<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UNRWA Dean Finds Inspiration in Hitler</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Veracious_one</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5330632</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Veracious_one]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5330632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The mask has not merely slipped in 
Gaza. It is entirely off. Jihad, jihad, jihad. Use the word. The Arabs 
and Muslims are using it, day after day, not least in Gaza. It is a 
Jihad. It is prompted by the tenets of Islam, and those tenets do not 
say &quot;compromise with the Infidels.&quot; Those tenets do not say &quot;leave them 
with a tiny rump state.&quot; Those tenets do not say &quot;Push them back to the 
pre-1967 armistice lines&quot; or &quot;Push them back until they are sufficiently
 small.&quot; No, Islam tells Muslims not to countenance, not to endure, any 
Infidel state, any state which permits non-Muslims the right to 
determine their own destiny, any entity or institution which would allow
 non-Muslims that modicum of power that would keep them from being 
reduced to the status of dhimmis -- no, neither the Qur&#039;an, nor the 
Hadith, nor the example of Muhammad himself, permits such an 
interpretation. 

Some, but not enough, Israelis, have come to understand this -- not 
enough in time to prevent the Gaza disaster. But whether the Israelis do
 or do not come to comprehend their enemy and the relentless Jihad 
against them, that is no reason for the rest of us, the Infidels outside
 the Middle East, not to recognize the nature of the war against Israel 
and how it merely prefigures, and is not the cause of, the larger 
world-wide Jihad against all Infidels, to be conducted with whatever 
means prove most efficacious. It does not make sense to pursue open 
military challenges to the West. It does make sense to divide and 
demoralize and terrorize not only that West, but all parts of the 
Infidel population, whether or not they are within dar al-Islam: the 
Christians who remain in the Middle East, along with the Jews in Israel,
 as well as the Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians in such Muslim-ruled
 countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, or even within 
Infidel lands where a small Muslim population still manages, as in 
Europe or Thailand or the Philippines or even India, to conduct attacks 
on Infidels despite the disparity in numbers. 
                                    

                                    
                                        

Why is it that the 
Western world and Americans in particular fail to comprehend this and 
waste time actually ignoring the problem of Islam and pretending that 
the matter can somehow be solved if alternative regimes -- a primitive 
democracy rather than a primitive despotism in Iraq, for example -- will
 somehow help to contain the threat of Islam? It will do no such thing. 
The way to contain Islam is not to better the lot, still less to 
sacrifice one&#039;s own men and materiel and money to do so, of Muslims, 
however plausible some of the westernized representatives (Shalabi, Rend
 al-Rahim Francke, Kanan Makiya, Allawi himself), the unrepresentative 
representatives, may be. Rather, the way to contain Islam is  to play 
upon and exploit the natural divisions within this or that Muslim state 
or population, so as to turn Muslim against Muslim, or, in the case of 
the Kurds, by supporting them to the hilt, to make the case of all 
non-Arab Muslims everywhere who wish to shake off the dominance of the 
Arab supremacist ideology for which Islam has always been a vehicle.  

While the mask is off in Gaza, Western dhimmis are doing their utmost
 to keep it in place. I just finished watching a propaganda piece on the
 Bill Moyers show. It was all about some &quot;Palestinian&quot; Arab widows 
trying to make a go of it as the start-up owners of a pickle factory. I 
did not count the many occasions on which it was suggested -- no, stated
 -- that everything depended on Allah, the number of times &quot;Inshallah&quot; 
(God willing) and other phrases were inserted into conversations, not as
 mere rhetoric, but as expressions of deep belief. Inshallah-fatalism is
 not conducive to economic activity. It has its points: it can reconcile
 one to a miserable condition and even to the injustice of the very 
belief-system that is almost entirely responsible for that miserable 
condition. But industriousness, entrepreneurial flair, and the constant 
attention to detail that modern economies require are simply 
incompatible with the lessons and tenets of Islam, and the overall 
attitude of inshallah-fatalism cannot be ignored, for it pervades 
everything. 

After the propaganda show was over, Moyers interviewed one Azza 
Karam, an Egyptian woman described as connected to the U.N. Commission 
on Arab Development (or some such name). She of course, when asked about
 the possible connection between the teachings of Islam and the 
miserable condition of these widows and of women under Islam, referred 
to &quot;tribal culture.&quot; One would think that the cities of Islam -- from 
Cairo and Tunis and Damascus, all the way to Karachi and Dacca and 
Jakarta, owed the treatment of women to some &quot;tribal culture.&quot; And even 
if one could pretend that &quot;tribal culture&quot; rather than Islam was 
responsible for the treatment of women in, say, Iraq (which does have a 
tribal culture in many areas), could the same be said for Cairo? And 
even if we were to pretend that this &quot;tribal culture&quot; explained the 
position of women in the Middle East and North Africa, what &quot;tribal 
culture&quot; is there in Jakarta? 

And even if we were, just for the hell of it, to pretend that it was 
&quot;tribal culture&quot; that explained the mistreatment of women everywhere in 
dar al-Islam, then how would we explain the same mistreatment of Muslim 
women in the Muslim areas of London, Paris, Milan, and Barcelona? The 
lingering effects of &quot;tribal culture&quot;? And what about the treatment of 
Western women who marry Muslim men, whether those women &quot;revert&quot; to 
Islam (i.e., convert) or not? Is their mistreatment, which has been so 
widely reported (not least after they flee those marriages that are 
often of convenience -- to the green-card seeking Muslim groom), the 
result of their &quot;tribal culture&quot;? 

