The Myth of Israeli Collective Punishment

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


f-15_6The most enduring critique of Israel’s struggle against Islamic terrorism is the recurring accusation of “collective punishment.” Every time Israelis are murdered, the Jewish State is accused of punishing Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza for the actions of a few individuals.

Israel is fighting an enemy that insists on having all the advantages of a state and statelessness with none of the disadvantages. The PLO/Hamas unity government is a state when it wants something from the United Nations or the United States, but it’s not a state when it comes to taking responsibility. The Muslims who live in Gaza and the West Bank are considered citizens when it comes to having political rights, but not when it comes to taking responsibility for the consequences of their political decisions.

Their votes are to be taken seriously, but once those votes lead to war they are no longer responsible.

The Palestinian Authority is a state when it comes to its territorial claims, but not a state when it insists on open borders with Israel while claiming that any Israeli border security is a violation of its rights.

Terrorists routinely operate in such legal twilight zones, but the Palestinian Authority is unique in that it has all the structure of a state with none of the responsibilities of statehood. If Israel treats it as a state in response to acts of war, it is accused of collective punishment, even though the Palestinian Authority is the product of a collective political will and attacking it is not a collective punishment, but simply war.

When the Palestinian Authority unity government of Hamas and the PLO wants to go to the UN, it is said to represent the political will of a populace. But when Hamas attacks Israel, suddenly it’s not a collective act, but an individual crime. If Israel targets Hamas leaders, then it’s attacking political representatives. But if Israel blockades an area run by terrorists who claim to be a state, it’s accused of engaging in collective punishment. The terrorists claim political immunity as leaders of a collective and immunity from collective attack as individuals, rather than leaders and citizens of a political entity.

Critics of Israel not only want to have it both ways, they want to have it every single possible way that advantages the terrorists and disadvantages Israel, so that in every possible scenario Israel is wrong.

The paradox deepens when it comes to Israel.

The PLO and Hamas political leadership of the PA aren’t held responsible for their terrorist attacks, but Israel is held responsible for the individual actions of its civilians. Meanwhile the entire BDS movement is one big collective punishment against Israelis of all religions and ethnic backgrounds implemented by activists who claim to be against collective punishment.

But collective punishment has always been acceptable when it comes to Israelis.

When Israeli teens are killed by Hamas terrorists, instead of it being a case of a statelet engaging in random terror as a collective punishment, it’s put down to some populist impulse as a result of the “occupation.” But when Israel strikes Hamas, it’s suddenly collective punishment if any members of the civilian population that support the terrorist group and willingly act as its human shields are killed. And it’s collective punishment if Israel further shuts off access to territory ruled by Hamas.

Collective punishment, like everything else about the conflict, only works one way. Anything that Israel does to the PLO and Hamas can be considered collective punishment. Anything that they do to Israel, including randomly firing rockets at schools and houses, isn’t.

If Israel were indeed the sole authority in Gaza and the West Bank, it would be expected to function as a police force, rather than a military force. But Israel is in a state of armed conflict with the statelet of the Palestinian Authority. This armed conflict has been going on for around two decades.

The Palestinian Authority’s leadership is open about this conflict, even though Abbas, its leader, has learned to be more discreet than his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. The Palestinian Authority promotes terrorism and the political subgroups that run it engage in it.

The international community however pretends that it’s still 1985 instead of 2014. It expects Israel to act as if it had total control over the West Bank and Gaza and its cities weren’t being barraged by rockets. And if it responds to acts of war with war, then it’s guilty of collective punishment.

When half-a-million Israelis have to flee to bomb shelters, that’s not an individual crime. It’s a war.

All the peace process accomplished was to give the PLO and Hamas the power and infrastructure to wage full scale war without the obligation to follow any of the rules of war and without giving their victims the right to fight back by treating them as an enemy state.

Israel has been dealing with this as a military conflict. Its enemies have the support of the civilian population that they hide behind. Despite having the appurtenances of a state, they also have immunity from suffering the consequences of the wars that they start.

The only way that Israel can stop dealing with this as a military conflict is if it restores control over Gaza and the West Bank and evicts all other authorities, including the PLO and Hamas. At that point it will exercise police powers over a civilian population, rather than military powers against an enemy statelet.

Otherwise its military actions against that statelet are not collective punishment, but on the low scale of the norms of warfare, which at their very least involve bombing enemy installations and cutting off the enemy’s freedom of movement.

Israel cannot be expected to treat the Palestinian Authority as a political entity, but not a military entity, when rockets are falling on its cities. Either the PA is both or neither. If it’s both, then it is indisputably at war with Israel. If it’s neither, then Israel ought to restore control over a lawless Gaza and West Bank.

The underlying problem isn’t collective punishment, but collective immaturity.

Western liberals romanticize Third Worlders by assigning to them rights without responsibilities. The Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are assumed to have the right to elect political representatives, but not the responsibility to be held accountable for what those representatives go on to do in their name.

They have political powers, but not political responsibilities.

That’s not just dishonest, it’s an admission that they believe that the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are not ready for statehood.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • jeepwonder

    Those three Jewish boys were murdered due to collective punishment, for no other reason than they were Jews. It certainly wasn’t that they deserved it, and no other explanation has been offered by Hamas.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  • Larry Larkin

    The fakestinians are a collective milieu, in that it is all about family and clan and tribe. They work themselves on a collective punishment basis, and a collective reward basis, which is why the PLO/HAMAS pay the families of suicide bombers.
    So retaliating against them on a collective basis is they only thing they will understand and react to. If you punish just one the rest of the family/tribe/clan merely get indignant that one of their’s has been punished, but when you smack down the whole lot the message has a chance of getting through.

    As it stands Israel gets damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t, so Israel should just go ahead and do what’s necessary to protect its citizens.

    • mollysdad

      That, I presume, might include transferring the Muslims out of the West Bank and Gaza altogether.

      • Larry Larkin

        Yep, especially by lancing the festering boil that is Gaza. The Egyptians created the problem, give it to the Egyptians do deal with.

      • Well Done

        I’ve been calling for Gaza and “West Bank” to have ALL people who aren’t citizens of Israel sent packing, to Sinai and Jordan respectively.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We do have to look at the tribal angle. The clans are much more significant than the fake nationalism.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      War is collective punishment.

      Hello guys! They bring it on themselves constantly. Why do we accept their mendacious complaints?

    • carpe diem 36

      There is a word for the Fakestinians: Asafsuf. A collection of people who are leaderless, unorganized, unstructured. You cannot negotiate with Asafsuf, you cannot deal with that kind of non structure because it is like a body without a head. No one is leading, everyone decides for himself, and one day when they think they have enough missiles someone starts throwing them. You cannot call this a war as we understand a war. this is just people shooting their weapons, there is no one to talk to, no one to pin responsibility on. Still, Israel has the duty to make it so that even those individuals can see that people get killed, and maybe if enough of them get killed it will make them stop.

  • truebearing

    Yet another in a long list of brilliant analyses by Daniel Greenfield. Clear as a mountain stream. If one could take every brain in the State Department, extract every molecule of their understanding of this conflict, purify it as much as is humanly possible, it would still be a turbid little drop compared to Daniel’s easy flowing wisdom, insight, and knowledge.

    “Western liberals romanticize Third Worlders by assigning to them rights without responsibilities.”

    And this is how the Left ruined generations of American children.

    “They have political powers, but not political responsibilities.

    That’s not just dishonest, it’s an admission that they believe that the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are not ready for statehood.”

    And that is what the Left believes about blacks and their ability to compete in America, and apparently what blacks believe about themselves, hence the perpetual vassal status of blacks in the Left’s handout-dependent voter gulag.

    Yes, the Left has immunized the Palestinians by giving them victim status. The social injustice of having their imaginary homeland taken from them absolves Palestinians of all crimes. It is the same formula they use with all victim-clients.

    The more money the US, Europe, and others give the Palestinians, the less independent and capable of running their own country they become. The Muslims want this dynamic to continue. So does the Left. It feeds their narratives and weakens the US and Israel.

    • erikamsheridan

      my Aunty
      Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

    • Americana

      Well, Daniel Greenfield makes some reasonable points except for the fact that no electorate has the power to entirely control what their elected officials do in their name nor do elected officials in a crisis-torn political environment like that of Palestinian liberation have total control over the various liberation groups active within their borders.

      Look at the relationship between the Irgun and the politicians of the early pre-Israel years. There was no universal agreement on what tactics to take between the terrorist wing and the political wing. As for the BDS campaign, at least as I understand it, was not meant as collective punishment for war actions taken by Israel, but was directed at Israel’s intransigence in the peace talks as well as expansion of settlements. As for Greenfield’s ultimate zinger — “That’s not just dishonest, it’s an admission that they believe that the Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are not ready for statehood.” — if this had been the measure used for readiness for statehood during Israel’s founding, there would never have been an Israeli state.

      Much as Alan Dershowitz and Haaretz are vilified on FPM, here’s a Dershowitz piece that should get widespread applause on here:

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.573880

      • Daniel Greenfield

        If you vote for Hamas, it’s rather clear what their policies are.

        You can’t then complain that you were misled.

        In the latest poll, the majority of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, want to destroy Israel.

        BDS supporters tend to One State Solutionists. They want to eliminate Israel. Not negotiate.

        Israel took political responsibility for its decisions.

        Finally Dershowitz’s articles regularly appear at FPM

      • bigjulie

        One thing is certain! If the Israelis re-assumed political power over Gaza and the West Bank, the attacks would stop…STOP!! After over 20 years of “negotiations”, one would have to be a complete fool not to see that the Muslim definition of “negotiations” means “Our way or the highway!” That definition is peculiarly common among Islamists.
        Turn the other cheek, and all they want is more cheeks! It is long past time for a “one-state” solution…that state being Isreal. End of story!!

        • Americana

          Of course, you would think that. Effectively, the one-state solution is what Israel has encouraged and allowed to happen w/her rampant colonization program by failing to stem the settler tide. However, if agreed-upon, negotiated borders simply cut off colonies, we’d be back to a two-state solution. All it takes is the political will to divest colonies that should never have been allowed to be built in the first place.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            However, if agreed-upon, negotiated borders simply cut off colonies, we’d be back to a two-state solution.

            Per the dictates of Islam, there can be no peace between Muslims and infidels until the infidels have been rendered into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and Islam has been made supreme via the imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law).

            Therefore, Muslims can only make a Hudna with infidels, which is a kind of temporary truce that they will inevitably break when they deem the time is right.

            Meanwhile, any Muslim that would sign a permanent peace agreement with infidels the same way Anwar Sadat did back in 1979, will be targeted for assassination and assassinated the same way Anwar Sadat was assassinated.

            Now Mahmood Abbas is a lot of things. However, suicidal isn’t one of them.

          • Americana

            Peace agreements come from individuals who see the value in crafting and signing those agreements. Every Arab is well aware of what certain stances do to push them into high-risk categories of life insurance. Whether they’re supporters of Israel or they’re initiating peace initiatives, they’re aware of the risk. Isn’t it convenient that you’ve always got yet another Muslim homily that permits you to say the Muslims will always deceive the infidel. As if there’s ever been less deceit in the Western world!

            It’s not for you to claim that “No Arab would ever sign a peace agreement w/Israel” and that’s the end of the story. There are two peace agreements that have been signed w/Israel and they’ve outlasted their original human signatories yet their countries still abide by those agreements. I’d say that’s the proof that peace agreements can be made in the Middle East and they are kept.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Per the dictates of Islam, the only peace that there can be between Muslims and infidels is the peace that comes only after the infidels have been rendered into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and Islam has been made supreme via the imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian world.)

            Also, per the dictates of Islam, Muslims can only make a Hudna with infidels, which is a kind of truce that Muslims make to inevitably break whenever they deem the time is right. Other than that, their hands are tied.

            Thus, if any Muslim makes the mistake of signing a permanent agreement with infidels as Anwar Sadat did in 1979, they inevitably will be targeted and assassinated the same way Anwar Sadat was targeted and assassinated. Now the only reason King Hussein was never assassinated, not because he was never targeted, but because he died of cancer before he could be assassinated.

            Furthermore, the only reason the leaders of both Egypt (Al Sisi) and Jordan (Abdullah II) adhere to those agreements to this day is because they are both not actual Muslims, and that is why ISIS is planning to destroy the both of them. Not to mention that had Morsi remained in power in Egypt, not only would the treaty with Israel have been inevitably violated but he also would have demonstrated just how weak Egypt is militarily relative to Israel by stupidly trying to wage another jihad against them that no doubt would have ended in shame and defeat.

            Nevertheless, per your previous post, it is very apparent that the last thing you want is peace in Israel, as the reason you are so obsessed with Israel is because you are totally obsessed with vilifying and demonizing Jews because you are an anti-Semitic bigot of mega proportions, and also the reason you are so addicted to apologizing for Muslims is because they are your partners in crime.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            an indigenous people can’t colonize their own land

          • hiernonymous

            Nobody has suggested that. This deals with the Israelis colonizing the occupied territories.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Jews are the indigenous people they don’t call the area Judea & Samaria for nothing. Also the territories are disputed not occupied.

          • hiernonymous

            No, they call it Judea for the kingdom established by those who conquered the land from its previous inhabitants. That doesn’t make them the “indigenous people” of that entire area.

            I’m still waiting for someone to offer a general statement of the principles by which legitimate ownership of country is established.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Actually thats Israeli liberation of Judea and Samaria from the illegal occupation by Jordan..

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, I was thinking of Israelite “liberation” of Canaan from its original owners. You may recall that the only inhabitant of Jericho spared by the invaders was Rahab, who was shown mercy for having practiced taqiyya.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Like your employment of the Monty Python theological argument mixed with the ethical practices of the Bedouin invaders who originated from the Saudi Peninsula, not convincing but very amusing.

          • Americana

            What was the date of that last “Bedouin invasion from the Saudi Peninsula?” If it was over a few thousand years ago, that timeframe of provenance trumps that of the latest and greatest invaders.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “A few thousand years” ignorant of the Saudi Muslims that invaded the rest of the Middle East killing and displacing the population.

          • hiernonymous

            There were no “Saudi Muslims” in the 7th century. You’re off by almost exactly 1000 years. That’s a bit like discussing Napoleon’s attack on the Soviet Union, or Turkey’s conquest of Constantinople.

            Today’s Palestinians are largely descendants of the peoples conquered by the Arabs; it is the Bedouin tribes of the region that tend to represent the descent of Arabs in the more restrictive sense of those who originated deep in the Arabian Peninsula.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            That’s exactly my point Einstein, you stated that the ancient Canaanites invoked taqiyya, a doctrine that was developed by the yet to be Muslims. The Muslim Palestinians are not largely descendants of the people conquered by the Arabs there are have been significant genetic differences seen between Muslim and Christian Arabs.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Arafat was born in Egypt – making him a “paleswinian”???

          • hiernonymous

            Arafat’s father was from Gaza, his mother from Jerusalem.

            “…paleswinian…”

            No hate here, eh?

          • Bklyn Farmer

            And his grandmother was Egyptian, Many so called Arab Palestinians cannot trace their family beyond 3 generations in Israel, in fact most of the family names are Egyptian and Syrian in origin.

          • hiernonymous

            If you followed the link I gave you in my response to your contention about genetics, you’ll find that one of the conclusions that they reached was that the Israeli and Palestinian Arabs showed remarkable cohesion and that the genetic results indicated that they’d been a stable population in place for many generations.

