the extensive conversations I had with him at least 3 times or more (not counting the occasional passing remarks) in the “intense debate” archives.

            He’s got nothing new and can’t even adjust his tactics except now he’s even more vague with his accusations.

            As it is, I’ll respond here and there but not with the same urgency I’d have if this was the first time we’d been through this particular catalog of his.

          • Oracle9

            Thankless work. Forums won’t change the world but they are good practice for us to verbalize our talking points.

            I have some friends who have taken me to task for being so heavy and “radical” – that world news just bums them out and they would rather do the ostrich thing because developments either upset or bore them or more often, they tend to think that these events will not upset their cocoons.

            It’s good to see that many of us are concerned enough to be paying attention.

            Cheers!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I have some friends who have taken me to task for being so heavy and “radical” – that world news just bums them out and they would rather do the ostrich thing because developments either upset or bore them or more often, they tend to think that these events will not upset their cocoons.”

            We have to focus on pivot points. There is no hope in teaching everyone in the neighborhood to think globally and care much more than they already do. They’ll let you know if any of them become read for that.

            But I understand and agree with your sentiments 100%. Actually what I do is organize a lot of programs for locals so that if some day they become interested, they already see me as someone they can trust. But that’s because I don’t do it just to plant seeds or prepare the ground for my agenda. Most of them will never hear anything political from me.

            But because they know I’m not motivated by hate and care more about them than I do about regional or global politics, those that do enter in to discussions will probably trust me a lot more than someone they meet randomly.

            All we can do is all we can do. Just take good care of yourself along the way as well.

          • Oracle9

            And the same wishes to you too. Keep spreading your light. Great chattin’ with ya!

          • Oracle9

            I am interested in knowing about any successes you have had in organizing programs. Seems almost everyone in my area is hard leftist and have succumbed to all its propaganda.

            One member on the flotilla (the Mavi Mamara flotilla) a couple years ago came to town to whine about the experience, and I really wanted to go for the Q&A. I had reviewed all the Alinsky and Delphi techniques of silencing dissent from the party line, but I didn’t attend. I admit that at the time I didn’t feel like throwing myself at a room of angry leftist jihad supporters.

            But town meetings can be powerful – I would like to participate, and yet I feel a need to walk carefully to avoid a lawfare suit for speaking the truth.

            Folks here will eventually see what I see, and to actively help a healthy education process is of interest to me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I am interested in knowing about any successes you have had in organizing programs. Seems almost everyone in my area is hard leftist and have succumbed to all its propaganda.”

            Pet care, mostly how to teach dogs to reach their potential in obedience and house rules. Woodworking, advanced techniques and sensible recycling, organic gardening programs. I try to organize “train the trainer” so that I’m the “guru” rather than the busy bee but some times I have to do a lot of work to get it going. I try to find early leaders.

            I also do English lessons for people to get them started and then try to teach them how to fish rather than depending on others. Most students around the world have at least some English exposure but they need to practice and to push themselves a little more. I’ve also done basic photography and computer classes but the language, photography and computer classes are less effective because people tend to move on more quickly. A lot of times people form social groups around their pets when they work together at the start, and woodworkers some times form small businesses or have them already. Those result in longer term relationships usually.

            “But town meetings can be powerful – I would like to participate, and yet I feel a need to walk carefully to avoid a lawfare suit for speaking the truth.”

            You have to prove your bona fides by proving you are listening and that you can process complex information before distilling and summarizing it. So if your group activity also helps you break through stereotypes about “conservatives” that’s part of what works, but you also need to really want to do these things anyway.

            It’s easier to do that when you belong to a group of regulars who can vouch for you to newer members. But don’t make your arguments in ways that depend on popularity of course, which seems attractive to politicians. We don’t want to model ourselves on that. Just show that you care about the truth above all else, not your reputation but the propagation of the most accurate narratives that teach the facts people need to know.

            Also, try not to overstate your confidence when you’re still investigating something. People don’t ever actually expect you to know everything.

            I think that is how you build credibility at a grass roots level. It might not be a great way to build a political power base though, but I could be wrong.

            I’ll give it some more thought. I would guess that dog training and some kind of value-added (growing food and or reducing garbage hauling expenses) gardening groups would be the most effective and easiest to learn and lead. People love that everywhere and most of the time form lasting social groups around those. And you get the most love for your work because nature does most of it. You’re just introducing them to smart ideas.

            Keep in touch and maybe we can come up with some good ideas.

          • Oracle9

            I will think about your ideas and perhaps we can exchange a few ones which resonate! I pressed the “follow” option on your disqus profile – I am not that familiar with the process but through that I will be able to look you up. Thanks for the time and effort.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Any time.

          • glennd1

            I said nothing in support of Jihad or Islamists. Your Manichean mindset injects a dyad here, due to your biases, no mine.