The viewer saw Azza Karam&#039;s attempt to defend Islam at all costs -- 
in her constant refusal to even permit the slightest hint that just 
maybe, there was something in the Qur&#039;an, in the Hadith, in the Sira, 
that might cause Muslim men to act as they do (and there is, there is), 
and put the kind of restrictions they do on Muslim women -- as the 
transparent taqiyya it is. But no matter how often one views this 
spectacle -- of the Muslim who is intelligent, personable (up to a 
point), and seemingly part of the same rational universe, and yet who 
suddenly reveals that coute que coute, that person is going to lie 
about, to dissimulate, to hide, the truth about Islam, for Islam must 
never ever be subject to a hint of criticism – it is always stunning. 

Really, Azza Karam&#039;s performance was astonishing, and most 
enlightening. One hopes that many non-Muslims will be able to -- as we 
old vaudevillians say -- catch her act. The things she does with masks 
are breathtaking.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The mask has not merely slipped in<br />
Gaza. It is entirely off. Jihad, jihad, jihad. Use the word. The Arabs<br />
and Muslims are using it, day after day, not least in Gaza. It is a<br />
Jihad. It is prompted by the tenets of Islam, and those tenets do not<br />
say &#8220;compromise with the Infidels.&#8221; Those tenets do not say &#8220;leave them<br />
with a tiny rump state.&#8221; Those tenets do not say &#8220;Push them back to the<br />
pre-1967 armistice lines&#8221; or &#8220;Push them back until they are sufficiently<br />
 small.&#8221; No, Islam tells Muslims not to countenance, not to endure, any<br />
Infidel state, any state which permits non-Muslims the right to<br />
determine their own destiny, any entity or institution which would allow<br />
 non-Muslims that modicum of power that would keep them from being<br />
reduced to the status of dhimmis &#8212; no, neither the Qur&#8217;an, nor the<br />
Hadith, nor the example of Muhammad himself, permits such an<br />
interpretation. </p>
<p>Some, but not enough, Israelis, have come to understand this &#8212; not<br />
enough in time to prevent the Gaza disaster. But whether the Israelis do<br />
 or do not come to comprehend their enemy and the relentless Jihad<br />
against them, that is no reason for the rest of us, the Infidels outside<br />
 the Middle East, not to recognize the nature of the war against Israel<br />
and how it merely prefigures, and is not the cause of, the larger<br />
world-wide Jihad against all Infidels, to be conducted with whatever<br />
means prove most efficacious. It does not make sense to pursue open<br />
military challenges to the West. It does make sense to divide and<br />
demoralize and terrorize not only that West, but all parts of the<br />
Infidel population, whether or not they are within dar al-Islam: the<br />
Christians who remain in the Middle East, along with the Jews in Israel,<br />
 as well as the Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians in such Muslim-ruled<br />
 countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, or even within<br />
Infidel lands where a small Muslim population still manages, as in<br />
Europe or Thailand or the Philippines or even India, to conduct attacks<br />
on Infidels despite the disparity in numbers. </p>
<p>Why is it that the<br />
Western world and Americans in particular fail to comprehend this and<br />
waste time actually ignoring the problem of Islam and pretending that<br />
the matter can somehow be solved if alternative regimes &#8212; a primitive<br />
democracy rather than a primitive despotism in Iraq, for example &#8212; will<br />
 somehow help to contain the threat of Islam? It will do no such thing.<br />
The way to contain Islam is not to better the lot, still less to<br />
sacrifice one&#8217;s own men and materiel and money to do so, of Muslims,<br />
however plausible some of the westernized representatives (Shalabi, Rend<br />
 al-Rahim Francke, Kanan Makiya, Allawi himself), the unrepresentative<br />
representatives, may be. Rather, the way to contain Islam is  to play<br />
upon and exploit the natural divisions within this or that Muslim state<br />
or population, so as to turn Muslim against Muslim, or, in the case of<br />
the Kurds, by supporting them to the hilt, to make the case of all<br />
non-Arab Muslims everywhere who wish to shake off the dominance of the<br />
Arab supremacist ideology for which Islam has always been a vehicle.  </p>
<p>While the mask is off in Gaza, Western dhimmis are doing their utmost<br />
 to keep it in place. I just finished watching a propaganda piece on the<br />
 Bill Moyers show. It was all about some &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; Arab widows<br />
trying to make a go of it as the start-up owners of a pickle factory. I<br />
did not count the many occasions on which it was suggested &#8212; no, stated<br />
 &#8212; that everything depended on Allah, the number of times &#8220;Inshallah&#8221;<br />
(God willing) and other phrases were inserted into conversations, not as<br />
 mere rhetoric, but as expressions of deep belief. Inshallah-fatalism is<br />
 not conducive to economic activity. It has its points: it can reconcile<br />
 one to a miserable condition and even to the injustice of the very<br />
belief-system that is almost entirely responsible for that miserable<br />
condition. But industriousness, entrepreneurial flair, and the constant<br />
attention to detail that modern economies require are simply<br />
incompatible with the lessons and tenets of Islam, and the overall<br />
attitude of inshallah-fatalism cannot be ignored, for it pervades<br />
everything. </p>
<p>After the propaganda show was over, Moyers interviewed one Azza<br />
Karam, an Egyptian woman described as connected to the U.N. Commission<br />
on Arab Development (or some such name). She of course, when asked about<br />
 the possible connection between the teachings of Islam and the<br />
miserable condition of these widows and of women under Islam, referred<br />
to &#8220;tribal culture.&#8221; One would think that the cities of Islam &#8212; from<br />
Cairo and Tunis and Damascus, all the way to Karachi and Dacca and<br />
Jakarta, owed the treatment of women to some &#8220;tribal culture.&#8221; And even<br />
if one could pretend that &#8220;tribal culture&#8221; rather than Islam was<br />
responsible for the treatment of women in, say, Iraq (which does have a<br />
tribal culture in many areas), could the same be said for Cairo? And<br />
even if we were to pretend that this &#8220;tribal culture&#8221; explained the<br />
position of women in the Middle East and North Africa, what &#8220;tribal<br />
culture&#8221; is there in Jakarta? </p>
<p>And even if we were, just for the hell of it, to pretend that it was<br />
&#8220;tribal culture&#8221; that explained the mistreatment of women everywhere in<br />
dar al-Islam, then how would we explain the same mistreatment of Muslim<br />
women in the Muslim areas of London, Paris, Milan, and Barcelona? The<br />
lingering effects of &#8220;tribal culture&#8221;? And what about the treatment of<br />
Western women who marry Muslim men, whether those women &#8220;revert&#8221; to<br />
Islam (i.e., convert) or not? Is their mistreatment, which has been so<br />
widely reported (not least after they flee those marriages that are<br />
often of convenience &#8212; to the green-card seeking Muslim groom), the<br />
result of their &#8220;tribal culture&#8221;? </p>
<p>The viewer saw Azza Karam&#8217;s attempt to defend Islam at all costs &#8212;<br />
in her constant refusal to even permit the slightest hint that just<br />
maybe, there was something in the Qur&#8217;an, in the Hadith, in the Sira,<br />
that might cause Muslim men to act as they do (and there is, there is),<br />
and put the kind of restrictions they do on Muslim women &#8212; as the<br />
transparent taqiyya it is. But no matter how often one views this<br />
spectacle &#8212; of the Muslim who is intelligent, personable (up to a<br />
point), and seemingly part of the same rational universe, and yet who<br />
suddenly reveals that coute que coute, that person is going to lie<br />
about, to dissimulate, to hide, the truth about Islam, for Islam must<br />
never ever be subject to a hint of criticism – it is always stunning. </p>
<p>Really, Azza Karam&#8217;s performance was astonishing, and most<br />
enlightening. One hopes that many non-Muslims will be able to &#8212; as we<br />
old vaudevillians say &#8212; catch her act. The things she does with masks<br />
are breathtaking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Veracious_one</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258501</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Veracious_one]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[here is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated
 process in the Arab–Israel conflict.  The process started in 1937 and 
has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent
 74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel, 
promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews.  Israel
 wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace 
offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a
 while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers 
peace.  Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the 
Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>here is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated<br />
 process in the Arab–Israel conflict.  The process started in 1937 and<br />
has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent<br />
 74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel,<br />
promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews.  Israel<br />
 wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace<br />
offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a<br />
 while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers<br />
peace.  Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the<br />
Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onegoodnathan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258391</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[onegoodnathan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 04:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[haha...are you capable of an original thought?