            Did you have a source that contradicts their findings, or did you just want to make some pronouncements?

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Before you fo your solo victory lap in your underwear

            “Lebanese Muslim men were found to have high frequencies of a Y chromosome grouping known as J1. This is typical of populations originating from the Arabian Peninsula, who were involved in the Muslim expansion.” Reported by BBC on March 27 2008 on Dr. Zalloua work

            Reference:

            Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Lebanon Is Structured by Recent Historical Events

            Pierre A. Zalloua et al.

            “Lebanon is an eastern Mediterranean country inhabited by approximately four million people with a wide variety of ethnicities and religions, including Muslim, Christian, and Druze. In the present study, 926 Lebanese men were typed with Y-chromosomal SNP and STR markers, and unusually, male genetic variation within Lebanon was found to be more strongly structured by religious affiliation than by geography……We therefore suggest that the Islamic expansion from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century CE introduced lineages typical of this area into those who subsequently became Lebanese Muslims”

            ESAD

          • hiernonymous

            That’s interesting. It does not contradict my post. Two considerations:

            1. Finding an Arab characteristic does not mean that those individuals did not descend from the original inhabitants, it means that the conquerors’ genes were added to the pool. You’ll discover a similar discussion in the study I cited if you take the time to read it.

            2. The study I cited specifically examined Palestinian and Israeli Arabs, while yours looked at Lebanon. We are discussing Palestinians. When the topic turns to the Lebanese, be ready to dust off this citation.

            Regards.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            1. Nice to see that you accept DNA evidence when you thought it supported your position but dismissive of it when it clearly shows the migration (invation) from Saudi peninsula are present in today’s Arab Muslim population.

            2. Now we have the defense that the Arab Muslim population a few feet over the border in Lebanon are different than those in Israel, what next the study is to be limited to Arab population in the north of Israel or how about to a particular village better yet limit the study to a particular street in a particular village. This in spite of the fact that a many of the “Palestinian” family names are Jordanian an Egyptian in origin. What next reason for being dismissive, inappropriate font. The study you cite to look at similarities and differences between Jews and Arab the study I cite (I grant it was done a couple of miles over the border but hopefully we are not dealing with the the limited ecosystem similar tho the spotted wooly mouse) explicitly compared biomarkers with the Arab population.

          • hiernonymous

            See my comments elsewhere. Since the issue in question is whether Palestinian Arabs are descended from the original population, Nebel’s findings that their similarities with other populations and internal consistency indicates common descent, and since Nebel took into account the wave of Arab immigration into the region that would specifically account for the injection of the J1 your study cites, there is no contradiction.

            “What next reason for being dismissive, inappropriate font.”

            I have no idea what you might have meant by this.

            “Nice to see that you accept DNA evidence when you thought it supported your position but dismissive of it when it clearly shows the migration (invation) from Saudi peninsula are present in today’s Arab Muslim population.”

            I’m dismissive of the conclusions you are drawing; the presence of J1 supports the well-known historical fact of the arrival of Arab immigrants into the region; it does exactly nothing to indicate those bearing that marker are not also descended from the original inhabitants. Since Nebel, at al, took those historical events into account, it’s entirely appropriate to be dismissive, not of the genetic evidence, but of the flawed conclusion you are using it to support.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Please see my comments above.

            Your desperation is leading your arguments into the realm of absurdity. First genetic findings can prove a people being indigenous but not show just the opposite because you say so, how convenient. Then its, but the studies are about Lebanese I entertained your childish request and give you a similar study with Palestinian subjects, now suddenly genetics are of no value and cannot prove the Palestinians are not the pure descendent of Israelis or Canaanites or whatever your selling today. Talk about catching a greased pig thanks but no thanks.

          • hiernonymous

            You don’t seem to understand the arguments in play here. Perhaps I can simplify this for you by using an example from elsewhere.

            Consider the population of Honduras. 90% of that population is mestizo, a mixture of Native American and European descent. The mestizos are descended from the original inhabitants. There is a continuity of descent that has not been broken, so that today’s mestizos could theoretically trace a line of ancestors back to the pre-Columbian era. Genetically, this could be shown by finding markers that are associated with the Maya, for example, in a statistically meaningful sense. Finding those markers is what Nebel, et al, did in their study.

            The mestizos will also show genetic markers associated with the Spanish. Showing such markers “documents” the Spanish migration. It demonstrates that the Spanish arrived and mixed with the local population. That is what your J1 markers show in the case of the Arabs.

            However, you are trying to claim that such markers would show that the mestizos were descended from the Spanish and not the original inhabitants, and the presence of those markers does not establish any such thing. To do so, you would have to show both a similarity in genes to the arriving migrants and a lack of meaningful similarity to the genes of the original population.

            Short version: you do not actually understand the argument you are trying to make. You are trying to prove that the presence of A proves Not B, when the two are not mutually exclusive.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            The same findings from the study on the Lebanese Arabs was found for the Palestinian Arab.

            Y-chromosomal STRs in two populations from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area: Christian and Muslim Arabs

            AnaTeresa Fernandes et al

            Forensic Science International: Genetics Volume 5, Issue 5 , Pages 561-562, November 2011

          • hiernonymous

            And, again, you’ll find that the conclusions that Nebel, et al, reached concerning Palestinian origins accounts for the data you’re citing, and, in fact, is addressed in its historical context on p. 631 of that study:

            Historically, the origin of the Arab population residing in Israel and the Palestinian Authority rea (I&P Arabs) is complex and diverse. Located at the crossroads of three continents, the Southern Levant has, throughout history, attracted many waves of immigrants and conquerors alike. Permanent human settlement in the region dates back to the Natfian Period (~12,500-10,000 BP). Based on anthropological evidence, it has been suggested that the Natufians and their descendents formed a ‘core’ population that can be traced to recent times, but was mixed with incoming groups (Arensburg, 1973). According to historical records, major demographic events took place in the Israelite Period and during the Jewish Kingdom Period (1200-586 BC): the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions were followed by the deportation of locals and the settlement of foreign peoples (Bachi 1974). The Roman Judean Wars (66-135 AD) culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple and led to the annihilation or exile of a large portion of the Jewish population (Anderson 1995). By the fifth century AD, the majority of non-Jews and Jews had become Christians by conversion (Bachi 1974). The first millenium AD was marked by the immigration of Arab tribes, reaching its climax with the Moslem conquest from the Arabian Peninsula (633-640 AD). Tis was followed by a slow process of Islamization of the local population, both of Christians and Jews (Shaban 1971; McGraw Donner 1981)…

            Bottom line: the genetic evidence you’re citing simply confirms the known historical fact of the arrival of the Arab immigration, without disputing the fact that the bulk of the Muslim population in the region comprised locals converting in the years following the conquest, as opposed to Arab conquerors killing and displacing the original inhabitants. Fernandes and Faerman do not contradict or rebut Nebel, et al.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Given your bloviated responses (a necessity for performing convoluted mental gymnastics) let me summarize your arguments:

            Initially, you use argued, using genetic findings, that the “Palestinians” are true indigenous people of Israel in that it showed them to be stable to the area. But when I present genetic base study findings that markers prove they came from the Saudi Peninsula most probably during the Mohammedan invasion, suddenly your position does a 180 degree turn around and genetics can no longer be used for what you originally argued (your recent conversion leaves room for sincerity). Then you b!tched that the paper was done on Lebanese not Palestinians, being the nice individual I am, I entertained you childish request and provided a similar study with similar finding on Palestinians. Conversing with you is like catching a greased pig, no offense meant jut being accurate.

          • hiernonymous

            Incorrect. I presented a case study showing that the Palestinians are largely descended from earlier inhabitants. The studies you cited do not show that they
            “Came from the Saudi Peninsula,” they show that genes from the Arab migration were added to the genetic mix. Not sure if you are actually unable to distinguish these ideas or are intentionally misrepresenting what your studies purport to show. There is no change in my “position” vis-a-vis the genetics.

            In a discussion of Palestinian Arabs, you offered as evidence a study of the Lebanese. Again, not sure why you are struggling with the idea that Lebanon is not Palestine, but offering data on Palestinians was not being “nice,” but simply doing what you should have done the first time. You still drew an incorrect conclusion from the data, but at least you are now working with a relevant data set.

            I note that in your somewhat overwrought response, you simply repeat the incorrect assertion that the presence of the J1 in 36% of Pslestinian Arabs proves that Palestinian Arabs came from the Arabian Peninsula, and avoid entirely the fact that this migration was already considered by Nebel, et al, in concluding that the genetic evidence shows I&P Arabs are largely descended from indigenous converts to Islam.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Awww. Stick and stones.

          • hiernonymous

            You’d think, but the paroxysms of indignation when the SPLC brings up the term ‘hate’ are something to read.

          • Drakken

            Anything coming out of that communist rat’s nest of hypocrisy called the SPLC should be taken with a truckload of salt.

          • hiernonymous

            In this case, a few posters certainly seem to be lending some credence to SPLC’s observation. Paleswinians is just the latest in the parade of … wit.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            SPLC is better than CAIR conniptions.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Re: Arafat, what’s not to hate?

            Even his beard wife Suha hated him – and packed her bags and left Pal-e-SWINE for France and a hefty pension after he kicked the koran.
            .

          • hiernonymous

            Try to keep up. The taqiyya reference was intentional and pointed, both at the regular misuse of the term, and at the fact that it is trotted out as proof that Muslims are uniquely deceitful. I might buy the idea that your Saudi comment was intentional if your comment had been offered in response to mine, but it wasn’t. Nice try.

            “The Muslim Palestinians are not largely descendants of the people conquered by the Arabs there are significant genetic differences seen between Muslim and Christian Arabs.”

            Here’s what Filon, Nebel, Weiss, et al had to say at the end of their detailed genetic study of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs in the region:

            According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD. These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times. On the other hand, the ancestors of the great majority of present-day Jews lived outside this region for almost two millenia. Thus, our findings are in good agreement with historical evidence and suggest genetic continuity in both populations despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Good try Einstien but you should try and read my initial post again as reading comprehension is not you strong piont, I clearly state you are trying to incorporate Muslim ethic on to the Canaanites the fact that you timeline is all FU is you issue not mine in your lame response.

          • hiernonymous

            “…reading comprehension is not you strong piont…”

            Your post was addressed to Americana, and was clearly responding to her comment, not mine. Live with it.

            I notice that you have no response, substantive or otherwise, on the genetic issue. Not ‘you strong piont?’

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “Lebanese Muslim men were found to have high frequencies of a Y chromosome grouping known as J1. This is typical of populations originating from the Arabian Peninsula, who were involved in the Muslim expansion.” Reported by BBC on March 27 2008 on Dr. Zalloua work

            Reference:

            Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Lebanon Is Structured by Recent Historical Events

            Pierre A. Zalloua et al.

            “Lebanon is an eastern Mediterranean country inhabited by approximately four million people with a wide variety of ethnicities and religions, including Muslim, Christian, and Druze. In the present study, 926 Lebanese men were typed with Y-chromosomal SNP and STR markers, and unusually, male genetic variation within Lebanon was found to be more strongly structured by religious affiliation than by geography”

          • hiernonymous

            You may gave noticed, in the course of your studies, that “Lebanon” and “Palestine” do not refer to the same territory. I invite your attention to my other post concerning the other flaw in your citation.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Yes they are separate by feet and much of the populated areas are within miles. Given that most Palestinian Arabs have Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian family names you may not want to quarrel about a few miles as it concerns DNA similarities. Please see my full response to your humorous post above.

          • hiernonymous

            Please see my response to yours. It’s not necessary to have Himalayan-type barriers to reflect different political and migratory realities; the composition of the Lebanese population is quite distinct from that of Israel/Palestine. Note the latter’s proximity, for example, to pre-Muslim Arab states, such as the Nabateans.

            Regardless, see my note concerning the fact that the presence of J1 does not contradict the findings of Nebel, et al, and, in fact, the historical context for that finding is accounted for in the study I originally cited. They were fully aware of the waves of subsequent immigration to the region, including the arrival of Arabs (in the sense of inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula), and noted this as an injection into, not a displacement of, the original population.

            Muslims do not have “family names,” per se, so your comment could stand some clarification. So far, nothing you’ve written contradicts Nebel’s conclusions.

            Note that both comments you’ve made apply equally to the Jewish inhabitants of israel. They, too, have inherited genes typical of the lands in which they spent their years of exile, yet I don’t think you’d argue that this invalidates their descent from the original inhabitants. Similarly, if you’ll look at their names, you’ll find that many languages are reflected, without invalidating their descent. Do you have a consistent argument to make?

          • Bklyn Farmer

            ou assumed wrong the post was addressing you. Your like 0 for 3 so far do you need a rest.

          • hiernonymous

            No assumption involved. Note the addressing on the post:

            Bklyn Farmer Americana • 11 hours ago
            “A few thousand years” ignorant of the Saudi Muslims that invaded the rest of the Middle East killing and displacing the population.
            1 • Reply•Share ›

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Bad me.
            Correction 1 for 3 , your on a roll go for it.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, bad you. When you can be trusted to reliably and honestly report something as basic as the addressing of your comments, you might reapply for the job of scorekeeper.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Honest enough to admit an error. Unlike some who are too shallow and lack the self-confidence those are the ones that can’t be trusted, ironic look who I saying that to – lol

          • hiernonymous

            I cheerfully admit errors – when I’ve made them.

            And you refused to admit error for as long as it appeared that you could bluster through. If you want to characterize that as honesty, suit yourself.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            You cheerful, please I’m eating nearly lost my lunch while reading that. You can’t read a simple post, can’t stick to a consistent manner of evidence without doing a 180 when things don’t turn out as you expected. Spare me your feign indignation don’t bother crying a river I am not moved by your silliness.

          • hiernonymous

            If you think that I have “done a 180″ on anything, you are not reading competently. As for the rest, posture as you like.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Man up and admit you were wrong writing that 2 planes were hijacked on 9/11 – and blaming your error on your “focus”.

          • Americana

            hieronymous was responding to another’s post that mentioned the two planes being flown into the WTC towers. So, why should hieronymous’ reply necessarily include references to the other two planes involved w/9/11 when he was obviously speaking about only ONE ASPECT of the 9/11 attacks?

            It’s obvious WE ALL know that FOUR jetliners were hijacked on 9/11. The only remaining question from the 9/11 attacks is the final destination of Flight 93 that was downed by the terrorists in Shanksville, PA. It could have been the White House, could have been any number of other Washington, D.C. targets. The likeliest target was the White House.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I’m glad you’re here.

            Where is your link to the UN list of Jewish terrorist attacks?

            Is your “UN” site still in “maintenance”???

            http://www.un.org/en/

            Hmmm?

          • Americana

            Let’s see, you’ve disputed every single list of Jewish terrorist attacks whatever the source, and Daniel Greenfield is now taking down those posts w/listings of terrorist actions by the Irgun and the other Jewish terrorist groups. I think I’ll wait a while to produce more lists of the same terrorist attacks since this is how illegitimately you dispute the material by — POOF — making it disappear. Besides, you should be curious enough about Jewish terrorism/ freedom fighters you’d undertake some research on your own.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            What happened to your claim of “maintenance mode”?

            “http://www.un.org/maintenance/

            The United Nations’ web site is undergoing maintenance so I won’t be able to retrieve the information today”

            You posted that yesterday.

            How about right now? I’ll make it easy for you.

            http://www.un.org/en/

            Hmmmm?