          • defcon 4

            HUh? A “dyad”? I’m not reading anything musical here.

      • glennd1

        Giggling. Did Israel start the ’67 war or not? Just a test to see if you have any idea what is what.

        • defcon 4

          So airstrikes committed by Israel constitute grounds for a ground invasion by the forces of islam0fascism, but ten thousand rocket and mortar rounds fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip don’t?

        • therealpm

          No they didn’t start it. Nasser had already expelled the UN forces from Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. That was technically an act of war against Israel. No peace had ever been signed after the 1949 ceasefire, and Egypt had commenced renewed hostilities by disrupting Israeli trade. Israel was therefore fully justified in acting as she did on 5th June by destroying the Egyptian Air Force on the ground.

          It was obvious to everyone at the time that a war in the Middle East was imminent. Israel did what was necessary to ensure her survival.

        • defcon 4

          I’ll bet you giggle at islam0fascist beheading videos as well.

        • Oracle9

          The UAR started the war. It’s not about who fires the first shot but who makes the first shot inevitable. You need to study the diplomatic run-up to the war.

          I am not anti-Arab but I am against anyone determined to wipe out its neighbor.

          Like I said, gain some experience. You parrot propaganda but have little understanding, and I would bet that you have never set foot in the region.

          Being impervious to all the points politely presented to you by myself and others makes me wonder about your motivation.

    • Omar

      Zionists didn’t steal any land at all. They are in their historic homeland. Islamists, on the other hand, want to conquer the world. That’s the reality.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        If they didn’t steal any land, why would the “Palestinians” keep saying it?

        I’m so confused.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      God you are boring.

      • defcon 4

        It’s always the same old parade of antisemitic lies as well.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The guy just bounces back here periodically and pretends he haven’t already destroyed all of his BS arguments. It’s like those past conversations never happened.

          “I’m anti-Islam because they’re aggressive against gays but why would Jihadis want to hurt Jews? It’s the Jews that caused it all I tell you! Ethnic cleansing! Benny Morris said so!!!!!”

          What a myopic psychopath he is.

          • glennd1

            So, I’m a myopic psychopath and an anti-semite because I base my views on facts and disagree with you? Hmm, so you are saying a sane person could not oppose and criticize Zionism? Is that what you think dialog and argument are about? Demonizing those who disagree with you as crazy and bigoted?

            For the record, I’ve never uttered an anti-semitic word ever here, or elsewhere. Check it – never. I have no tolerance for such people.

            You guys don’t realize it – you are doing to me the same thing the left does to right wingers. They dismiss the right as bigoted and crazy, just like you’ve done to me. But of course, I’m nothing of the sort. I don’t even really care if the Zionists win or lose, I just don’t see it as a moral case that demands American support, and believe that the Arab Muslims who were cleansed and are oppressed by Israel to this day deserve to at least have the truth be told about what was done to them. I certainly would never side with them because it has been infused inseparably with Islamism.

            But keep slurring me and lying about me. It only shows what lowlifes you folks are, rather than making any dent in my character or standing.

          • defcon 4

            Do you think no one sees through your clever (guffaw) Zionist euphemism?

          • Drakken

            Hey dumbazz! If Israel goes, we are next ok moron? Useful idiot isolationist always forget that war is always on the doorstep and always choose to ignore it until something blows up. Your character has been weighed and measured and have been found extremely wanting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So, I’m a myopic psychopath and an anti-semite because I base my views on facts and disagree with you? Hmm, so you are saying a sane person could not oppose and criticize Zionism? Is that what you think dialog and argument are about? Demonizing those who disagree with you as crazy and bigoted?”

            The facts support my views. We’ve been over this a number of times in the past 6+ months. With extensive discussions. You are unbending with your deceptive dogmas and show no sign that you can deal with any degree of uncertainty. You think your dogmas are the bottom line. And you fail completely in dealing with jihadi aggression. You only mention it in passing by saying, “well I’m not for that either” without even acknowledging in any way that it’s a root cause, the root cause of the conflict.

            Therefore you are a myopic psychopath and an anti-semite, which has nothing to do with me personally other than I’m the one who recently tried patiently to explain these things to you.

          • defcon 4

            But he’s “anti-islamist!”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But he’s “anti-islamist!”"

            In theory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For the record, I’ve never uttered an anti-semitic word ever here, or elsewhere. Check it – never. I have no tolerance for such people.”

            Which words must be uttered to prove antisemitic bigotry? List please.

            I will say that it’s possible you are a dupe of the antisemites. In effect, you are an antisemite because you hold the Jews accountable for resisting their oppressors. You hold only them up to unrealistic standards of moral perfection.

            You say that you are not pro-jihad and so forth, and I get that you’re not necessarily trying to cover for them. But your simple argument is basically that you agree jihadis are no good, but you want to use emotional arguments with culled facts and nebulous accusations as if the Israelis are not in fact responding to jihad.