fact--the british mandate for palestine is irrelevant, it was legally superceded by UN resolution 181


fact--according to the geneva conventions definition those lands are occupied and Israel is in violation of seizing land during war.


fact--according to the international court of justice the settlements in the west bank are illegal, &amp; it isnt even a close adjudication .


fact--Israel and the US are consistently the only 2 states voting against UN 2 state resolutions. even Iran has voted in favor


the semantics in these conjecture laden responses you quoted mean next to nothing and do not address Israel&#039;s repeated illegalities perpetrated in the eyes of the world&#039;s governing bodies.


you can stay brainwashed to your propaganda or wake up to the realities of having even an opportunity for peace.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>haha&#8230;are you capable of an original thought?</p>
<p>fact&#8211;the british mandate for palestine is irrelevant, it was legally superceded by UN resolution 181</p>
<p>fact&#8211;according to the geneva conventions definition those lands are occupied and Israel is in violation of seizing land during war.</p>
<p>fact&#8211;according to the international court of justice the settlements in the west bank are illegal, &amp; it isnt even a close adjudication .</p>
<p>fact&#8211;Israel and the US are consistently the only 2 states voting against UN 2 state resolutions. even Iran has voted in favor</p>
<p>the semantics in these conjecture laden responses you quoted mean next to nothing and do not address Israel&#8217;s repeated illegalities perpetrated in the eyes of the world&#8217;s governing bodies.</p>
<p>you can stay brainwashed to your propaganda or wake up to the realities of having even an opportunity for peace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Veracious_one</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258381</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Veracious_one]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 04:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lebanon’s Daily Star carries an article today with the headline: “Jordan&#039;s king to visit Occupied Territories, Israel.”

The word &quot;occupied&quot; needs to be carefully examined. It is ordinarily 
used when the country deemed to be the occupier has no claim to the land
 it occupies, and is only there temporarily, following a conflict, with 
no intention or right to remain. 

Thus &quot;Occupied Paris&quot; or &quot;Occupied France.&quot; Thus &quot;Occupied Germany&quot; 
or &quot;Occupied Japan&quot; after the war. But to use the word &quot;occupied lands&quot; 
for lands which are part of the Mandate for Palestine is another matter.
 These lands were part of the two Ottoman vilayets that were 
deliberately set aside by the League of Nations, after the breakup of 
the Ottoman Empire, for the establishment of the Jewish National Home. 
This was done on the perfectly reasonable and indeed irreproachable 
theory that like the Arabs (who were promised one Arab State), the Kurds
 (who ultimately never got any state), and the Armenians (ditto, except 
for a Soviet republic, only recently made independent), the Jews could 
be given a state of their own. The moral, legal, and historic claim of 
the Jews --  some of whom had left the Middle East after the 
Jihad-conquest by the Arabs in the 7th century, and some of whom had 
remained to live as dhimmis in Iraq, Syria, Judea itself, Yemen, and 
North Africa -- would be seen by fair-minded person who had bothered to 
investigate the matter as an overwhelming claim.
                                    