            I hope you’re not lying, because lying would undermine your credibility.

          • hiernonymous

            You asked me a true or false question concerning the planes flown into the WTC; my response addressed the planes flown into the WTC. If you don’t like that answer, too bad – it’s one of the dangers of trying to argue through leading questions.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Not true. You still haven’t admitted that you sloppily wrote that 2 planes were hijacked on 9/11 – but uncheerfully back pedal claiming your laser like focus prevented you from posting accurate information.

          • hiernonymous

            “You still haven’t admitted that you sloppily wrote that 2 planes were hijacked on 9/11…”

            You asked me a true or false question concerning the planes flown into the WTC; my response addressed the planes flown into the WTC. If you don’t like that answer, too bad – it’s one of the dangers of trying to argue through leading questions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The taqiyya reference was intentional and pointed, both at the regular misuse of the term, and at the fact that it is trotted out as proof that Muslims are uniquely deceitful.”

            All humans are flawed. Taqiyya is unique in that it allows adherents to use a religious ideological framework to justify lying. It’s not that Muslims are unique as humans but that they have a unique ideological framework and knowing that helps to understand differences.

            One might even develop more compassion for Muslims that lie, thinking they are serving God whereas Christians and Jews do it knowing that lying is forbidden in the Ten Commandments.

            http://www.thetencommandmentslist.com/

            There is a table you can find on the above web page and you can see and there is no listing for Muslim positions.

            A lot of people don’t know this. Muslims some times claim to “follow the Bible” after the Islamic “corrections” are made. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

            There is no Christian or Jewish argument that lying is “OK to advance the causes of the Lord.”

          • hiernonymous

            That’s not what “taqiyya” means. You seem to be thinking of muda’rat. I’ve had this conversation too many times recently to want to go down that particular rabbit hole again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The thinking is that taqiyya is one of the origins of the idea that it’s OK to lie for the sake of Allah and sharia.

          • Drakken

            Wrong, the latest victors gets to keep what it kills, it is a very simple concept that you neither comprehend nor understand.

          • bigjulie

            I believe the “general statement of the principles” is summed up in two words…”The Victor”! The “legitimization” of the claim is based on what is done with the country after it is won and how skillfully and forcefully the claim is defended. Generally, the defense of the claim is directly proportional to the productivity and use made of the claim by the people occupying it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m still waiting for someone to offer a general statement of the principles by which legitimate ownership of country is established.”

            Might makes right. And if you’re “bad” you’ll probably make more enemies. Unless you’re Jewish. In which case it’s hardly possible to make more enemies than you already have.

            You also have to deal with international institutions and so forth. But with them it’s almost entirely about Machiavellian politics as well. The decision to be a “good” sovereign is separate from establishing sovereignty.

            Sovereign to sovereign “justice” is separate from how a sovereign deals with its citizens, subjects and occupants.

            Establishing Israeli sovereignty over the “occupied” territories is a no-brainer except for the fact that it incites jihadi passions.

            I’m not a jihadi. Therefore I support Israeli sovereignty over the “occupied” territories as long as they deal reasonably with everyone.

            It’s not reasonable to appease terrorists or any enemy that is not operating in good faith to establish a peaceful relationship.

          • hiernonymous

            “Might makes right.”

            Well, then – end of discussion. Enough mewling about how bad anyone is.

            Of course, if might makes right, then it’s difficult to understand on what principle the U.S. should support Israel in any fashion whatsoever. Clearly, Israel has pretty much nothing to offer the U.S. – no natural resources, no geographical access to critical chokepoints – so the obviously correct policy in 1973 would have been to have allowed them to collapse.

            “I’m not a jihadi. Therefore I support Israeli sovereignty over the “occupied” territories as long as they deal reasonably with everyone.”

            If you’re not a jihadi, and you’re not Israeli, and you support “might makes right,” then there’s no principle in play in which you should ‘support’ anyone at all. Unless and until it is to our advantage to take control of the region ourselves, it would seem that your principle would lead us to be wholly indifferent to the conflict.

          • Drakken

            It is a very simple concept, Israel is part of the west, that means us of western civilization, the arabs are not and never will join a western civilization of the 1st world as WE are. So therefore support from the US is natural.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialists and regressive progressives support ultra conservative Muslims.

            Tis a puzzlement.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, so we’ve transcended nationalism now, and we’re on big international cultural teams? I had thought that Washington subscribed to Palmerston’s observation: “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

          • Drakken

            Not at all, supporting a ally of the western world is natural, since the barbarians are at and inside the gates. Being of the 1st world is a permanent interest in our own survival.

          • hiernonymous

            The last time Islam raised a serious challenge to the Western order was in the 17th century. If you haven’t noticed, your fellow employees were at risk because they were in a Muslim country, not because Muslim troops were in one if ours.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you haven’t noticed, your fellow employees were at risk because they were in a Muslim country, not because Muslim troops were in one if ours.”

            But they’re not at risk because the sovereign does not want them there. They’re at risk because of how Muslims view certain lands, regardless of how the sovereign views those lands. They don’t accept our standards for defining very much of anything. We’re not legitimate if we’re not in compliance with sharia (whatever they might interpret that to be).

            The main point is that religious allegiance is seen as more important than national. IOW making peace with a national sovereign isn’t enough if their religious cohorts don’t like you. Therefore we have to face the reality of the “clash of civilizations” and act accordingly.

          • hiernonymous

            “But they’re not at risk because the sovereign does not want them there.”

            That’s a valid point. There’s a more extended chain of reasoning in this particular case that involves noting that the current sovereign is sovereign because the U.S. invaded that state, toppled the previous regime, and established the current government. To that extent, our contractor presence in support of that sovereign is a consequence of and a symptom of U.S. intervention in a Muslim country, rather than the reverse. That is, the original point is that, as we portray our civilization as under siege by Muslim civilization, the actual disposition of military and support forces suggests that it’s the other way around. I recognize that there are other forces than military and attendant support, but that tends to be a pretty good indicator of the balance of power.

            “The main point is that religious allegiance is seen as more important than national.”

            That’s an interesting contention in the case of Iraq. There’s basically a three-way divide in Iraq. One of those splits is religious, and one is not. The Sunni Arab power base was distinctly secular until our invasion; in destroying the Ba’athist organizations, we opened the door to an alternative, and the alternative currently lurking in the wings is Islamism. Note that one of the unique characteristics of ISIS is the incorporation of the surviving Ba’athist military structure, a pretty fair indicator that resistance to the Shi’a government, rather than ideology, is the primary motivational factor in play. The Kurk – Arab split, of course, is not religious.

            “Therefore we have to face the reality of the “clash of civilizations” and act accordingly.”

            The Clash of Civilizations is more likely a self-fulfilling prophecy than an actual phenomenon. In retrospect, the Cold War involved a great number of local and unrelated conflicts that the patron states adopted as proxy wars, lending a patina of ideology to struggles that were not ideological. The same thing appears to be happening here.

            Note, by the way, that one of the interesting developments this past week was that the Syrian opposition, to include the Islamists, declined to throw in with the supposed Caliphate, which suggests that this monolithic Islamic threat is anything but.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s a valid point. There’s a more extended chain of reasoning in this particular case that involves noting that the current sovereign is sovereign because the U.S. invaded that state, toppled the previous regime, and established the current government. ”

            And some of the people who are attacking are doing so because of religious motives rather than trying to reverse a loss of sovereignty. IOW, they don’t necessarily want to form national sovereigns. They want power for similar reasons, but we can’t read their behaviors if we treat them as if they spring from the same culture and worldview that we do. Especially since part of their strategy is to feign interest in building nations while accomplishing different goals. Achieving national sovereignty won’t stabilize these people the way that we like to wish for. Other loyalties and factions come in to play.

            “The Clash of Civilizations is more likely a self-fulfilling prophecy than an actual phenomenon.”

            It’s not a prophecy. It’s a paradigmatic view of events that looks at where people are motivated by loyalties other than to established or hopeful national sovereigns. Or put another way, it’s looking at world events while trying to overcome the myopia of assuming that everyone in the world must think and ultimately act like us Westerners. Schisms happen for a wide variety of reasons, and what we can call “clash of cultures” is one of the reasons. It’s more like a clash of ideologies in my mind. Culture is fluid. Ideology is less flexible and that is where the friction occurs other than material factors.

            “In retrospect, the Cold War involved a great number of local and unrelated conflicts that the patron states adopted as proxy wars, lending a patina of ideology to struggles that were not ideological. The same thing appears to be happening here.”

            It works both ways, and often side by side. Humans are complex. You can have ideological struggles cloaked in mendacious “grievances” too. This is designed to throw the materialists off the trail.

            “Note, by the way, that one of the interesting developments this past week was that the Syrian opposition, to include the Islamists, declined to throw in with the supposed Caliphate, which suggests that this monolithic Islamic threat is anything but.”

            I don’t know of anyone who thought the jihadis were monolithic in any sense. They’ve been fighting each other in various factions since the beginning. There are visible schisms and then many others we can’t always see.

            We do know that they use a certain ideological framework to muster resources and draw up plans. Knowing that is important even though in the end they’re not really ever going to be unified. I can’t imagine it. But a lot of things will get broken between now and the time that things quiet down – if they ever do.

          • Americana

            Your last paragraph say everything that needs to be said about this “Clash of Civilizations” — (ObejectiveFacts) “We do know that they use a certain ideological framework to muster resources and draw up plans. Knowing that is important even though in the end they’re not really ever going to be unified.”

            This Clash of Civilizations is going to occur in the regions where Islam has social dominance. As frightening as that may be to us in the West having become used to the world as it’s presently constituted, Islam will not have an easy time expanding outside that former Muslim sphere of religious and social influence. In effect, it is a self-contained social phenomenon. We definitely have to guard against Islam’s further exfiltration and infiltration but to press all the current alarm buttons that are being pressed, in the way they’re being pressed, is whacked. We have allowed what was originally the Palestinian jihad to morph into a multitude of other jihads. How? Because as the Palestinian jihad sputtered on decade after decade, its domination of the world’s news and its exploitation of social media helped popularize and spread the culture of jihad throughout the world. We should have long since settled the Palestinian jihad by signing a peace treaty. if we had done so long ago, it’s very possible this current jihadist philosophical craze for Caliphates would never have been ignited in the manner in which it’s been ignited. We might still have countries facing Muslim separatist movements but I doubt we would have the same Caliphate designs as are being propagated. Would that make the separatist movements more manageable? Possibly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your last paragraph say everything that needs to be said about this “Clash of Civilizations” — ”

            Really? So knowing it is important and then that’s it.

            “…but to press all the current alarm buttons that are being pressed, in the way they’re being pressed, is whacked.”

            I hear conversations. I don’t hear bells or alarms. I hear lots of apologists and people that offer slanted advice due to various fallacies. Some based on what we might call paternalistic racism. Which is unwise.

            “We should have long since settled the Palestinian jihad by signing a peace treaty.”

            Oh, OK.

          • Americana

            Oh, you think ObamaYoMama is simply pushing ‘alarm bells’ by advocating genocide against Muslims? ObamaYoMama has said Western infidel civilization will only be safe if Muslims are exterminated and Islam is no longer in the world. Boy, I must have a low tolerance for reasonable debate then if I’m a little unnerved by someone talking about that extermination as if they’re talking reasonable foreign policy, never mind talking reasonable sociological policy.

            You hear apologists if anyone suggests that the Palestinians are owed a state as was laid out under the ORIGINAL PARTITION PLAN per the United Nations. That’s not apologia, that’s historical fact. Much of the Palestinian frustration is tied into not having ultimate control over what is happening within the Palestinian territories and within land that is currently presumed to end up under Palestinian control if a peace treaty were signed. In the meantime, Israelis are buying up land and property through proxy buyers. That is colonization and it’s being discouraged by everyone outside Israel who’s got any responsibility for solving this issue. In the meantime, we have people here saying well, there’s a population expansion, where are the Israelis going to live unless they buy that land? As if that Israeli population growth is supposed to take place in territory that hasn’t been legitimately awarded to Israel.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re ranting. You’re not following any conversations.

          • Americana

            I’m following lots of different angles in this very wide-ranging conversation and I’m not ranting simply because you claim I’m ranting. You suggested that no one had suggested horrific solutions to the situation in the Middle East and that is patently not true. ObamaYoMama has basically advocated worldwide genocide of Muslims and Drakken is right w/her although it’s hard to tell at what point he’d pull the ammo clip out of his gun and say enough death and destruction against Muslims. He seems to be saying extermination of Palestinians and other Muslims threatening Israel is a perfectly fine military tactic.

            We’ve got basically 6 aspects to this particular thread: 1) what constitutes indigenousness for a people; 2) what happens when claims of indigenousness are contested by another people who claim prior indigeneity; 3) what extra-political entities (like the U.N.) can do to legally institute statehood upon a people; 4) can that same extra-political entity decide upon the borders of states that aren’t clearly defined and have never been clearly defined; 5) what makes a people’s demand for statehood legitimate or illegitimate; 6) what national crimes make it impossible to establish statehood or make it unwise to negotiate statehood between political entities; and, perhaps the one question that most dominates this thread, 7) since there’s never been a peace treaty that identifies the borders of Palestine and Israel, is Israel allowed to simply go ahead and conquer the rest of Palestine and claim it as her own?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 15 minutes ago

            “I’m following lots of different angles in this very wide-ranging conversation and I’m not ranting simply because you claim I’m ranting.”

            I claim you are ranting simply because you are.

            “You suggested that no one had suggested horrific solutions to the situation in the Middle East and that is patently not true. ObamaYoMama has basically advocated worldwide genocide of Muslims and Drakken is right w/her although it’s hard to tell at what point he’d pull the ammo clip out of his gun and say enough death and destruction against Muslims. He seems to be saying extermination of Palestinians and other Muslims threatening Israel is a perfectly fine military tactic.”

            If you skim quickly to try to keep up with all of the ideas swirling in your head, it’s easy to get the wrong idea. People here want to stop jihadi threats. They have different views because some have less confidence in our own leaders and their abilities to make better decisions before things get a lot worse. Your approach, in all honesty, just convinces them that they’re right and that people like me are wasting my time trying to reason with others.

            “7) since there’s never been a peace treaty that identifies the borders of Palestine and Israel, is Israel allowed to simply go ahead and conquer the rest of Palestine and claim it as her own?”

            Yes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “2) what happens when claims of indigenousness are contested by another people who claim prior indigeneity”

            I don’t care. But when someone starts to spread lies about it, and these lies are bootstrapped in to “the Jews control academia in the West,” I start to get pretty pissed off.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “3) what extra-political entities (like the U.N.) can do to legally institute statehood upon a people”

            Their mission is to cooperatively facilitate negotiations and foster peaceful relationships.

            The UN is a political institution intended to offer a set of tools that are hopefully seen as more productive or less destructive than immediately launching wars. It can’t bring us closer to Utopia. And when it tries, it has the opposite effect.

            Better to not support delusional ideas about the UN or any other international institutions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “4) can that same extra-political entity decide upon the borders of states that aren’t clearly defined and have never been clearly defined”

            Not without consensus that includes the sovereigns in dispute.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “5) what makes a people’s demand for statehood legitimate or illegitimate”

            That’s not a clear question. But part of the answer is that you must be able to achieve it. If you or they can’t achieve sovereignty, nothing else matters.

            Aspiring states build support by offering justifications, but it’s like any other political campaign when they do that. There are few enforceable rules.