            That’s not coherent, but the way you argue means a lot of people might not get that point. Especially if they buy in to the Muslims are victims leftist BS.

            So your arguments depend greatly on leftist and Islamic ideology. Your defense is that you dislike leftists, jihadis and Israelis equally. But that doesn’t excuse your lack of coherency.

      • glennd1

        Blah, blah, blah – u do the same thing every time. Here are some basic facts that you can’t overcome, no matter what you say.

        1880 – Jewish population of Palestine is 2-3%, as it had been for over 1000 years. There were 2-3 times as many Christians living their throughout that period and given the “rules” Zionists use to come up with their absurd claims, Christians would have an even better claim to calling Palestine their homeland. In other words, the basic land claim is a joke.

        Revisionist Zionism a la Jabotinski insisted on creating a majority jewish state that necessitated cleansing big chunks of Palestine of the Arabs that lived there. This was discussed openly from the ’20s on.

        In ’48 the radical Zionists cleansed 500 villages, towns and cities of almost 1 million Arab Muslims, took the land and their possessions and redistributed them to Jews.

        For anyone not bored to the point of insanity by the tedious misrepresentations of Avi and ObjectiveFactsMatter, please keep the above in mind. The Zionists intended to clear Arab Muslims out of “their land” from the beginning of the project, and did so with a gusto. Period, dot end of sentence. As for their conduct since ’48, I’ll leave you with a couple of quotes from Benny Morris, the famous Zionist, Israeli, Jewish historian:

        T Rami al interviewed Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.

        Morris: “As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else.
        The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

        He also said this in Righteous Victims:

        “Israelis like to tell the world, that they are running an ‘enlightened’ or ‘benign’ occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation.”

        This is a guy who Zionists now claim is on their side, lol. Here he is discussing the events of ’48 at the LSE. Anyone who thinks Zionists were like little lambs in the desert set upon by Arab wolves should watch this video of Morris speaking in its entirety. http://youtu.be/oEn2o_Jr3VA – He’s no Ilan Poppe.

        My point, again, is that there is no reason for the U.S. to support any of this. And to ignore the truth the way feral Zionists do here is despicable.

        • Drakken

          Hey genius, the jews won the wars your arab muzzys started, to the victor go the spoils, so suck it up sparky.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Morris: “As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else.
          The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.””

          Dumbass, your entire case is built on the fact that history is taught to kids in simplistic rather than nuanced ways. No, many or even most of the refugees didn’t simply run away. Some did, but probably as much out of fear of getting caught in the war that the jihadis started as opposed to fear of disobeying orders from foreign Arab armies.

          It doesn’t change the fact that the Israelis were not the belligerents and all of their violence was justified.

          The rest of your nonsense is reading tea leaves and making stupid accusations without every thinking to wonder what the belligerents had going on this whole time as if the Israelis were plotting nefarious projects against “peaceful indigenous” people.

          You are clearly a maniacal lunatic that doesn’t know what objectivity is. You display no signs of any degree of objectivity. You made up your mind and sought out “facts” from propaganda to quote. That’s your game.

  • sydchaden

    The USA, Europe, and indeed, the world, did nothing to stop, or even interfere with the Holocaust, and they will not do anything to prevent another one. Israel’s nuclear weapon capability is what really has prevented a massive Muslim attack on Israel. It is the threat of a retaliatory nuclear strike on Damascus that has held Syria off in the past, not Israel’s conventional military, and that is generally true for all of the major Muslim countries. Obama says that the US has Israel’s back, but US support constrains Israel, not the Muslim countries. The historical truth is that the US has stopped Israel from achieving conclusive military victories over the Muslim countries, but the US has not stopped Muslim countries from attacking Israel. The emerging threat from Iran is of the greatest immediate concern, because Iran possesses missiles that can strike Israel with nuclear warheads, and Obama has once again demonstrated that his promises are empty. Israel cannot and should not depend upon the US to prevent its destruction.

    • therealpm

      Israel would not need to resort to its nuclear weapons to handle Syria, or any other Arab country. Syria would not dare to attack Israel because they know that the Israeli army could be in Damascus within a week. As you say, it was only Superpower intervention in the past that has stopped the Israelis achieving decisive victories over their Arab enemies.

  • Duct Tape

    I think I would much rather be a citizen of Israel than of the United States right now. The US is headed towards a certain downfall because of Obama and his muslim cronies in the WH. The US is finished, and only Israel has the internal fortitude to do what’s right.

    • defcon 4

      I wonder if people who criticise islam are going to be thrown in jail for doing so in our new magical, lieberal, mufti-cultural future.

      • therealpm

        That has certainly been increasingly happening in Europe, so I suppose it’s a joy on its way to America. I’m sure Obama would love to introduce sharia law if he thought he could get away with it.