                                    
                                        

Indeed, when the 
British, who had made solemn commitments under their power as mandatory 
authority, simply closed off all of Eastern Palestine (which went to 
form present-day Jordan) in 1921, the Mandates Commission of the League 
of Nations was horrified. Arab propagandists --Rami Khouri, Rashid 
Khalidi, Saeb Erekat, and so on -- like to refer rather quickly, and 
self-assuredly, to &quot;occupied Arab lands&quot; (or variants on the phrase) 
knowing that their interviewer or interlocutor will never stop to 
question them, about the long history of the word &quot;Palestine&quot; (and what 
it was defined as in Western Christendom) and the brief history of the 
phrase &quot;Palestinian people,&quot; about the real understandings, and 
weighings of claims, and equities, that lay behind the League of 
Nations&#039; decision to create, as it created other mandates in the Middle 
East and elsewhere, the Mandate for Palestine. Nor is much attention 
given by the BBC, or &quot;The Guardian,&quot; or RF1 or &quot;Le Monde,&quot; or NPR or any
 number of newspaper reporters, to another matter: the precise data on 
demography and land ownership (cadastral records) in what the Western 
world, but never the Islamic one until the last century, always referred
 to as &quot;Palestine&quot; or the Holy Land. 

How many people discussing &quot;Palestine&quot; realize that in the Ottoman 
Empire, nearly 90% of the land in the vilayets (and a separate sanjak 
for Jerusalem) which formed  &quot;Palestine&quot; was owned by the Ottoman state?
 How many know that until the 1948 war, what land the Jews could buy 
from Arab landlords was bought at exorbitant prices, and at what prices?
 How many know that the State of Israel is the legitimate and intended 
successor of the Mandatory authority, Great Britain, which in its turn 
had inherited the land owned by the Ottoman state? How many know that 
the entire settled population (i.e., exclusive of the Bedouin who 
wandered from Egypt to the Arabian desert) of the land that then went to
 form the &quot;Palestine Mandate&quot; could not, in 1850, have been more than 
100,000 in all? How many have bothered to read the accounts of 
travellers, from Volney to Chateaubriand, to Melville and Mark Twain, 
who all described the fantastic desolation and ruination of the Holy 
Land in the 19th century -- until the revival of economic opportunities 
as the Jews began to come back? Arab in-migration, mostly illegal, 
exceeded Jewish migration into the very mandatory territory during the 
entire pre-World War II life of the Mandate. 

And, of course, there is always the little matter of that absurd 
phrase, and more absurd concept, the &quot;Palestinian people&quot; -- a phrase 
which, if you care to look for it, you will find employed not once prior
 to the 1967 war by any Arab spokesman or leader anywhere, not in the 
world&#039;s press, not in the Arab press, not in any speech or piece of 
paper offered up, among the hundreds of thousands of speeches and pieces
 of paper, offered up on the Arab side, including all those at the 
United Nations. 

Look through the entire U.N. records and try, in 1948, or 1953, or 
1956, or 1959, or 1966, to find a single mention of the &quot;Palestinian 
people.&quot; 

And you won&#039;t find one. 

Here&#039;s an example of how to use the word &quot;occupied&quot; properly. But 
before reading the setnence below,  first, banish all use of that 
post-1948 phrase &quot;West Bank&quot; and instead use, unembarrassedly and 
repeatedly, until it becomes second nature, and until you have forced 
others to use the terms as well (for it is all by dint of repetition 
that one succeeds in having right, or wrong, language employed) &quot;Judea 
and Samaria.&quot; These toponyms are not some invention of &quot;Biblical 
settlers&quot; deliberately changing history by making up terms. They 
appeared on all the maps throughout the Western world for nearly 2000 
years. In the Bible, of course, these placenames came naturally to, 
among others, Jesus.

And why should you use those terms if they make you at this point 
just a little bit embarrassed and self-conscious, as if to use them is 
to identify yourself as some Bible-belt holy-roller, some  o Jewish 
&quot;settler&quot; fanatic? The answer is that you have become a victim of 
incessant Arab propaganda, and have internalized what that propaganda 
has so successfully encouraged the world to believe about the venerable 
Biblical placenames &quot;Judea&quot; and &quot;Samaria.&quot; [They never got around to 
doing the same, amusingly, with the word &quot;Gaza,&quot; which is just as 
Biblical and just as identified with the Jewish history retold in the 
Old Testament, which is primarily a chronicle, a history, as are &quot;Judea&quot;
 and &quot;Samaria&quot; -- apparently the Egyptians, still under inattentive King
 Farouk, never thought it necessary to rename it -- after all, they had 
seized Gaza and never thought they might lose it again -- as the 
&quot;Northeastern Bank (of the Nile)&quot;].

But &quot;Judea&quot; and &quot;Samaria&quot; were used by the Jews for more than a 
thousand years before Jesus began to use those words, and so did all 
Christians for another nearly 2000 years, until the Arab Muslims came 
along in 1948 and began to make everyone forget those terms, be 
embarrassed by those placenames, and instead adopt, for two of the most 
important, though tiny places, in world history, the absurd phrase &quot;the 
West Bank&quot; -- a phrase which, of course, has meaning mainly for the 
Jordanians, and is not even geographically accurate, describing as it 
does a kind of ear-shaped area, and not a &quot;bank&quot; of land, of similar 
width along its entire length, parallel to the river in question -- the 
Jordan -- at all. 

If the Arabs ever get their wish, following upon the next 
&quot;Palestinian&quot; equivalent of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, and go in for 
the kill, and seize Jerusalem, and then begin calling it Al-Quds (just 
as the Umayyads seized Christian monuments and claimed them for Islam, 
not least in Jerusalem), how long would it be before the remaining 
Christians and Jews in the world would be dutifully calling it &quot;Al-Quds&quot;
 and looking a bit embarrassed about using that old word &quot;Jerusalem&quot;? 