            If you’re asking me for my standards for who I support, it just depends on how viable I think the campaign is and how it effects me and my interests. And I tend to frown on liars. Not that I expect sinless people, but if someone is clearly operating in what a mode that I consider to be malicious and deceptive, I probably won’t support that movement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “6) what national crimes make it impossible to establish statehood or make it unwise to negotiate statehood between political entities; and, perhaps the one question that most dominates this thread,”

            The crime of failing to stop committing crimes – if you want my support. But in the end, the only thing stopping any aspiring sovereign is its opposition.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            ObamaYoMama has basically advocated worldwide genocide of Muslims

            Really? Okay if that is the case, then post the exact excerpt where I actually advocated worldwide genocide of Muslims. Indeed, post one excerpt where I actually used the word genocide in any context. While I may have explained available options, that is a far cry from calling for genocide. Of course, if you are too mentally handicapped to read and understand the Standard English, then it is easy to see how you became so confused. Perhaps next time I should use Arabic for you so you want become so confused.

            Nice try, though, you idiot.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            ObamaYoMama has said Western infidel civilization will only be safe if Muslims are exterminated and Islam is no longer in the world.

            Well, well, well, looky who we have here, its ole Americana again, the obsessed Jew hating/Muslim apologizing bigot, who prays for there never to be peace in Israel.

            In any event, Americana, I challenge you or anyone else for that matter, to post an excerpt from anyone of my posts where I used to word exterminate in any form or in any context whatsoever. Good luck with that wild goose chase.

            What I said once again to clarify, in case you are too mentally incompetent to understand standard English, is the world will never be free from jihad unless the world unites together to collectively put an end to the global jihad. I also said there were two ways to go about it, but explaining is explaining. It’s not calling for extermination as you allege.

            First, kill every last Muslim on the planet to eradicate Islam, (which would necessarily be an extremely violent and very bloody affair). Of course, it’s not the most appealing option, but it nonetheless would get the job done, in any event.

            Or second and my preferred option, is to render the Islamic totalitarian world defenseless and in total abject poverty, followed by totally isolating it until such time as Islam becomes totally discredited in that society.

            Indeed, because Islam is an extremely draconian form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination far more than it is a so-called religion, it is incapable of producing anything of value, thus after a few generations of nothing but suffering as a result of grueling poverty and total isolation, at some point in time Islam will become discredited in that society. Once Islam has become fully discredited in that society, then at that time, but certainly not before, those people will be ready to join the rest of the civilized world.

            Explaining what our options are in no way constitutes calling for extermination as you are trying to allege here. Maybe it is to you, but that’s only because you are extremely delusional and also a totally obsessed bigot that is fully consumed with demonizing Jews, while apologizing for Muslims because they happen to be your valued partners in crime.

          • Americana

            Interesting and thorough analysis, hieronymous. I wasn’t surprised in the least that al Baghdadi’s pronouncement/ announcement (what’s the best term to use for his self-aggrandizing founding of the Caliphate and his own elevation to Caliph?) was greeted w/resounding silence, or worse, from within the jihadist ranks as well as from the standing Muslim governments. The modern anti-jihad movement is basing its philosophical propaganda on paradigms that are no longer applicable to the international Muslim worldview because of a desire to represent Islam as a monolithic threat against all Western civilization. The international political realities are either never discussed or they’re subsumed by philosophical rhetoric that ignores the sociological realities.
            _____________________________________________________

            http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21604230-extreme-islamist-group-seeks-create-caliphate-and-spread-jihad-across

            In the long run the biggest hope for containing ISIS lies in its lack of a broadly popular base. After all, al-Qaeda itself dismally failed to capture Arab minds during the Arab spring. Most Syrian and Iraqi Sunnis do not wish to be ruled by extremists. Mosul and other areas may yet return to the hands of the government. Yet Syrians and Iraqis are both trapped between dictators on the one hand and extremists on the other. An unhappy choice.

          • hiernonymous

            Thanks – nice link. The Economist has some of the most evenhanded and well-informed reporting on international affairs.

            And, yes, I recently saw an overwrought post suggesting that Israel should invade Gaza to protect itself from ISIS. There may be some compelling reasons to take strong military action in Gaza, but forestalling ISIS there is not one of them.

          • truebearing

            So? Were there nuclear weapons in the 17th Century?

          • hiernonymous

            “So?”

            So Islam plainly does not offer an existential threat to the West.

            “Were there nuclear weapons in the 17th Century?”

            Obviously not. The overwhelming superiority of the West in that regard makes the idea of an existential threat on the part of Muslim states that much more unlikely.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Now everyone is at risk because Muslim Jihadis are in many countries – and demanding benefits that no other group demands – Muslims-Only washrooms to accommodate their needs, benefits for new arrivals in the UK, polygamy, photo ID of women in with their faces covered.

          • Americana

            Yes, I feel terribly threatened by “Muslim only” washrooms and by prayer periods during work. As for polygamy, it has been and continues to be something pursued by many groups among Western civilizations as well as within Islamic civilizations. Most Muslims in western countries DON’T exercise Muslim polygamy so there has been at least that one social adjustment to Western sociological norms. Demanding benefits if you’re a Muslim immigrant could easily be converted into a “pay for work” scheme that nullifies the amount of money paid out to these immigrants. As for the issue about photo IDs, I believe most Muslim women have lost their cases when they go to court. If they want a driver’s license, they have to submit to a photo ID w/their face uncovered.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

            We have allies and those relationships are conditional. Having a common cultural and approximately the same values (compatible values) makes it easier to have strong and productive human relationships even among nations.

            Our permanent interest is to find allies that we can trust. We can trust Israel.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The US can’t trust Pakistan – that’s were OBL found refuge. The US can’t trust Maliki to form a government with Sunnis in it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, then – end of discussion. Enough mewling about how bad anyone is.”

            It’s not the end of any discussion necessarily unless you simply want the bottom line about where sovereigns get their legitimacy. It comes from accomplishment.

            We can threaten existing sovereigns and work against them or for them. We might offer our explanations by explaining that we have views about what good and bad means and how we rate each faction. So there’s still plenty to discuss. But it’s useful to remember that sovereignty either exists in reality or it does not exist at all. And that’s a good starting point for any conversations about nations and sovereigns.

            Asking which aspiring and existing nations we should support can lead to endless discussions and if you have no standards for rating “goodness” or “badness” you will probably end up spinning around forever.

            “Of course, if might makes right, then it’s difficult to understand on what principle the U.S. should support Israel in any fashion whatsoever.”

            No, because we have our values and our interests that are separate from the fact that Israel is sovereign over certain territories.

            “If you’re not a jihadi, and you’re not Israeli, and you support “might makes right,” then there’s no principle in play in which you should ‘support’ anyone at all.”

            Not until we discuss other factors. Might makes right in establishing sovereignty. I don’t approve of anything about the Saudis but I recognize that they are sovereign. That’s the start of the discussion about how we should deal with them, not the end.

            “Unless and until it is to our advantage to take control of the region ourselves, it would seem that your principle would lead us to be wholly indifferent to the conflict.”

            Yes it would. Unless we start to examine other factors in addition to determining who the sovereign is. We should be indifferent to the conflict except that in my analysis it’s merely a vanguard movement and the war effort in political terms is a global conflict. They’ve already involved just about the whole planet one way or another. And that is why it matters to us.

            We want to have peaceful relationships with as many people and nations as possible. If some major problem is happening that interferes with our national “pursuit of happiness” then we should make some effort to evaluate the significant facts.

            The Palestinian Jihad causes more disruption around the globe than any other modern movement other than communism. And the jhadis are starting to catch the communists.

            I think it does matter to us. It’s the central salient for a global lukewarm war.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, they call it Judea for the kingdom established by those who conquered the land from its previous inhabitants. That doesn’t make them the “indigenous people” of that entire area.”

            Then truly nobody is indigenous and every home is a “settlement” that is part of a “colony.”

            Agreed? Then why distinguish between “colonies” and any other inhabitants?

          • hiernonymous

            As I mention at greater length in another post, “colonization” is the deliberate policy of migrating one’s own citizens to territory one does not currently control in order to take control of it.

            It’s useful to distinguish those who already live in an area, and those who would displace or subjugate them.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That colonization is where the so-called palestinians came from.

          • hiernonymous

            Can you support that?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Egyptian born Chairman Arafat for example.

          • hiernonymous

            Arafat’s father was Palestinian; his mother’s family was from Jersusalem, though I don’t have her birthplace handy. The first fact alone is enough to eliminate Arafat as an example.

            Arafat is also several centuries too late to address the question’s intent. Do you have an actual response?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He wasn’t stateless AFAIK. He had connections to the land.

          • hiernonymous

            The claim in question is that the Palestinians writ large are the consequence of a colonization policy, the implication being that they were imported from elsewhere for the purpose of establishing ownership of the land. I’m asking David to elaborate on which historical events he so interprets.

            The introduction of Arafat is a bit of a red herring. His bio is readily available.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The claim in question is that the Palestinians writ large are the consequence of a colonization policy, the implication being that they were imported from elsewhere for the purpose of establishing ownership of the land. I’m asking David to elaborate on which historical events he so interprets.”

            That’s not how I’d put it. That would be like saying that the Roman Catholic Church and the UK had a coordinated plan to colonize the world in the name of Christianity. More than one faction within the “Christian world” had the idea that colonization was a good thing and they didn’t always refer to it as colonization. But the net effects were often the same.

            Not to conflate all “colonial” programs either. But it seems unwise to reserve the label only for Western projects merely because in the West we’ve reached dominant consensus on how to view our history.

            “The introduction of Arafat is a bit of a red herring. His bio is readily available.”

            His bio is easily discovered but most people just read agitation propaganda and apologetics. I don’t see Arafat as a victim. I see him as extremely manipulative. But I wouldn’t say he’s an alien to the land, but it’s not like he was driven out either. And I’m sure you know who raised him.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s not how I’d put it. That would be like saying that the Roman Catholic Church and the UK had a coordinated plan to colonize the world in the name of Christianity. ”

            I don’t think that identifying colonization as a matter of policy implies that there is a single motivational factor behind that policy. The typical high-school summary of the Spanish colonial history famously focuses on the four “G’s”. By way of comparison, there’s no question that the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 was a matter of policy – the U.S. didn’t accidentally start that war, it didn’t “just happen.” We didn’t have troops stationed near the border who decided on their own to investigate rumors of shots fired in Baghdad. On the other hand, determining just what – and whose – policy objectives were responsible for that policy is a matter of ongoing and sharp debate.

            Similarly, to accept the idea that Palestinians resided in Palestine as a consequence of a colonial policy, one would need to establish that they were transplanted from elsewhere as a matter of policy. It’s not really necessary to ascertain why that policy was implemented, though it’s always nice to try to understand such matters, but the other “W’s” are certainly worth discovering.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not that they have no connections with the land and that they sailed in from Africa or South America. It’s that they so often lie about their connections to the land in many ways.

            The Sauds have “connections to the land” too. Should they rule the entire peninsula? The point being that the various groups of people that organize themselves by culture are not denied sovereignty unless you want to talk about a few minorities that are not trying to establish “Palestine.” The “Palestinian” national movement is fake in the sense that it’s a political Trojan horse construct. And the fact that they seem to depend on lies so frequently doesn’t give credence to any of their claims about their true intentions.

            There’s lots of fraud. We need to force them to be a lot more honest with us if they want our help. That’s what I require personally.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            In the context of the article, the point is that the jihadis have managed to find ways of getting results (against us) while escaping perceived culpability and accountability.

            Seeing them as “victims” just because they don’t have republics and a lot of institutions for us to scour for evidence doesn’t mean they aren’t accomplishing the same or similar results according to their own methods.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By way of comparison, there’s no question that the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 was a matter of policy – the U.S. didn’t accidentally start that war, it didn’t “just happen.” We didn’t have troops stationed near the border who decided on their own to investigate rumors of shots fired in Baghdad. On the other hand, determining just what – and whose – policy objectives were responsible for that policy is a matter of ongoing and sharp debate.”

            That’s another thing that makes us superior: We start wars according to policy and we have the ability to end wars according to policy, and we stand by our treaties for the most part. At least with our enemies. Our friends might not agree.

            IOW, we have clear sovereign control over our land, resources and personnel. We have institutions that make it very easy to negotiate with us in good faith.

            Certain people understand that good faith negotiations won’t get them what they want from us. They have to put on a great, never-ending serial dramas that attempt to fuse fact with fiction. And lots of blood. Not stage blood.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Similarly, to accept the idea that Palestinians resided in Palestine as a consequence of a colonial policy, one would need to establish that they were transplanted from elsewhere as a matter of policy.”

            There is no single sovereign (or coordinated group of sovereigns) directing them AFAIK. It’s structured differently. They organize around the concepts of sharia and jihad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you’re speaking about genetics, that’s a controversial and in my mind pointless question.

            But there’s no doubt that Islamic imperialism accounts for most of the demographic changes of the last 14 centuries.

            Generally speaking, we’re talking about nations, national movements and sovereignty. Genetics should rarely count for much in answering questions of “legitimacy” and which factions we should support, condemn or ignore.

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t disagree with you. I think issues of the genetic relationship of people to occupants millenia previously, or really any attempt to use historical events from the millenium BC, to justify 20th century decisions, is a losing proposition. Once such arguments are raised, though, there are two avenues of discussion – examining the logical structure of the argument, and examining the underlying facts.

            I think that the Roman conquest and subsequent rule actually wrought much more significant demographic changes in the area than anything I can think of prior to the mid-20th century. The Islamic conquest, by contrast, introduced a new ruling class without displacing the bulk of the population. The biggest ‘demographic’ change was not the replacement of a population, but the gradual conversion of that population from Judaism and Christianity to largely Muslim.

            Really, the only role genetics is playing is in examining the factual claim that Palestinians are recent immigrants with no historical connection to the land. I don’t think that establishing such a thing to be true should be relevant, but since it can be challenged factually through genetics, I don’t see the harm in doing so.

          • reader

            You’ve been offered this statement many times over. You just keep ignoring it. The Jews have settled on the land purchased by the Jewish Agency. in 1948 upon the UN voting for Partition, they’ve been attacked by genocidal forces – particularly 5 regular armies bent on cleansing the Jews out of the region. The Arabs lost – some of them turned up outside of the Green Line. How are they better than Suddetten Germans exactly? A simple enough question, is it?

          • hiernonymous

            “How are they better than Suddetten Germans exactly? A simple enough question, is it?”

            It’s “Sudeten,” and if you have an argument to make, feel free to make it. If you wish to pursue an analogy between the establishment of Czechoslovakia and Israel, the treatment of their non-dominant ethnic groups, and the attitudes of those groups toward the new states, go ahead – it will be interesting to see which aspects you find germane and which you gloss over.

          • reader

            Excuse me, I thought you were asking for the statement. I made it. It’s your turn. How is it that a military victory over a blatant aggression is illegitimate exactly?

          • hiernonymous

            Your post did not offer a statement of the principles by which legitimate ownership of a country is established. Is your comment an oblique way of saying that the legitimacy of the creation of Israel rests on the UN plan?

            As far as “bent on cleansing the Jews out of the region,” well, not exactly. There were significant Jewish populations in most of those states. It would be more accurate to say that they were bent on destroying the new Jewish state that was being created at the expense of the largely Arab population that already resided there.