        • defcon 4

          He probably doesn’t think the can pull of a dictatorship…yet.

    • Hetero+AmorphousMediaDigitalis

      Stop insulting the President of the United States.

      Obama is a Christian raised by white grandparents.
      He blew up 5 arab countries and tried to attack Syria.
      Obama is no Arab or Muslim.

      Stop insulting our President.

  • tedh754

    I am not a Jew, and I am not an Israeli. But when they say “Never Again!” I believe them. So no matter what the Euroclowns or the idiots in Washington do, Israel will do whatever is required to survive, and the detractors be damned. As they will be. Literally.

  • Avi

    All this and more goes to prove that Obama is nothing other than a Moslem Trojan Horse that has made it to the White House, the center of Western power, by hook or by crook. Only by keeping this basic truth in mind is it possible to explain and foresee all his actions, and to act intelligently in reaction and in anticipation. It is possible that Bibi is aware of this, but he does not seem to be or maybe he is in denial. The best thing for Israel to do is to come out in the open and say Obama (not America) is an enemy – a fake president and danger to both Israel and America. And of course, Israel must bomb Iran immediately; they have waited too long, so long that they have convinced themselves they cannot do it. They can and must.

  • Mladen_Andrijasevic

    When the meeting broke up at 1:30 am, noted Schmidt,”Chamberlain bid a hearty farewell to the Führer.” As he left the Dreesen, a newspaperman intercepted him to ask: “Is it hopeless, sir?” Chamberlain replied: “I would not like to say that. It is up to the Czechs now.” In other words, peace was possible unless the Czechs stubbornly insisted on defending their homeland.

    whereas I will just quote from Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm, pages 301, 302:

    The subjugation of Czechoslovakia robbed the Allies of the Czech army of twenty-one regular divisions, fifteen or sixteen second line divisions already mobilized, and also their mountain fortress line, which in the days of Munich had required the deployment of thirty German divisions, or the main strength of the mobile and fully-trained German Army. According to Generals Halder and Jodl, there were but thirteen German divisions, of which only five were composed of first line troops , left in the West at the time of the Munich arrangement.

    In 1935 France, unaided by her previous allies, could have invaded and reoccupied Germany almost without serious fighting. In 1936 there could still be no doubt of her overwhelmingly superior strength. We now know, from the German revelations, that this continued in 1938, and it was the knowledge of their weakness which led the German High Command to do their utmost to retrain Hitler from every one of his successful strokes by which his fame was enhanced

    • Mike

      Nice write up.

      More people should read it and see that appeasement is such a waste.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Extremely good writing, on this subject. I will add that had Hitler actually attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938, resulting in the decisive defeat of the German forces, the military was prepared to remove him and his government from power. How different the world would have been.

      As Mike stated, appeasement is a waste.

      • Mladen_Andrijasevic

        Indeed. Had France and England threatened Germany to go to war over Czechoslovakia if Hitler invaded, Hitler would have backed out or else would have been overthrown. Here is the reference from The Last Lion, Alone ,1932 -1940 page 325)

        William L. Shirer will write: “Germany was in no position to go to war on October 1, 1938” – the date Hitler had set, and would cling to “against Czechoslovakia and France and Britain… Had she done so, she would have been quickly and easily defeated, and that would have been the end of Hitler and the Third Reich.

        It wouldn’t have gone that far. Conspirators in the OKG would have intervened. At Nuremberg eight years later Field Marshal Keitel was asked to describe the Generalstab’s reaction to Chamberlain’s Munich sellout, and he replied: “ We were extraordinary happy [ausserordentlich glucklich] that it had not come to a military operation because…. We had always been of the opinion that our means of attack against the frontier fortifications of Czechoslovakia were insufficient. .” General Franz Halder, interrogated by an American officer towards the end of the Nuremberg trials, testified that the Czech issue inspired he Generals’ plot against Hitler. Had the Fuhrer ordered the attack in 1938, he said “It had been planned to occupy by military force the Reich Chancellery and those government officers, particularly ministries, which were administered by party members and close supporters of Hitler with the express intention of avoiding bloodshed and then trying the group before the whole German nation”.

        • defcon 4

          I wish we had some military leaders in the US who had that kind of courage now.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Obama decided this issue years ago. Thirty years of hoping for a Green Revolution in Iran and what did Obama do?

    Fundamental change-for US not them.

  • defcon 4

    It would be nice if your sane proposals would work, but in a world increasing beholden to islam0fascism, logic and reason take a back seat to islam0fascist dogma, islamic supremacy and Jew hatred.

  • rebaaron

    Better to deal with any “diplomatic hell” rather than a nuclear Iran. It’s so much safer.

  • Von200

    Israel is NOT alone ; “But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.” Isaiah 43:1