In any case, if you are reading, and still with me, and prepared to 
use the terms &quot;Judea&quot; and &quot;Samaria&quot; as you should, you are then ready to
 pronounce the sentence below, which uses the word &quot;occupied&quot; with 
historical accuracy, and with due attention to the legal rights, under 
the Mandate, of the various parties. In other words, this sentence does 
NOT do what the BBC and much of the European press does, when they 
repeatedly inform us -- quite inaccurately, I&#039;m afraid, that the 
&quot;Palestinian people&quot; are &quot;struggling&quot; to &quot;get back&quot; their &quot;occupied 
lands.&quot;

The sentence is as follows:

&quot;In Judea and Samaria, lands that were part of the original Mandate 
for Palestine, and hence intended by that Mandate for the express 
purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, and now occupied in 
large part by Arabs, the Israelis should work to give those local Arabs a
 degree of autonomy that would be superior to that which the Arabs give 
to all the non-Arab minorities -- Sudanese blacks, Berbers, Kurds, and 
so on -- living under their rule, but should be discouraged from 
yielding up control of any of the territories they now possess, for in 
order to prevent war in the future, the Muslim Arab forces will be 
inhibited only where the doctine of &quot;darura,&quot; or necessity, can be 
invoked.&quot;

A long sentence but worth the wait, or perhaps one should say it is worth its weight.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lebanon’s Daily Star carries an article today with the headline: “Jordan&#8217;s king to visit Occupied Territories, Israel.”</p>
<p>The word &#8220;occupied&#8221; needs to be carefully examined. It is ordinarily<br />
used when the country deemed to be the occupier has no claim to the land<br />
 it occupies, and is only there temporarily, following a conflict, with<br />
no intention or right to remain. </p>
<p>Thus &#8220;Occupied Paris&#8221; or &#8220;Occupied France.&#8221; Thus &#8220;Occupied Germany&#8221;<br />
or &#8220;Occupied Japan&#8221; after the war. But to use the word &#8220;occupied lands&#8221;<br />
for lands which are part of the Mandate for Palestine is another matter.<br />
 These lands were part of the two Ottoman vilayets that were<br />
deliberately set aside by the League of Nations, after the breakup of<br />
the Ottoman Empire, for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.<br />
This was done on the perfectly reasonable and indeed irreproachable<br />
theory that like the Arabs (who were promised one Arab State), the Kurds<br />
 (who ultimately never got any state), and the Armenians (ditto, except<br />
for a Soviet republic, only recently made independent), the Jews could<br />
be given a state of their own. The moral, legal, and historic claim of<br />
the Jews &#8212;  some of whom had left the Middle East after the<br />
Jihad-conquest by the Arabs in the 7th century, and some of whom had<br />
remained to live as dhimmis in Iraq, Syria, Judea itself, Yemen, and<br />
North Africa &#8212; would be seen by fair-minded person who had bothered to<br />
investigate the matter as an overwhelming claim.</p>
<p>Indeed, when the<br />
British, who had made solemn commitments under their power as mandatory<br />
authority, simply closed off all of Eastern Palestine (which went to<br />
form present-day Jordan) in 1921, the Mandates Commission of the League<br />
of Nations was horrified. Arab propagandists &#8211;Rami Khouri, Rashid<br />
Khalidi, Saeb Erekat, and so on &#8212; like to refer rather quickly, and<br />
self-assuredly, to &#8220;occupied Arab lands&#8221; (or variants on the phrase)<br />
knowing that their interviewer or interlocutor will never stop to<br />
question them, about the long history of the word &#8220;Palestine&#8221; (and what<br />
it was defined as in Western Christendom) and the brief history of the<br />
phrase &#8220;Palestinian people,&#8221; about the real understandings, and<br />
weighings of claims, and equities, that lay behind the League of<br />
Nations&#8217; decision to create, as it created other mandates in the Middle<br />
East and elsewhere, the Mandate for Palestine. Nor is much attention<br />
given by the BBC, or &#8220;The Guardian,&#8221; or RF1 or &#8220;Le Monde,&#8221; or NPR or any<br />
 number of newspaper reporters, to another matter: the precise data on<br />
demography and land ownership (cadastral records) in what the Western<br />
world, but never the Islamic one until the last century, always referred<br />
 to as &#8220;Palestine&#8221; or the Holy Land. </p>
<p>How many people discussing &#8220;Palestine&#8221; realize that in the Ottoman<br />
Empire, nearly 90% of the land in the vilayets (and a separate sanjak<br />
for Jerusalem) which formed  &#8220;Palestine&#8221; was owned by the Ottoman state?<br />
 How many know that until the 1948 war, what land the Jews could buy<br />
from Arab landlords was bought at exorbitant prices, and at what prices?<br />
 How many know that the State of Israel is the legitimate and intended<br />
successor of the Mandatory authority, Great Britain, which in its turn<br />
had inherited the land owned by the Ottoman state? How many know that<br />
the entire settled population (i.e., exclusive of the Bedouin who<br />
wandered from Egypt to the Arabian desert) of the land that then went to<br />
 form the &#8220;Palestine Mandate&#8221; could not, in 1850, have been more than<br />
100,000 in all? How many have bothered to read the accounts of<br />
travellers, from Volney to Chateaubriand, to Melville and Mark Twain,<br />
who all described the fantastic desolation and ruination of the Holy<br />
Land in the 19th century &#8212; until the revival of economic opportunities<br />
as the Jews began to come back? Arab in-migration, mostly illegal,<br />
exceeded Jewish migration into the very mandatory territory during the<br />
entire pre-World War II life of the Mandate. </p>
<p>And, of course, there is always the little matter of that absurd<br />
phrase, and more absurd concept, the &#8220;Palestinian people&#8221; &#8212; a phrase<br />