            While I think that the way that Israel came into existence was unfortunate and unjust to many, it is also understandable and a historical fact. I support Israel’s right to exist, so we can dispense with that straw man before you get too invested in it.

            So that leaves us with two items: your confirmation or clarification concerning the UN as the source of legitimate state ownership of land, and your Sudeten argument, if you have one.

          • reader

            “As far as “bent on cleansing the Jews out of the region,” well, not exactly”

            Actually, it was exactly that. It was in fact the Arab Legions mission.

            “While I think that the way that Israel came into existence was unfortunate and unjust to many”

            Yes, because you hate the Jews – as those “many” that you’re refer to with amazing precision, as usual. Interestingly enough, the only legitimate.

            “So that leaves us with two items: your confirmation or clarification concerning the UN as the source of legitimate state ownership of land, and your Sudeten argument, if you have one.”

            That’s two as I counted them. So, where’s your rebuttal?

          • hiernonymous

            “Actually, it was exactly that. It was in fact the Arab Legions mission.”

            You either did not understand what you read in my post, or you do not understand what the Arab Legion was.

            “Yes, because you hate the Jews…”

            It didn’t take long for you to fall back on that chestnut. Your chosen nick is seeming less and less apt. Perhaps misreader would serve better?

            “That’s two as I counted them. So, where’s your rebuttal?”

            To what? I asked you if I understood your comment to mean that you believe the UN to be the source of state legitimacy. Until you answer, how would I know whether I agree or disagree? A rebuttal may or may not be in order.

            As for the Sudeten piece, again, you’ve yet to make your argument, so we may be in agreement and we may not.

          • reader

            “You either did not understand what you read in my post, or you do not understand what the Arab Legion was.”

            The Arab Legion was the army with the mission of pushing the Jews into the sea. It’s hard to understand without Marxist dialectics. In fact, nobody can understand anything in your posts without it. I’ve already acknowledge that.

            “”Yes, because you hate the Jews…”
            It didn’t take long for you to fall back on that chestnut.”

            Why would it? If you did not hate the Jews, you wouldn’t be here questioning the legitimacy of the only Jewish state. That’s where the SUDETEN Germans come into play. You don’t seem to care or feel that it’s unfortunate what happened to them, or the Prussians from Konigsberg, or the Finns from Vyborg, or, you name it.

            “I asked you if I understood your comment to mean that you believe the UN to be the source of state legitimacy.”

            The source of the legitimacy is in fact property rights and jurisdictional authority. The British turned 80% of the Mandate to the Arab Hashemit minority to rule over the other Arabs – no complaints from you, I suppose. The rest they turned over to the UN, which, instead of giving it to the Jews – as promised – partitioned it, giving parts of it to the Arabs again. But the Jews got too much. They should have gotten nothing – that’s your position. But you don’t really hate the Jews. It’s dialectics.

          • Drakken

            To the victors go the spoils, as it has always been, as it will always be.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Jews were the previous and original inhabitants of the land even before the conquest of Joshua.

            You’ll find that’s the conventional archeological view.

          • hiernonymous

            The conventional archeological view is that they were among the earliest known inhabitants. They were not the sole inhabitants, and expanded greatly from the area that they could properly be said to have been the original inhabitants.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’ve finally gotten around to admitting the Jews were the indigenous people.

            That only two two weeks.

            This is followed by various pointless caveats about them expanding too much. Want to try and apply those same caveats to Native American tribes?

          • hiernonymous

            I have not “admitted that the Jews were the indigenous people.” The archeological record indicates that they, or their forebears, were among the earliest identified inhabitants in that region. That does not suggest that they were the exclusive indigenous people of the entire region of Palestine, as your wording implies. Nebel’s study suggests that both Jews and At least a significant fraction of Palestinians share descent from the earliest inhabitants of the region.

            “Want to try and apply those same caveats to Native American tribes?”

            Sure. An analogous situation might be if the Seminoles occupied Washington, D.C., on the strength of the claim that they were the indigenous people of the East Coast. The analogy isn’t perfect, because the Palestinians have a much longer, more complex association with the land, and themselves have ties to the original inhabitants, but in terms of illustrating the overreach of the claims of being “the” indigenous people of the region, it serves.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jews were in the Land of Israel BEFORE any Muslim rode in.

            Christians were in the Middle East BEFORE any Muslim rode in.

          • hiernonymous

            And?

            If being the first recorded on the land gives one right to it, then the most charitable interpretations would give Israel the right to a few villages in the corner of Israel. The actual oldest established city in the area (and, arguably, the world) wasn’t Jewish. We infer from this that “title,” as it were, to the bulk of the kingdom of Judea was established by virtue of conquest.

            The point, of course, is not to dispute that the Jewish conquest was the earliest of the three. The point is that if the Jewish conquests are considered legitimate at all, then one has opened the door to the idea that one can gain legitimate title to land through conquest – that, at some point, the de facto control of the land becomes de jure, as it were. There’s nothing unreasonable about that – I don’t think that anyone refers to the Norman occupation government in England, and the UN isn’t calling for the return of California, etc, to Mexico – but it does then require us to abandon simplistic arguments such as the post you just offered and look a bit harder at where the right to claim territory comes from.

          • Americana

            Oh, then there’s no intention on the part of Israeli settlers to eventually settle and thereby claim all the rest of Judea and Samaria? Splitting hairs about what is disputed vs occupied vs settled under duress isn’t legitimate given the argument over what constitutes Palestinian land.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            It’s called disputed, if the Palestinians ever get tired of trying to destroy Israel and create a Palestinian state (which they have had several opportunities but declined) and shown to be a peace partner (wouldn’t that be novel) there might be opportunities in the future as recent event seem to make to possibility infinitesimal right now. They should have taken the opportunities when the Israelis were under the misconception that they are just like them and want to live in peace.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            There will never be Pal-e-SWINE. ISIS won’t allow it.

            And you know who controls ISIS….

          • Bklyn Farmer

            During the last 2 days over 160 rockets have been launched into Israel. Sirens have sounded in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (so much for it being a Muslim holly city) if Judea and Samaria were under PA control the situation would be much worse and that is what the trolls Americana and Hiernonymous want.

          • Drakken

            The first thing I would do if I was in charge, is tell those bloody savages that if one more rocket is fired, that bloody abomination on top to the temple mount is going to get a taste of urban renewal.

          • Americana

            Israel is under the Iron Dome missile defense system that the U.S. provided a few years ago. Over 90% of the rockets that have been fired have been destroyed by Iron Dome. I’d say that’s quite a successful defense program if 90% of the rockets don’t find targets. As for your comment that hieronymous and I wish for Palestinian control over Judea and Samaria and therefore we’re for continued militant/ terrorist actions being taken against Israel, that’s certainly not my hope.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            90% effective well that only 30 missiles (300 total) that landed in Israel the lst couple of days, only 800 from Gaza since 2005 (8000+ total) makes you wonder what all the fuss is not like us farmers who are upset when a drunk hunter carring a dear rifles trespasses on our property, now that’s a war crime. Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, given the Gaza experiment I would not want to repeat it with the West Bank area.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Einstein must not have played with a slot machine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If I move from one state to another, am I a colonist? If I’m a bee, yes. What about humans?

          • hiernonymous

            I’m surprised that you’re unfamiliar with colonization. The short remedial version: colonization is not simply migration, but a policy of settling one’s own citizens in territory not owned by a state in order to establish ownership over that territory. It can take the form of settling unpopulated areas, or of displacing the current population, in order to establish a colony primarily populated by citizens of the colonizing state, or it can take the form of settling a core population from the colonizing state among an existing population and assuming control and ownership of the territory. Britain’s American colonies are an example of the former; the Raj was an example of the latter.

            The term “colonization” is not used frivolously here. The Israeli practice of establishing settlements in the West Bank is consciously designed to establish control of that territory in such a way as to not only establish control, but to make it politically difficult or impossible for future Israeli governments to reverse the procedure. It’s not terribly dissimilar to the policy of Russian colonization undertaken during the Soviet era, during which large numbers of Russians were introduced into the various SSRs in order to strengthen Moscow’s control over the entire state, and which serves as the basis for Russian intervention in its neighbors years after the dissolution of the USSR.

            Now that you’re caught up on the concept, we can address your question. Since you will presumably not be moving from one state to another as a result of governmental or paragovernmental policy, and since moving to that other state would do nothing to help your former state establish control, sovereignty, or ownership over your new state, the answer is no.

            Regards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK, but why aren’t the others colonists when they come for the same reasons?

            If I move from Egypt to “Palestine” to wage jihad, am I not then a colonist too? Or must I also be seen as “successful?”

            It seems like there’s some subjectivity involved. Otherwise I don’t have a problem with the term as long as its used honestly. There seem to be a lot of colonists among all of the factions.

          • hiernonymous

            “If I move from Egypt to “Palestine” to wage jihad, am I not then a colonist too? ”

            Again, if you are doing so as part of the policy of a governmental or paragovernmental entity that is trying to establish control over the area in question by your residence there, then yes. Traveling to an area in conflict in order to support one of the factions is not colonization in itself.

            It’s disingenuous, at best, to try to portray the Palestinians as colonists from surrounding Arab states. There’s no denying that there was an existing population in Palestine, the Arab portion of which was largely displaced and dispossessed by the establishment of Israel. It’s quite true that the surrounding Arab states resisted having this population simply absorbed into their own populations, and the reasons for that resistance range from the understandable to the cynical. An example of the former is Jordan, whose small population was so overwhelmed by the refugee population and its aggressive leadership that Hussein was forced to evict them. No doubt Syria and Egypt could have more successfully absorbed those populations, but they found it useful to keep them in a refugee status. That doesn’t make them less real.

            “It seems like there’s some subjectivity involved.”

            Which is why, when we have people variously and selectively invoking mysticism, antiquity, might, etc, as the basis for claims to legitimacy, I thought it might be useful to step back and examine what gives a state legitimacy and a people a right to a state.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Traveling to an area in conflict in order to support one of the factions is not colonization in itself.”

            Even when establishing some kind of residency to meet the same objectives?

          • hiernonymous

            If a citizen of A travels to a land in which B and C are struggling for supremacy in order to join B or C, that is not colonization, and cannot be described as meeting the “same objectives.” If he travels in order to establish A as a faction, with the goal of supplanting or subjugating B and C, and does so as one of many such as a matter of A’s policy, that is clearly colonization. If he traveled independently with the latter goal but absent a policy by A, I think that the burden would be on you to show a substitute policy by an entity other than A, acting on A’s behalf (with or without A’s countenance) that would raise the level of migration and coordination to the functional equivalent of colonization.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If a citizen of A travels to a land in which B and C are struggling for supremacy in order to join B or C, that is not colonization, and cannot be described as meeting the “same objectives.””

            Never?

            “If he travels in order to establish A as a faction, with the goal of supplanting or subjugating B and C, and does so as one of many such as a matter of A’s policy, that is clearly colonization.”

            What if A and B are factions within a larger group that has shared goals? If a member of group A moves to pursue the goal of establishing dominance on behalf of the group that contains both A and B? What if a member of A wants to join with B to supplant C on behalf of set AB?

            What is that?

            “If he traveled independently with the latter goal but absent a policy by A, I think that the burden would be on you to show a substitute policy by an entity other than A, acting on A’s behalf (with or without A’s countenance) that would raise the level of migration and coordination to the functional equivalent of colonization.”

            How does Islamic imperialism fit in to this? What if…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s disingenuous, at best, to try to portray the Palestinians as colonists from surrounding Arab states.”

            I’m simply testing the paradigms. Since the factions are not mirrored entities, and they have entirely different approaches and results, it seems like it matters if the paradigms we use lead to biased analysis whether done intentionally or without malice.

          • hiernonymous

            The settlement program is pretty textbook colonization. There’s nothing unreasonable about describing it as such. There may be arguments that the policy is justified, but none that it is not what it is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK, so it’s not organic behavior like when bees colonize but it’s not necessarily the same as Roman expansionist conquest when they established new settlements with retired military personnel. It’s something in between that is not ipso facto illegitimate.

            That sounds perfectly reasonable. I hope everyone else agrees with you.

          • Americana

            The Israeli colonization should be seen as being expansionist in that MOST colonists believe in Greater Israel and feel the entire region belongs to Israel. This is a true evaluation of their intentions based on their literature and based on interviews w/settlers. So, to me, this colonization is deliberately allowed by Israel and is being undertaken w/the thinking that eventually, by hook or by crook, Israel will own the whole kit and caboodle. These settlers will be horribly surprised if they’re forced to give up what they’ve built even if they’re compensated for it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 3 hours ago: “The Israeli colonization should be seen as being expansionist in that MOST colonists believe in Greater Israel and feel the entire region belongs to Israel.”
            Like the “colonists” in Gaza.

            “These settlers will be horribly surprised if they’re forced to give up what they’ve built even if they’re compensated for it.”

            The know the risks. They’re not part of any overall driving strategy. They’re there for tactical reasons because they help keep the area secure and having them there fits with strategic plan B, not plan A.

          • Americana

            The Palestinians believe they are entitled to the land that was taken from them but they are not actively colonizing additional land outside their enclaves as the Israelis are doing. The Palestinians consider themselves entitled to more land than Israel is currently willing to concede and are desirous of peace talks on the basis of the 1967 borders. This is something that Israel no longer considers feasible. But considering the Israelis are not legally entitled to expand their colonization efforts and they’re doing it anyway, speaks volumes about the honesty of the state and of the individual Israelis who are doing the colonizing.

            It’s not a matter of the Israeli settlers “keeping an area secure,” rather it’s a very deliberate attempt for colonizing outreach and to increase the Israeli infiltration of Palestinian areas. Most settlers believe that Israel will ultimately prevail and they’ll be given the right to remain in situ. The settlers are relying on their rights being recognized by legal entities sympathetic to their cause or their plight. However, if the Israeli settlers are awarded a win on the basis of sympathy, it means the Palestinians suffer a commensurate loss. It’s a very organic and gradual process that almost evades detection unless one looks at maps of the original land allocations and follows the land ownership shift through the decades from Palestinian to Israeli hands.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “The Palestinians believe they are entitled to the land that was taken from them but they are not actively colonizing additional land outside their enclaves as the Israelis are doing.”

            You’re conflating property ownership with sovereignty. It’s difficult to make people whole when there are disputes over sovereignty. You’ve got to solve sovereignty claims first.

            “The Palestinians consider themselves entitled to more land than Israel is currently willing to concede and are desirous of peace talks on the basis of the 1967 borders.”

            Based on what formula? What makes them entitled to be sovereign over a gas station or an outhouse for that matter? Nobody is “entitled” to sovereignty. And without a valid sovereign to support you, it’s difficult to assert other rights when you don’t want to deal with the existing sovereign.

            And answering my own question, the formula is sharia. They want all of it.

            “This is something that Israel no longer considers feasible. But considering the Israelis are not legally entitled to expand their colonization efforts and they’re doing it anyway, speaks volumes about the honesty of the state and of the individual Israelis who are doing the colonizing.”

            You evidently don’t understand sovereignty. I think it’s unwise to remove peaceful, cooperative people. I don’t see Israel doing that. They’re sovereign. They can do it. You calling it “illegal” is absurd. Certain enemy factions have decided to interpret so-called “international law” as rendering these settlements illegal. Well, you know what they say about opinions.

            “It’s not a matter of the Israeli settlers “keeping an area secure,” rather it’s a very deliberate attempt for colonizing outreach and to increase the Israeli infiltration of Palestinian areas.”

            Again, you’re opinion is just as valuable as that of the next dupe.

            “Most settlers believe that Israel will ultimately prevail and they’ll be given the right to remain in situ”

            So? I don’t care. Why shouldn’t they remain there as part of a new peaceful Palestinian state?

            “The settlers are relying on their rights being recognized by legal entities sympathetic to their cause or their plight. However, if the Israeli settlers are awarded a win on the basis of sympathy, it means the Palestinians suffer a commensurate loss. It’s a very organic and gradual process that almost evades detection unless one looks at maps of the original land allocations and follows the land ownership shift through the decades from Palestinian to Israeli hands.”

            That sounds imperfect. It seems like the Palestinians should be a lot more motivated to settle these matters peacefully rather than constantly operating in bad faith and trying to kill and terrorize. They’re playing right in to the hands of the “evil Jews.”

            That’s life I guess.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s no denying that there was an existing population in Palestine, the Arab portion of which was largely displaced and dispossessed by the establishment of Israel.”

            I’m not denying any of the facts. The controversies are generated by lies (though I’m not accusing you) and by abuse of facts that attempt to shift accountability from the belligerents to the winners by using “Critical theories” rather than rational analysis.

            “It’s quite true that the surrounding Arab states resisted having this population simply absorbed into their own populations, and the reasons for that resistance range from the understandable to the cynical. An example of the former is Jordan, whose small population was so overwhelmed by the refugee population and its aggressive leadership that Hussein was forced to evict them. No doubt Syria and Egypt could have more successfully absorbed those populations, but they found it useful to keep them in a refugee status. That doesn’t make them less real, and it doesn’t make them Syrian or Egyptian ‘colonists.’”

            I’m not setting any rules for how labels are applied. I’m testing the paradigms and the reasons for certain arguments.

            “Not sure if your comment was intended as a left-handed swipe at Arafat or not. If you can wrap your head around Ted Cruz being an American politician, you can understand that Arafat was Palestinian.”

            I’ve always been clear about my opinion of Arafat as a man that was not ever trustworthy and who clearly was acting in bad faith all around. It would be foolish to blame lack of results on anyone but him and others working alongside him with very similar methods and objectives.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m not denying any of the facts. The controversies are generated by lies (though I’m not accusing you) and by abuse of facts that attempt to shift accountability from the belligerents to the winners by using “Critical theories” rather than rational analysis.”

            All participants in a conflict are belligerents, winner and loser, aggressor and victim. In this case, there are rational arguments to be made that both sides were aggressors.

            If you think you have a uniquely rational analysis, I’ll be happy to consider it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All participants in a conflict are belligerents, winner and loser, aggressor and victim. In this case, there are rational arguments to be made that both sides were aggressors.”

            The Arab Jihadis were belligerents long before the Jews organized any defense. That’s one important point. And that’s why I object to starting a timeline only when the Jews started to fight back. Especially a timeline that supposedly tries to show that the Jews and the Jihadis have more or less similar behaviors and reactions in similar circumstances. Totally untrue when we look at the relevant facts.

            “If you think you have a uniquely rational analysis, I’ll be happy to consider it.”

            I’m not claiming to have any uniquely rational analysis. I’m saying that those who defend the Palestinians as “freedom fighters” must ignore rational analysis to do it. There might be a few who truly are fighting for “freedom” but they’re not driving the movements. The few acting in good faith have been killed or marginalized. And that’s sad, but that’s not something that can be blamed in Israel or on the West. But if you must blame outsiders, it’s more our fault than it is Israel’s since we have had so much influence in the region since the end of WWI.

          • hiernonymous

            Actually, U.S. policy toward the area between the World Wars was relatively enlightened; it was French and British policy that really set the stage for disaster.

            I’d agree that choosing the start point of a frame of reference can bias the entire discussion; when I review the matter, I tend to start with Theodor Herzl and Mark Twain. Depending on the context, you can go back to Josephus and the Jewish Wars. I think that a fair, very broad outline might look something like this:

            1. The Zionist movement begins. Herzl begins the Zionist movement, which uses peaceful economic means to encourage Jewish migration to Palestine with the ultimate goal of establishing a homeland; as this progresses, Arabs slowly become alarmed.

            2. WWI and betrayal. Britain promises the Arabs that the Arab lands will become independent if they help topple Ottoman rule over the region; Britain promises the Jewish community a homeland in Palestine. The promises conflict, and the Arabs feel betrayed by British and French dispositions of what they consider to be Arab lands in the wake of the war. In Palestine, this translates into an evolving three-way struggle among Arabs, Jews, and British. Jewish migration accelerates during this period.

            3. Post-Holocaust. Palestine’s primary strategic importance to the British Empire was the military access it gave to the northern end of the vital Suez Canal and its connection to the jewel of the empire. With the decision to give up India, there was no longer a need to endure the expense and trouble of maintaining order in Palestine, and the Brits give very short notice the the infant UN that it will be abandoning its mandate. With the Holocaust fresh in every mind, the need for a Jewish state is more or less universally accepted, and the 50-50 plan for the partition is passed. The Arabs reject the idea that the Jewish state, the need for which had its origins in centuries of oppression at the hands primarily of European states, should be created at the expense, not of those oppressors, but of the Arabs. The Arabs mistakenly believe that their overwhelming numbers should suffice to eliminate this new state before it can take root. Israel is created, and its borders are significantly greater than those of the UN 50-50 plan.

            So who was the aggressor? I think that’s a pretty tough question. Herzl’s vision of Zionism wasn’t violent, but it was certainly a plan to colonize a region that was already populated. Some argue that this was a good thing, that the largely European immigrants brought a stronger economy, better use of the land, etc, but the fact is that few populations would look with equanimity on a plan by a foreign population to turn the region in which one lives into their homeland. That said, Herzl’s plan was based on voluntary transactions all around.

            The next point of examination might be the WWI dispositions. Britain basically made a deal with the Arabs – Arab sovereignty for the lands in which the Arabs lived, in return for their co-belligerency against the Ottomans in the war. The Brits, of course, tried to argue that the Hussein-McMahon understandings didn’t promise the entire region, etc, but the fact is that the Arabs were led to expect sovereignty, and they were cheated. It’s at this point that we really start seeing references to Palestine as a political entity, in the wake of the French dethroning of the Hashemites in Syria and the petition for an independent Palestine in the League of Nations the next year. So one might look at this point as the origin of the conflict – the perception that the Brits had sold Arab interests down the river, now that their military sacrifice was no longer needed, in favor of the Jews in satisfaction of the Balfour agreement.

            The war itself is tricky. I don’t think that any reasonable person could argue that the establishment of a state for the Jews was unnecessary. Plainly, living as a minority at the tolerance of host countries had not worked out, and if Germany, one of the most civilized nations on the face of the earth, could commit such a horror, anyone could.

            But the hard part is in determining where this homeland should be and how it should be established. I think that one part of the Arab point of view is that if it was European crimes that made the need for the state manifest, why wasn’t it European land that was set aside for the purpose, and European populations displaced to make way for the new state? Why were Arabs being asked to pay for someone else’s crimes?

            A less noble sentiment lay in the Arab conviction that there was no need to accept the UN’s proposal, because the correlation of forces seemed to clearly indicate an easy victory for the Arabs should they attempt a military solution. The Arabs initiated open violence.

            I don’t think that what the Arabs were asked to accept was reasonable. Given more time to plan, the groundwork might have been laid for a two-state solution that involved incentives and compensation that would have been mutually agreeable, and something of a consensus could have been built. That didn’t happen, and the UN’s proposal, while possibly the best that could be worked out so quickly, was unjust toward those already resident in those lands. On the other hand, the surrounding Arab states were quick to try to turn the situation to their own advantage, and go after what they thought would be easy pickings. As a consequence, I think that the borders Israel fought to at the conclusion of the war, more extensive than the UN plan, should be respected as legitimate. The Arabs chose violence as the method of addressing their grievance, and they lost.

            That does not mean that the attempts by the hawkish, generally hard-right, factions, to establish a Greater Israel by incorporating lands outside of those borders should be accepted. There are factions on both sides that benefit from the continuing conflict – on the Israeli side, I can think of no clearer example than Ariel Sharon, who cynically manipulated the conflict to achieve political power. Plainly, there are many, many issues in play, and I object in general to approaches that rely on trying to simplify the conflicts by simply eliminating one of the parties as ‘fake,’ illegitimate, satanic, or what have you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Actually, U.S. policy toward the area between the World Wars was relatively enlightened; it was French and British policy that really set the stage for disaster.”

            But we’re their strongest ally and we spring from the same civilization. We have to own that a little in terms of the clash between Islam and the West.

            “1. The Zionist movement begins. Herzl begins the Zionist movement, which uses peaceful economic means to encourage Jewish migration to Palestine with the ultimate goal of establishing a homeland; as this progresses, Arabs slowly become alarmed.”

            But why did they become alarmed?

            “2. WWI and betrayal. Britain promises the Arabs that the Arab lands will become independent if they help topple Ottoman rule over the region; Britain promises the Jewish community a homeland in Palestine. The promises conflict…”

            They didn’t have to conflict. They did because “we” Westerners were not clear and assertive enough about what the limits were to these promises.

            “…and the Arabs feel betrayed by British and French dispositions of what they consider to be Arab lands in the wake of the war.”

            The failure on our part was going along with this idea that any particular place is “Arab” lands without working out conflicts. They don’t need the whole peninsula. But they (at least some of them) did expect it to be sharia compliant.

            “In Palestine, this translates into an evolving three-way struggle among Arabs, Jews, and British. Jewish migration accelerates during this period.”

            Right. But the Arabs attacked the Jew far more frequently than they attacked the British. The attacks started in the 1920s.

            “So who was the aggressor? I think that’s a pretty tough question. Herzl’s vision of Zionism wasn’t violent, but it was certainly a plan to colonize a region that was already populated. Some argue that this was a good thing, that the largely European immigrants brought a stronger economy, better use of the land, etc, but the fact is that few populations would look with equanimity on a plan by a foreign population to turn the region in which one lives into their homeland. That said, Herzl’s plan was based on voluntary transactions all around.”

            And Herzl negotiated in good faith with the Turks. Why would “the Arabs” have a problem with “the Jews” because they made an agreement with the sovereign that helped out everyone and didn’t disadvantage anyone (as far as I know)? Why would it shock the Arabs after WWI to see that the British thought it was a good idea to continue this program as part of the new framework for “nations” in the region? It makes perfect sense. How can any “Arab” feel “betrayed” unless they were promised that sharia would apply more forcefully after WWI than the Turks had themselves required?

            “The Brits, of course, tried to argue that the Hussein-McMahon understandings didn’t promise the entire region, etc, but the fact is that the Arabs were led to expect sovereignty, and they were cheated.”

            Arab negotiations. And you blame the West? I’ll need more evidence to show how it was our fault that jihadis expected a Jew-free peninsula.

            “But the hard part is in determining where this homeland should be and how it should be established. I think that one part of the Arab point of view is that if it was European crimes that made the need for the state manifest, why wasn’t it European land that was set aside for the purpose, and European populations displaced to make way for the new state? Why were Arabs being asked to pay for someone else’s crimes?”

            I get that argument. It’s a bit too simplistic. The Jewish state was not promised as compensation for Germany’s crimes. That just made it a higher priority to get the details resolved.

            “A less noble sentiment lay in the Arab conviction that there was no need to accept the UN’s proposal, because the correlation of forces seemed to clearly indicate an easy victory for the Arabs should they attempt a military solution. The Arabs initiated open violence.”

            Right. Live by the sword, die by the sword…or ask for a do-over? Now they have respect for the UN but not when they don’t need it? Please.

            “That does not mean that the attempts by the hawkish, generally hard-right, factions, to establish a Greater Israel by incorporating lands outside of those borders should be accepted.”

            I don’t support using mendacious methods to establish or maintain sovereignty. If there is evidence that Israeli factions are manipulating the Palestinians, I’d like to hear about it. I’ve never actually seen the state of Israel support anything like that. If they need to take over the disputed territories to end the conflict, I think they have a right to do that based on history. I think it would be wise to be careful about incorporating residents and having a clear transition plan for law abiding citizens to have full (equal) rights more or less as our constitution does.

            “There are factions on both sides that benefit from the continuing conflict – on the Israeli side, I can think of no clearer example than Ariel Sharon, who cynically manipulated the conflict to achieve political power.”

            I think he’d had enough of being manipulated and pushed back. I totally support what he did in 2000. The Jews were second class citizens in their own land and in some ways still are with respect to their own religious sites. It’s outrageous.

            “Plainly, there are many, many issues in play, and I object in general to approaches that rely on trying to simplify the conflicts by simply eliminating one of the parties as ‘fake,’ illegitimate, satanic, or what have you.”

            Obviously they are human. Not “fake humans.” Their arguments are more often than not mendacious and phony.

            I know we tolerate some exaggeration from diplomats and people engaged in negotiations, but everything that I’ve seen leads me to conclude that they clearly operate in bad faith as a policy. Saeb Erekat was one of the better guys and he’s a bald-faced liar practically every time he opens his mouth. The others are much worse.

            I think that if they negotiated in good faith, or something even close to it, they’d have the state that everyone seems to think is their endgoal. But they’d have to end the conflict. Even Clinton stopped believing in them. Or at least he wised up about Arafat. Abbas is no different in terms of strategy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Which is why, when we have people variously and selectively invoking mysticism, antiquity, might, etc, as the basis for claims to legitimacy, I thought it might be useful to step back and examine what gives a state legitimacy and a people a right to a state.”

            The conversations are complex and chaotic. Rectifying lies is not necessarily the same thing as using mystical justifications. Israel is a sovereign. People employ various lies about Israel and their relationships with the land. Rectifying lies by talking about history or mysticism is not necessarily the same thing as depending on those explanations to justify sovereignty. Although in the minds of some critics it might, so we see this discussed often. Part of having “might” is building support and defusing the rhetorical attacks of various enemies.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s getting hard to follow your allusions to all of these “lies” in the general. Which facts do you think have been wrongly disputed or alleged, and how do they fit into the question of establishing rights to the land?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s getting hard to follow your allusions to all of these “lies” in the general.”

            I’m referring to the greater discourse about the conflicts in the region. I’m not necessarily following every conversation here well enough to run down every example.

            It may be that the genetic arguments are out of place here. The conversations are somewhat chaotic. I’m explaining why it might be seen as relevant some times.

            “Which facts do you think have been wrongly disputed or alleged, and how do they fit into the question of establishing rights to the land?”

            I don’t even know where to begin if I need to critique the entire conversation. If I offer a remark it just means I think it’s useful to keep in mind. YMMV.

            But if you strip away all of the forensic arguments and justifications that originate in them, you’re left with Israel as sovereign and a bunch of outlaws lying about various things in order to discredit the sovereign they want to displace. I’d rather be on the side rectifying lies than helping liars. It doesn’t mean that if I talk about King David that I think Israel needs to validate their sovereignty with historical proofs unless they’re being attacked as phonies who are therefore illegitimate because allegedly it is the Israelis and Jews that go around fabricating forensic evidence in connection with history of the region.