which, if you care to look for it, you will find employed not once prior<br />
 to the 1967 war by any Arab spokesman or leader anywhere, not in the<br />
world&#8217;s press, not in the Arab press, not in any speech or piece of<br />
paper offered up, among the hundreds of thousands of speeches and pieces<br />
 of paper, offered up on the Arab side, including all those at the<br />
United Nations. </p>
<p>Look through the entire U.N. records and try, in 1948, or 1953, or<br />
1956, or 1959, or 1966, to find a single mention of the &#8220;Palestinian<br />
people.&#8221; </p>
<p>And you won&#8217;t find one. </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an example of how to use the word &#8220;occupied&#8221; properly. But<br />
before reading the setnence below,  first, banish all use of that<br />
post-1948 phrase &#8220;West Bank&#8221; and instead use, unembarrassedly and<br />
repeatedly, until it becomes second nature, and until you have forced<br />
others to use the terms as well (for it is all by dint of repetition<br />
that one succeeds in having right, or wrong, language employed) &#8220;Judea<br />
and Samaria.&#8221; These toponyms are not some invention of &#8220;Biblical<br />
settlers&#8221; deliberately changing history by making up terms. They<br />
appeared on all the maps throughout the Western world for nearly 2000<br />
years. In the Bible, of course, these placenames came naturally to,<br />
among others, Jesus.</p>
<p>And why should you use those terms if they make you at this point<br />
just a little bit embarrassed and self-conscious, as if to use them is<br />
to identify yourself as some Bible-belt holy-roller, some  o Jewish<br />
&#8220;settler&#8221; fanatic? The answer is that you have become a victim of<br />
incessant Arab propaganda, and have internalized what that propaganda<br />
has so successfully encouraged the world to believe about the venerable<br />
Biblical placenames &#8220;Judea&#8221; and &#8220;Samaria.&#8221; [They never got around to<br />
doing the same, amusingly, with the word "Gaza," which is just as<br />
Biblical and just as identified with the Jewish history retold in the<br />
Old Testament, which is primarily a chronicle, a history, as are "Judea"<br />
 and "Samaria" -- apparently the Egyptians, still under inattentive King<br />
 Farouk, never thought it necessary to rename it -- after all, they had<br />
seized Gaza and never thought they might lose it again -- as the<br />
"Northeastern Bank (of the Nile)"].</p>
<p>But &#8220;Judea&#8221; and &#8220;Samaria&#8221; were used by the Jews for more than a<br />
thousand years before Jesus began to use those words, and so did all<br />
Christians for another nearly 2000 years, until the Arab Muslims came<br />
along in 1948 and began to make everyone forget those terms, be<br />
embarrassed by those placenames, and instead adopt, for two of the most<br />
important, though tiny places, in world history, the absurd phrase &#8220;the<br />
West Bank&#8221; &#8212; a phrase which, of course, has meaning mainly for the<br />
Jordanians, and is not even geographically accurate, describing as it<br />
does a kind of ear-shaped area, and not a &#8220;bank&#8221; of land, of similar<br />
width along its entire length, parallel to the river in question &#8212; the<br />
Jordan &#8212; at all. </p>
<p>If the Arabs ever get their wish, following upon the next<br />
&#8220;Palestinian&#8221; equivalent of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, and go in for<br />
the kill, and seize Jerusalem, and then begin calling it Al-Quds (just<br />
as the Umayyads seized Christian monuments and claimed them for Islam,<br />
not least in Jerusalem), how long would it be before the remaining<br />
Christians and Jews in the world would be dutifully calling it &#8220;Al-Quds&#8221;<br />
 and looking a bit embarrassed about using that old word &#8220;Jerusalem&#8221;? </p>
<p>In any case, if you are reading, and still with me, and prepared to<br />
use the terms &#8220;Judea&#8221; and &#8220;Samaria&#8221; as you should, you are then ready to<br />
 pronounce the sentence below, which uses the word &#8220;occupied&#8221; with<br />
historical accuracy, and with due attention to the legal rights, under<br />
the Mandate, of the various parties. In other words, this sentence does<br />
NOT do what the BBC and much of the European press does, when they<br />
repeatedly inform us &#8212; quite inaccurately, I&#8217;m afraid, that the<br />
&#8220;Palestinian people&#8221; are &#8220;struggling&#8221; to &#8220;get back&#8221; their &#8220;occupied<br />
lands.&#8221;</p>
<p>The sentence is as follows:</p>
<p>&#8220;In Judea and Samaria, lands that were part of the original Mandate<br />
for Palestine, and hence intended by that Mandate for the express<br />
purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, and now occupied in<br />
large part by Arabs, the Israelis should work to give those local Arabs a<br />
 degree of autonomy that would be superior to that which the Arabs give<br />
to all the non-Arab minorities &#8212; Sudanese blacks, Berbers, Kurds, and<br />
so on &#8212; living under their rule, but should be discouraged from<br />
yielding up control of any of the territories they now possess, for in<br />
order to prevent war in the future, the Muslim Arab forces will be<br />
inhibited only where the doctine of &#8220;darura,&#8221; or necessity, can be<br />
invoked.&#8221;</p>
<p>A long sentence but worth the wait, or perhaps one should say it is worth its weight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onegoodnathan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258314</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[onegoodnathan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have read on the british mandate for palestine. it designated a territory for a Jewish homeland to be under direct british rule--not a state. this mandate was to be terminated and replaced by UN resolution 181 calling for a 2 state solution partition plan. the league of nations mandate has no relevance today per international law set by the UN. like I said Israel is also in violation of the geneva conventions by acquiring land through war. 