          • hiernonymous

            “But if you strip away all of the forensic arguments and justifications that originate in them, you’re left with Israel as sovereign and a bunch of outlaws lying about various things in order to discredit the sovereign they want to displace. ”

            I agree with the first half of your statement, but I think the second half is an example of what you are decrying – an attempt to discredit a legitimate actor out of the equation. I think that Israel is a legitimate sovereign – but its sovereignty does not extend to the West Bank and Gaza, and its actions in attempting to so extend them are properly subject to inspection and challenge.

            The genetic, Biblical, etc arguments are worth challenging because they are being used, not so much to establish Israel’s right to exist, but to try to establish that the Palestinian’s rights need not be accepted or considered. It seems to be an attempt to simplify the problem by defining one of the players away.

            “I’d rather be on the side rectifying lies than helping liars.”

            Excellent. Then you understand my presence on this board better than most.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…but its sovereignty does not extend to the West Bank and Gaza, and its actions in attempting to so extend them are properly subject to inspection and challenge.”

            It’s an odd thing but they are the de facto sovereign of the disputed territories. They’re trying to delegate sovereignty in a good faith attempt to help end the conflict by supporting the “Palestinian State.” It’s not working out as intended.

            Nonetheless, they are the de facto sovereigns. I don’t know of any other legitimate competing claims. I only know of some wishful thinkers that would like to change the status quo.

            “The genetic, Biblical, etc arguments are worth challenging because they are being used, not so much to establish Israel’s right to exist, but to try to establish that the Palestinian’s rights need not be accepted or considered.”

            It’s a two-way street there, and I find a lot of blatant lies coming form the Palestinian camps. Lies like propagating this idea that Jesus had “4 Palestinian disciples” (or maybe it was 5) and referring to Judea anachronistically as “Palestine” in narratives that try to connect this modern “Palestinian” movement to the region. Those are lies.

            And if people believe those lies, they believe that most of Western academia is “corrupted by the Jews” when we in the West find and report contradictory forensic evidence. That’s just one example of how they’re dragging us in to the fight. They’re making liars out of all of us.

            The Palestinians in my view are legitimate when they approach negotiations in good faith. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen.

            “It seems to be an attempt to simplify the problem by defining one of the players away.”

            I honestly don’t think that’s true. But I do understand that it could appear that way if your view is not wide or deep enough to understand the origins.

            “Excellent. Then you understand my presence on this board better than most.”

            I understand. I also think that your views would change if your focus was changed to go a little deeper and wider, but since you’re here you’re clearly trying to do something about that.

          • Americana

            You’d love to be able to make that claim w/a straight face but it’s a foregone conclusion that the current Israelis were installed in Palestine by force of arms coupled w/diplomacy. The present Israelis are no more indigenous to the area than camels were indigenous to Australia. However, the founding of Israel was a political decision that was made long ago which honors the deaths of millions in the Holocaust, therefore we should find a way to make it work for both peoples. That requires both peoples to do their utmost to further the cause of peace even if some of the choices are seemingly incompatible w/their national desires.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Jews ARE indigenous to the Middle East and especially the Land of Israel.

            Jews and Christians lived in the Middle East before the false prophet muhammed came on the scene.

            Muslims can’t steal and demand that their theft be recognized as lawful. Same too in India where mosques are built over Hindu temples.

            Your “Pal-e-SWINIANS” are Egyptians (like Arafat), Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians.

            How can Arabs/Muslims play nice with others when Arabs/Muslims can’t even get along with fellow Arabs/Muslims?

            See Syria (160,000+ dead), Iraq and ISIS, Egypt and its fascist muslim brotherhood.

          • Americana

            You can sneer and invent denigrating terms like “Pal-e-swinians” but, the fact is, if these Palestinian Arab families prove the provenance of their lands and farms and olive groves, Israel has to acknowledge they have primacy of ownership.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I still await your link to the UN that lists Jewish terrorist attacks.

            Does your link to the UN also lists Muslim terrorist attacks?

            Use Google and type in “United Nations”. The first return is “www.un.org”.

          • Americana

            http://www.un.org/maintenance/

            The United Nations’ web site is undergoing maintenance so I won’t be able to retrieve the information today. I am also leaving for a K-9 Search and Rescue operation on Friday night so if the site is not up by then, I won’t be posting it. You can look for the information yourself.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Try this. It works for me.

            http://www.un.org/en/

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You made the claim that the UN lists Jewish terrorist attacks.

            YOU need to support YOUR claim.

            Today is Tuesday, and you have several days before Friday AND http://www.un.org/en/ works for me in the US.

            Are you being blocked by censors in Fascist Iran?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Anyone else on FPM not able to access

            http://www.un.org/en/

            ???

            Americana, are your pants/hijab/burqa on fire?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            When Jews are depicted in the Koran as sons of pigs and dogs, is it wrong to call Paleswinians Pal-eSWINIANS too?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The 800,000 Jews from Arab lands who fled for their lives are due compensation.

            Compensate the Arab colonists of Israel who ran away expecting the 5 attacking Arab armies would slaughter the Jews – compensation coming from the countries of the 5 attacking Arab armies (ie. Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon).

          • Drakken

            It won’t work and peace will never ever come unless and until one side or the other is defeated and the victor lays claim over the land, that is how it has always been, and it will always be that way. Silly goofy leftist always try to put square pegs through round holes knowing that they don’t fit, but try anyway.

          • Americana

            An indigenous people don’t get to hold onto their claims of indigeneity and rights of possession to a particular region after multiple diasporas to other countries where they’ve lived for many generations. You are assigning a totally artificial concept of indigeneity to the Jews that is simply not recognized legally and was only allowed in this instance because of the exceptional circumstances of Jewish pogroms and terrible persecution the world around.

          • Drakken

            Who say what is illegal or legal? Some busy body great debating society? Sorry sparky but so called UN and so called international law has no standing with citizens of sovereign countries.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The UN, United Nations, has been hijacked by the same ideology that gave rise to al qada, isis, plo, hamass, hezbullah, boko haram, muslim brotherhood, fascist iran.

          • Americana

            Israel would never have come to pass if the powers that were at the time had prevented Jewish immigration post WW I and post-WW II. So, since, Israel DIDN’T initially reconquer her present footprint but was GIVEN the land under diplomatic duress and only afterward conquered additional land courtesy of weaponry from the United States, what does that make Israel today? Israel’s resurrection gets messier and messier the deeper one looks into the situation and the Israelis are only making it messier by their colonial expansion.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The murderous actions of Arabs/Muslims prove you wrong.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are assigning a totally artificial concept of indigeneity to the Jews that is simply not recognized legally and was only allowed in this instance because of the exceptional circumstances of Jewish pogroms and terrible persecution the world around.”

            So normally it’s forbidden?

            My ancestors are French. Most of them anyway. If I return to France as a fourth generation American, and a local asks me if I’m indigenous to France, I would say no, but my ancestors were. He might say, well, you are French. You’re still part of who we are.

            Because the French as a people have lived there since my ancestors left. If I go to live with a cousin whose family never left, will you say now that this family is impure?

            Is it really about genetics or culture and how much does it matter?

          • Americana

            You would be welcomed back as a somewhat distantly related and DISENFRANCHISED American who had French ancestry. The French would not expect to have you return, say your ancestors were nobles prior to the French Revolution who owned such and such a chateau and X-thousands of hectares of lands as well as X-number of French peasants and have you demand the French government honor your demands to be reinstated and experience reinvestment to your previous status of noble seigneur ruling over a hamlet in some corner of France.

            The world recognized that the Jewish situation post-WW II merited a status that would protect the Jewish people forevermore from the horrors inflicted by the Germans and their allies. Based on the Jewish Zionist movement which had already effectively been colonizing in the Palestine Mandate, the political lobbying for a Jewish homeland took on the specific aims of reclaiming the Jewish homeland based on Biblical prophesy. But the fact the Jewish immigration had been totally unscripted (other than by Zionist desires) and was dependent on where the Jews had bought land, it meant that the LOGICAL CREATION of a Jewish homeland took a back seat to what had already been created by the resident Jewish Zionist population. If a Jewish homeland had been better handled from its inception, would we be facing exactly the scope and scale of what the Israelis are facing today? I doubt it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re not following the conversation.

            “If a Jewish homeland had been better handled from its inception, would we be facing exactly the scope and scale of what the Israelis are facing today? I doubt it.”

            Better handled? Yes, with more violence and clarity rather than trusting the “good faith” of faithless and untrustworthy people.

          • Americana

            That’s not what I’m getting at in any way. Look at the original partition maps and then get back to me about the logic of what you see.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You hate timelines.

          • Americana

            Since I’m one of the ones insisting on timelines to verify the indigeneity of legitimate land rights claims, I’d hardly make the claim if I were you that I “hate timelines.” What you don’t like about my timelines are that they basically stress that the two remaining Jewish kingdoms were conquered in 722 BCE and 586/539 BCE respectively, followed by the last gasp of a Jewish “kingdom” in 63 BCE that fell to Roman conquest. After that, the Jews that remained in the area weren’t such a demographically significant population that they could lay claim to the region.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “Since I’m one of the ones insisting on timelines to verify the indigeneity of legitimate land rights claims, I’d hardly make the claim if I were you that I “hate timelines.””

            Timelines are usually contiguous.

            “What you don’t like about my timelines are that they basically stress that the two remaining Jewish kingdoms were conquered in 722 BCE and 586/539 BCE respectively, followed by the last gasp of a Jewish “kingdom” in 63 BCE that fell to Roman conquest.”

            What I don’t like is that your references are not part of contiguous timelines discussing the relevant events.

            “After that, the Jews that remained in the area weren’t such a demographically significant population that they could lay claim to the region.”

            Well you’ve got some tough decisions you need to make as sovereign of the region. Or whatever.

          • Americana

            Indigenous people don’t vanish from their country of origin only to reappear thousands of years later proclaiming, “We’re back! Because we’ve got the backing of people much more powerful than you are!”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We’re back! Because we’ve got the backing of people much more powerful than you are!”

            Many Jews remained in the land. They lost sovereignty and yes many left. But they were not totally expunged.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            There already is a two-state solution.

            Israel and Jordan.

            I see the UK breaking up into a british and Islamist Sharia Law compliant states.

            Muslim converts and who re for Islamism Lauren Booth, Jennie Tonge, obsequious Fascist Iran PressTV broadcasters George Gallowsway.on the Sharia Law side.

          • truebearing

            There already is a two state solution…Israel for the Jews and any Muslim country nearby for the so-called palestinians. Why not have a three or four state solution? Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, or even Saudi Arabia could absorb the hapless Palestinians.

            Your problem is that you want Israel to be weakened, then destroyed, but it keeps growing and prospering. This outrages you as a British born Muslim.

          • mbrj

            Rabbi Kahane was right way back when…and I knew then and today we see the truth. He never proposed to harm a hair on the head of the Arabs…just send them to an Arab country to live…if they couldn’t live in peace with the Jews…and they apparently can’t and wont’

          • Eduardo Kelerstein

            Kahane Chai!

          • hiernonymous

            It is as pointless to wish away the Palestinians as it is to wish away the Israelis.

            “Your problem is that you want Israel to be weakened, then destroyed, but it keeps growing and prospering. This outrages you as a British born Muslim.”

            A weak substitute for argument.

          • truebearing

            Not as weak as your criticism.

          • hiernonymous

            Demonstrably false. My criticism, unlike yours, dies not rely on ad hominem by association. You still aren’t employing reason.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “My criticism, unlike yours, dies” -I couldn’t agree with you more.

          • hiernonymous

            It was a typo. but let’s go with it as written – it says “dies not.” Oh, what a difference a word makes.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Never mind, I mistook your typo as a isolated moment of clear self-assessment.

          • truebearing

            Not likely.

            Well done. :)

          • truebearing

            You made a mistake. You are fallible. If you are fallible, your arguments issue from an imperfect source. Why would a fallible person pretend he is infinitely superior to other fallible people?

          • hiernonymous

            “You made a mistake. You are fallible.”

            Of course.

            “Why would a fallible person pretend he is infinitely superior to other fallible people?”

            I wouldn’t know. You’ll have to work that out between you and your imagination.

            That said, I don’t see any need to pretend that all opinions are equally valid, that all arguments are equally reasonable, and that every random thought deserves to be treated with deference. That everyone is fallible does not imply that everyone’s comments are equally well-informed, reasoned, and supported.

          • truebearing

            If only.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The number one reason to dismiss the Palestinians is that they have not in reality achieved statehood and have nobody to blame but themselves. Unless they lie.

            In fact they are a vanguard religious movement. Yes, they use deception campaigns that fool even many of their comrades. But the fact remains that they do not have a state. They do not have the capability of ruling as sovereigns, which by definition is an entity not subject to outside interference.

            You can then make the argument that Israel is the entity blocking sovereignty, which is absolutely ridiculous. The Palestinian leaders themselves deliberately (as alluded to in the article) do not want to have the accountability that comes form actually establishing sovereignty.

            Anyone that carefully reviews the timeline of events in Israel and the greater region will have a very difficult time coming to a different conclusion than mine.

            Start at any time before 1948, or just go back to the Oslo Accords and see how that went. Look at Arafat’s behavior once he was elevated by the Israelis.

            I have plenty of sympathy for the Palestinians that want to live in peace. But truly there are bigger problems in the world than those who are being denied justice in the Middle East by jihadi vanguard movements.

            The only practical way that I see for the victims of the fake Palestinian statehood movement to experience peace is to survive long enough for the Israelis to extend sovereignty and then support them as they remain politically active, perhaps run for office and so forth.

          • hiernonymous

            “Anyone that carefully reviews the timeline of events in Israel and the greater region will have a very difficult time coming to a different conclusion than mine.”

            A more elaborate way of saying “if you disagree with me, you’re wrong.” You can do better.

            As for what your “careful review” reveals, that’s hard to say, because while you repeatedly assert that the ‘timeline’ reveals this and that, you didn’t actually cite the actions or behaviors you allege demonstrate that the Palestinians don’t actually want statehood.

            Given that my review of the timeline of events includes a pretty steady progression of steps calculated to achieve sovereignty, such as applications for membership in the UN and, most recently, becoming recognized signatories to the Geneva conventions, you’d have to have a pretty convincing argument, and you haven’t offered it yet. Greenfield’s litany of complaints about perceptual double standards in criticizing Hamas, the Palestinians, and Israel don’t constitute concrete actions that demonstrate that Palestine does not want sovereignty.

          • truebearing

            “dies not rely on ad hominem by association.”
            That was incoherent.

            Ad hominem isn’t necessarily false, for one thing. Secondly, I don’t think I relied on “ad hominem by association.” Prove it.

            You are still deluding yourself into thinking that you are the arbiter of truth. I don’t happen to accept your narcissistic intellectual delusions of grandeur.

          • hiernonymous

            “That was incoherent.”

            That was a typo. “I” and “O” are adjacent, and I’m an old school touch typist. I make frequent typos when I’m using a tablet instead of a traditional keyboard, and while I try to catch them, I don’t usually run through multiple drafts of my posts the way that I do my formal papers. I would go back and correct it, but another poster has taken such delight in pointing it out that it would be unkind to go back and fix it. Read “dies” as “does” and you should be able to puzzle it out.

            “Ad hominem isn’t necessarily false, for one thing.”

            It’s faulty logic. When you ascribe an association with what you perceive to be an undesirable group to another, and then ascribe to that individual positions based on that association, such that you have substituted the alleged association for an actual chain of logic, you’ve committed a fallacy. There are some very unusual circumstances in which association may be germane, but you’ve not invoked one.