I used to be brainwashed by zionist propaganda like this until I started to read and really examine the dynamics of the conflict. I am in support of a 2 state solution but this, and peace, will never have a chance to be achieved as long as Israel continues to violate UN resolutions and International law by occupying land that is not theirs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have read on the british mandate for palestine. it designated a territory for a Jewish homeland to be under direct british rule&#8211;not a state. this mandate was to be terminated and replaced by UN resolution 181 calling for a 2 state solution partition plan. the league of nations mandate has no relevance today per international law set by the UN. like I said Israel is also in violation of the geneva conventions by acquiring land through war. </p>
<p>I used to be brainwashed by zionist propaganda like this until I started to read and really examine the dynamics of the conflict. I am in support of a 2 state solution but this, and peace, will never have a chance to be achieved as long as Israel continues to violate UN resolutions and International law by occupying land that is not theirs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Veracious_one</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258163</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Veracious_one]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fitzgerald: Occupation? What occupation?

                                
                                

                                    

                                        

Jihad Watch Board Vice 
President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the tendentious claims that Israel 
is maintaining an illegal &quot;occupation&quot; of Palestinian land -- claims 
evidently believed by the President of the United States:

A poster at Jihad Watch recently recommended that readers 
here acquire “knowledge of the day to day lives of the Palestinians and 
their experience under occupation.&quot; 

&quot;Occupation&quot;? What &quot;occupation&quot;? All the territories the Israelis now
 possess are theirs by legal right -- the right conferred by the League 
of Nations Mandates Commission, when it carefully defined the territory 
which would be set aside, from the vast territories in the Middle East 
that had formerly been in the control of the Ottoman Turks as part of 
their empire, and which had been won by the Allies. An Arab State, a 
Kurdish State, and a Jewish state were all promised. The Arabs got their
 state -- no, in the end, they got far more than their state but rather,
 in 2005, 22 members of the Arab League, the most richly endowed with 
natural resources of any states on earth, enjoying the fruits of the 
greatest transfer of wealth in human history The Kurds did not get their
 state, because by the time things had settled, Kemal Ataturk was 
driving a hard bargain and would not permit it. The Jews got the Mandate
 for Palestine set up for the express purpose of establishing the Jewish
 National Home, which would inexorably become, all parties realized, in 
time a Jewish state. It did not seem wrong then, and does not seem wrong
 now, that the Jews should have a state of their own. They asked only 
for the right to have no barriers put up to their immigration, and no 
barriers put in the way of their buying land. That was it. That was the 
sum total of what they demanded. Until the 1948 war, when five Arab 
armies attacked, not a single dunam of Arab-owned land (and remember 
that nearly 90% of the land, in any case, remained the possession of the
 state or the ruling authority, as in the Mandatory period) was 
appropriated. No one should dare to write about this subject without 
having done the research on demography, land ownership, and law. 
                                    

                                    
                                        

The Israeli claim to
 the West Bank (as Judea and Samaria were carefully renamed by Jordan 
after 1948, in precisely the same way, and for the same reason, that the
 Romans, nearly two thousand years before, had renamed Judea as 
&quot;Palestine&quot; and Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina) is not that of a military
 occupier, though it is also that. The main legal and historic claim is 
that based on the League of Nations Mandate, which in turn, was based on
 a considerable historic and moral claim recognized by the educated 
leaders of the then-civilized world, who actually knew something of the 
history of the area, and were not nearly as misinformed as so many have 
been by the mass media, and the laziness and prejudice of journalists 
today. 

The notion of &quot;occupation&quot; of course evokes imagines of Occupied 
Paris, or Occupied Berlin, after the war. It implies no justification 
for the claims of the power with the military presence. But the claim of
 Israel to the lands it took in 1967 are based, for the Sinai, on the 
standard rules of post-war settlement, the rules which have obtained for
 centuries, whereby a victor in a war of defense keeps what he has won. 
If the Israelis chose not to, or were forced not to exercise that right,
 it does not mean that the right did not exist. It did, and it applies 
even more forcefully to Gaza and the West Bank. But the claim there is 
not based merely on the successful conquest of territory to which 
otherwise Israel had no claim. It did have a claim, a claim based 
clearly on the Mandate for Palestine -- and like all the other League of
 Nations Mandates, was formally accepted, taken over as it were, by the 
United Nations when it came into being. This is a matter of record. It 
cannot be undone. 

Whatever else one wishes to say about the West Bank or Gaza, the word
 &quot;occupation&quot; is a tendentious, and cruel, misnomer. What it seeks to 
imply, what it seeks to implant in the minds of men, is clear: Israel 
has no rights here. This is nonsense. This is the very reverse of the 
truth. Read the Mandate, and the Preamble to the Mandate, for Palestine.
 Then read the records of the Mandates Commission -- and especially how 
they reacted when the British unilaterally announced that the terms of 
the mandate would not be applied to Eastern Palestine -- that is, the 
consolation prize given to Abdullah of the Emirate of Transjordan. 

Read it, and understand it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fitzgerald: Occupation? What occupation?</p>
<p>Jihad Watch Board Vice<br />
President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the tendentious claims that Israel<br />
is maintaining an illegal &#8220;occupation&#8221; of Palestinian land &#8212; claims<br />
evidently believed by the President of the United States:</p>
<p>A poster at Jihad Watch recently recommended that readers<br />
here acquire “knowledge of the day to day lives of the Palestinians and<br />
their experience under occupation.&#8221; </p>
<p>&#8220;Occupation&#8221;? What &#8220;occupation&#8221;? All the territories the Israelis now<br />
 possess are theirs by legal right &#8212; the right conferred by the League<br />
of Nations Mandates Commission, when it carefully defined the territory<br />
which would be set aside, from the vast territories in the Middle East<br />
that had formerly been in the control of the Ottoman Turks as part of<br />
their empire, and which had been won by the Allies. An Arab State, a<br />
Kurdish State, and a Jewish state were all promised. The Arabs got their<br />
 state &#8212; no, in the end, they got far more than their state but rather,<br />
 in 2005, 22 members of the Arab League, the most richly endowed with<br />
natural resources of any states on earth, enjoying the fruits of the<br />
greatest transfer of wealth in human history The Kurds did not get their<br />
 state, because by the time things had settled, Kemal Ataturk was<br />
driving a hard bargain and would not permit it. The Jews got the Mandate<br />
 for Palestine set up for the express purpose of establishing the Jewish<br />
 National Home, which would inexorably become, all parties realized, in<br />
time a Jewish state. It did not seem wrong then, and does not seem wrong<br />
 now, that the Jews should have a state of their own. They asked only<br />
for the right to have no barriers put up to their immigration, and no<br />
barriers put in the way of their buying land. That was it. That was the<br />
sum total of what they demanded. Until the 1948 war, when five Arab<br />
armies attacked, not a single dunam of Arab-owned land (and remember<br />
that nearly 90% of the land, in any case, remained the possession of the<br />
 state or the ruling authority, as in the Mandatory period) was<br />
appropriated. No one should dare to write about this subject without<br />
having done the research on demography, land ownership, and law. </p>
<p>The Israeli claim to<br />
 the West Bank (as Judea and Samaria were carefully renamed by Jordan<br />
after 1948, in precisely the same way, and for the same reason, that the<br />
 Romans, nearly two thousand years before, had renamed Judea as<br />
&#8220;Palestine&#8221; and Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina) is not that of a military<br />
 occupier, though it is also that. The main legal and historic claim is<br />
that based on the League of Nations Mandate, which in turn, was based on<br />
 a considerable historic and moral claim recognized by the educated<br />
leaders of the then-civilized world, who actually knew something of the<br />
history of the area, and were not nearly as misinformed as so many have<br />
been by the mass media, and the laziness and prejudice of journalists<br />
today. </p>
<p>The notion of &#8220;occupation&#8221; of course evokes imagines of Occupied<br />
Paris, or Occupied Berlin, after the war. It implies no justification<br />
for the claims of the power with the military presence. But the claim of<br />
 Israel to the lands it took in 1967 are based, for the Sinai, on the<br />
standard rules of post-war settlement, the rules which have obtained for<br />
 centuries, whereby a victor in a war of defense keeps what he has won.<br />
If the Israelis chose not to, or were forced not to exercise that right,<br />
 it does not mean that the right did not exist. It did, and it applies<br />
even more forcefully to Gaza and the West Bank. But the claim there is<br />
not based merely on the successful conquest of territory to which<br />
otherwise Israel had no claim. It did have a claim, a claim based<br />
clearly on the Mandate for Palestine &#8212; and like all the other League of<br />
 Nations Mandates, was formally accepted, taken over as it were, by the<br />
United Nations when it came into being. This is a matter of record. It<br />
cannot be undone. </p>
<p>Whatever else one wishes to say about the West Bank or Gaza, the word<br />
 &#8220;occupation&#8221; is a tendentious, and cruel, misnomer. What it seeks to<br />
imply, what it seeks to implant in the minds of men, is clear: Israel<br />
has no rights here. This is nonsense. This is the very reverse of the<br />
truth. Read the Mandate, and the Preamble to the Mandate, for Palestine.<br />
 Then read the records of the Mandates Commission &#8212; and especially how<br />
they reacted when the British unilaterally announced that the terms of<br />
the mandate would not be applied to Eastern Palestine &#8212; that is, the<br />
consolation prize given to Abdullah of the Emirate of Transjordan. </p>
<p>Read it, and understand it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onegoodnathan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258123</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[onegoodnathan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[west bank, gaza, east jerusalem are occupied lands per international courts and an annual UN general assembly resolution. per international law you cannot annex land through force during war. Palestinians are living in an apartheid state in these occupied lands, Israel is in violation of the law.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>west bank, gaza, east jerusalem are occupied lands per international courts and an annual UN general assembly resolution. per international law you cannot annex land through force during war. Palestinians are living in an apartheid state in these occupied lands, Israel is in violation of the law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onegoodnathan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5258119</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[onegoodnathan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5258119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[pls educate me]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>pls educate me</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PCguy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5257813</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PCguy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5257813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[nathan, have you looked at a map of the middle east lately? ...or do you know anything about Israel and middle eastern history?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nathan, have you looked at a map of the middle east lately? &#8230;or do you know anything about Israel and middle eastern history?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flyingtiger</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5257528</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[flyingtiger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5257528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Churchill said never give up.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Churchill said never give up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Veracious_one</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/unrwa-dean-finds-inspiration-in-hitler/comment-page-1/#comment-5257501</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Veracious_one]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200093#comment-5257501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jewish land grabbing?



http://frontpagemag.com/2012/rachel-neuwirth-and-john-landau/are-jewish-settlements-built-on-arab-land/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jewish land grabbing?</p>
<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/rachel-neuwirth-and-john-landau/are-jewish-settlements-built-on-arab-land/" rel="nofollow">http://frontpagemag.com/2012/rachel-neuwirth-and-john-landau/are-jewish-settlements-built-on-arab-land/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 528/552 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 08:21:26 by W3 Total Cache -->