            In this case, calling her a Muslim is presumably intended as an insult, given your past comments on the matter, and a false one, as she has already corrected you on the matter of her personal faith, but that alone is simply infantile, not ad hominem. When you then start drawing inferences and ascribing positions to her “as a British Muslim,” you’ve crossed over into faulty logic.

            “If I state that the “sky is blue,” am I employing reason, and do I necessarily need to?”

            Why, yes, and it depends. On the former, you are making and relaying an observation. As for whether you need to, that depends on the context. If your observation is not challenged and there’s no reason to expect that it will be so, then it’s unlikely that there’s any further need for discussion. On the other hand, if some set of circumstance arose in which the color of the sky at your location were important – in determining the weather, the time of day, what have you – and there are conflicting reports, or reason to suspect your reporting, then further reasoning might need to be employed.

            Of course, when it comes to leveling accusations and drawing conclusions about other people, the burden is a bit higher than “the sky is blue.”

            “You are still deluding yourself into thinking that you are the arbiter of truth.”

            That’s your emotional response, not mine. I made an observation concerning your post. It is you that have become concerned that I am some sort of arbiter.

            “I don’t happen to accept your narcissistic intellectual delusions of grandeur.”

            Then don’t. I make my observations; you can respond to them as you will, or not at all.

          • truebearing

            “In this case, calling her a Muslim is presumably intended as an insult, given your past comments on the matter, and a false one, as she has already corrected you on the matter of her personal faith,”

            Presumption isn’t logic. One can use “Muslim” as an insult, or as an identification. Your presumption was wrong. Based on your past presumptions, I’m not surprised.
            I was proposing my theory as regards her loyalties, which given her past comments, is perfectly plausible.

            Stating “the sky is blue” is either true or false. Simple truths don’t require reason, a mental capability that you mistake for truth or think is the only path to truth. That your own rational capacity is limited should tell you that reason has it’s limitations.

          • hiernonymous

            “Your presumption was wrong. ”

            I’ll take your word for it.

            “Stating “the sky is blue” is either true or false. ”

            You don’t think that reason is involved in making an observation, comparing the visual stimulus with your understanding of the spectrum, and voicing your observation? As the sun sets, when does the sky stop being blue and become purple, indigo, or black? Where is the line between blue and grey? You don’t think that your reason is involved in any of this?

            “I was proposing my theory as regards her loyalties, which given her past comments, is perfectly plausible.”

            Really? It would be interesting to see you make that case.

            I haven’t finished looking through all of the new posts – have you addressed the basis for your accusation that she was posting as Webb?

          • Americana

            You’ve actually called me a “British Muslim” despite numerous corrections from me. You’re wrong on BOTH counts. I’m not British and I’m not a Muslim. I’m a dual-national and I’m a Roman Catholic. If it came to war between the U.S. and Britain (not ever likely), I would be obligated to renounce my British citizenship or I would be considered a traitor. So either you call me what you’ve been told is my heritage or I’ll substitute another nationality and another philosophy for what you evidently profess.

            Your claims of superior reasoning are reliant upon a bulwark of self-defensive tactics such as throwing up all sorts of chevaux des crises commentary (such as calling me a British Muslim) that have no definitive inference on the argument at hand. Quality reasoning stands on its own and should require no artificial help whatsoever (such as insults) to bolster one’s point. That is, if you’re standing on solid ground.

          • truebearing

            I don’t care if you made a mistake, or why. I only brought it up to show you how petty it looks when you do the same, and you do it all the time.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            For example when heiro got bent over the spelling Sudetenland. and his writing that 2 planes were hijacked on 9/11.

          • Americana

            I understood that hieronymous’ statement about the two jetliners being flown into the WTC towers was referring solely to the NYC attacks because the other poster had stressed the NYC attacks. Neither poster was addressing the entire gamut of the 9/11 attacks, so the fact that neither poster initially mentioned either the Pentagon jetliner or the Shanksville, PA jetliner that was presumably heading for the White House, means absolutely nothing in the context of proving hieronymous meant to minimize the 9/11 attacks. Besides, WHO’D FORGET there were 4 JETS used by those jihadists? Show some common sense about how discussions progress and what facts are presented.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I’m STILL waiting for your claimed UN issued list of Jewish terrorist attacks.

            Still getting the “maintenance” page?

            http://www.un.org/en/

            The above doesn’t work? Your dog called Taqiyya ate your homework?

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, you need to teach me a lesson. I understand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There are more than a dozen states in the greater region that they can choose from.

          • Drakken

            The mental gymnastics you go through really is a sight to behold. Sorry sweetheart, but those Israeli’s are not and will not go anywhere, period, end of story. If those bloody inbred savages want war, I say give it to them in spades and bring back the time honored warfare playbook of total war and call it a day, then you will have peace. The ragheads hold 99% of the land in the ME and the fact that Israel has the temerity and gall to hold land anywhere in the ME will always set the inbred savages to knish their collective teeth. You on the other hand want to bow to any and all muslim demands in the vain hope that you will have peace in your time, history time and time again proves you wrong, dead wrong. Funny thing about you Peace now peacenik leftists, you always find yourselves in mass graves because of your innate stupidity. It is a well deserved fate.

          • DontMessWithAmerica

            I second that!

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “The struggle against the Zionist enemy is not a matter of borders but relates to the mere existence of the Zionist entity.” (PLO spokesman Bassam-abu-Sharif, Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1996).

            “After the establishment of a Palestinian State in all of the West Bank and Gaza, the struggle against Israel will continue” (Knesset Member Azmi Bishara, Ha’aretz weekly supplement, 22 May 1998).

            “We may lose or win, but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal; namely, Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the sea.” (West Bank Fatah chief Marwan Barghouti, New Yorker, July 2, 2001).

            Less than a year after the signing of the Oslo accords, in a speech delivered in a Johannesburg, South Africa mosque on May 10, 1994, Arafat stated: “This agreement [Oslo], I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce…But the same way Muhammad had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort.” (Ha’aretz, May 23, 1994)

            Arafat thus reassures his people that the Oslo accords are a similar temporary measure meant only to hold until the Palestinians are ready to attack and defeat Israel.

            And he is not alone. Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf), Arafat’s deputy, explained the meaning of the Phased Plan to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Anba (Dec. 18, 1988): “At first a small state, and with the help of Allah, it will be made large, and expand to the east, west, north and south. I am interested in the liberation of Palestine, step by step…. According to the Phased Plan, we will establish a Palestinian state on any part of Palestine that the enemy will retreat from. The Palestinian state will be a stage in our prolonged struggle for the liberation of Palestine on all of its territories.”

            And in an interview carried by the Egyptian daily Al-Arabi (June 24, 2001) Feisal Husseini, a senior Palestinian minister and key player at the Madrid and Oslo conferences, explicitly stated that the Oslo agreement must be understood as one step in the “Phased Plan,” and that the Palestinian strategy is to defeat Israel by means of a “Trojan Horse”:

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course, you would think that. Effectively, the one-state solution is what Israel has encouraged and allowed to happen w/her rampant colonization program by failing to stem the settler tide. However, if agreed-upon, negotiated borders simply cut off colonies, we’d be back to a two-state solution.”

            What are you talking about? Negotiate borders with who? Jordan? Syria? Egypt? What does that have to do with the Fakestinians?

          • Proud Israely

            “All it takes is the political will to divest colonies that should never have been allowed to be built in the first place”???
            What are you talking about???
            The west bank was conquered from Jordan, not from the palestinians as there was no such state. Gaza was conquered from Egypt, yet the negotiantions are not with Jordan nor with Egypt. England invaded America, and conquered lands from the native americans, as long as it’s conquered, it’s ours, and just as noone tells Jews not to build in London, New York, or any other country in the world, why can’t JEWS build in the west bank? because they are jews? The so called “palestinian” state wants to be clensed from jews, and they children are tought from early age that Jews are daemons. The PA and the rest of the world like to blame it all on the “settlers” while ignoring that we have evacuated Gaza strip, completely, you are welcome to go check how many playgrounds were built, how they educate their youth, and what they do to someone who is SUSPPECTED of helping Israel.

          • Americana

            How very Israely of you to willfully misinterpret the colonization of Palestinian lands by Israelis as being permissible because the Palestinian state does not yet have RECOGNIZED BORDERS. But the Palestinian state has been formally recognized as an observer member state of the United Nations so there is some progress being made on the recognition front. You can attempt to divest the Palestinians of regional indigeneity but it’s not going to be successful given the overwhelming evidence of their protracted existence in the region.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            http://www.un.org/en/

            Works for me. How about you?

            Did the dog eat your computer?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Well, Daniel Greenfield makes some reasonable points except for the fact that no electorate has the power to entirely control what their elected officials do in their name nor do elected officials in a crisis-torn political environment like that of Palestinian liberation have total control over the various liberation groups active within their borders.

        You’re delusional! Hamastan and the PA/Hamas coalition government are for the most part Sharia states, i.e., Islamic totalitarian hellholes. As a matter of fact, there isn’t a legit democracy in the entire Islamic totalitarian world, because Islam more than anything else is an extremely rabid form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination as opposed to being a so-called religion, and as such all non-conformers who refuse to follow the dictates of Islam are routinely executed for apostasy and blasphemy. You are assuming that the Islamic totalitarian world is exactly like the infidel world and it has the same exact values, principles, and aspirations. Nothing could be more ludicrous.

        Look at the relationship between the Irgun and the politicians of the early pre-Israel years. There was no universal agreement on what tactics to take between the terrorist wing and the political wing.

        You’re engaging in lame anti-Semitism again to vilify and demonize the state of Israel and the Jewish people. There is no moral equivalence between infidels and Muslims. Not to mention that Muslims are jihadists as opposed to terrorists, and jihad is a holy war waged by all Muslim against all infidels in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. As a matter of fact, the jihad being waged against the infidel state of Israel is just a tiny part of the much greater global jihad at large being waged against all infidels and all infidel states throughout the world.

        Moreover, the members of Irgun weren’t terrorists, instead they were freedom fighters standing up against tyranny, very similar to the way the American revolutionaries also stood up to the tyranny of King George back during the American Revolution.

        As for as for the rest of your garbage, seek mental help!

      • truebearing

        Voters are morally responsible for those they elect. That is essential for a democratic nation. When they cease to take moral responsibility, the nation will fall into folly, corruption, and dictatorship. The electorate does have the power to control those elected, if it chooses to. Your assertion is yet another attempt to excuse the Palestinians from responsibility, and a clear insight into your poor understanding of, and low regard for, democratically elected governments.

        Your assertion that elected officials don’t have “total control over the various liberation groups active within their borders” is bullsh*t. The leadership is the liberation group, and what appear to be different groups are merely fronts for the same group, disguised to put distance between the leadership and the actual terrorists. It is a reflection on your own stupidity to think that others will believe that Hamas doesn’t know that thousands of rockets are being smuggled into it’s territory and fired at Israel.

        Hamas rules with an iron fist. It knows what is happening on every street. If you were one of the imaginary “moderates” you keep babbling about, and put up a small sign declaring your belief that Israel deserves the right to exist, you would be dead within 24 hours. That is how much control the Palestinian leadership possesses. As usual, you are lying.

      • mozart

        “Americana” is a British Muslim practicing taqiya. Do not believe a word of what she says. Her lies, obfuscations and distortions are only meant to undermine Israel, Israelis and Jews everywhere. Ignore her…

        • truebearing

          Yes, but she stinks at it and hurts her own cause.

        • Drakken

          She is one of those goofy leftist peace now types. Utterly living in lala land.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Well, Daniel Greenfield makes some reasonable points except for the fact that no electorate has the power to entirely control what their elected officials do in their name nor do elected officials in a crisis-torn political environment like that of Palestinian liberation have total control over the various liberation groups active within their borders.”

        So let’s think about this. The human condition is still imperfect. Perfect justice is not really possible. We strive for the most just possible within realistic grasp.

        Whether they do or they don’t, they still support “the state” as is, which includes the policies that allow all of these terrorists to operate openly…in the name of these idiots you claim are innocent.

        According to your standards, all war leads to injustice. And that’s true. That’s why it’s far more humane to win wars quickly when they are absolutely necessary and establish the best judicial systems that our civilization can manage to come up with.

        So I take it now that you would like to see Israel destroy all of the jihadi militias and get it over with so that fewer individuals are unjustly hurt…due to the actions of the jihadis…

        “Look at the relationship between the Irgun and the politicians of the early pre-Israel years. There was no universal agreement on what tactics to take between the terrorist wing and the political wing.”

        Right. Before they were a unified sovereign. Get it?

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Why bring up a Strawman, at this point. It’s the situation, now, that matters. The Muslims of Gaza and the West Bank are not states. They are tools used by the enemies of Israel against them.

        Why aren’t the so-called Palestinians living in Jordan, Lebanon, or other Muslim countries? Because they’re more useful as victims of “Israeli aggression”. They’re more useful as “tools of international diplomacy”. They’re more useful as a “means to vilify Israel” by international media sources.

        As “tools”, the Palestinians have been made into things, rather than people, and their leaders never seemed to have learn this lesson.

        As for Israel, they will fight for their right to survive, and they will prevail. The Palestinians … including Hamas … can’t win. It’s up to the Palestinians to divest themselves of “leaders” that see them only as things fit to die for international consumption.

      • williambilek

        ” no electorate has the power to entirely control what their elected officials do in their name nor do elected officials in a crisis-torn political environment like that of Palestinian liberation have total control over the various liberation groups active within their borders.”

        True enough. But that is what makes up a “sovereign state”. The government takes responsibility for what happens from within its borders, and the electorate, even if it doesn’t agree with the majority vote and the elected government, must go along with it, and accept the consequences.

        If you want to compare the terror organizations of the pre-state days, you will note that Ben Gurion disclaimed the actions of the Irgun and Lehi, and acted against them. In contrast, note how the Hamas government reacted to the criminal kidnapping and murder of three teens carried out by two of their members.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Yes it’s a common pattern on the left. Domestically it does this because it wants to ‘represent’ them thus addressing why it won’t give them responsibility.

      Internationally the results are even messier.

      • Judahlevi

        It not only wants to “represent them”, it wants to take care of them. It is this condescension from the left towards groups that they think are not as smart as they are and need their ‘help,’

        It is no different than an over-indulgent parent who shelters a child from the consequences of their actions and thereby enables the child to be irresponsible. This leads to bad consequences, caused primarily by the parent.

        The Western liberals have caused this current conflict with Israel and Hamas by enabling and encouraging Palestinian Arabs to defy Israel and any peace process. Paying for their food, medical care, infrastructure, etc. they allow the Palestinian Arabs to concentrate on hating Israel and Jews without having to worry about making a living.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          it’s plantation politics. If it takes care of them, it owns them.

          • truebearing

            And the fools have so little self-respect or gumption that they willingly go along with it.

    • Rick

      I liked your BRAIN analogy. I once heard the brains of Congress described thus:

      If you took all their brains and rolled then in a ball and placed them on the edge of a razor blade it would look like a BB rolling down a superhighway.

    • William James Ward

      I think the standard ideation that would reflect the Palestinian
      morass is that if you do not work for something you do not
      appreciate or value it and therefore expend vexing energy
      in continuous complaint. The leadership of the Palestinians
      keep their people in a perpetual state of lack and loss, what
      is given to improve them is denied, first because those that
      are responsible for the gifts keep it for themselves except
      a small portion to keep and inflame a populous without
      hope and indoctrinate it to believe falsely that Israel is the
      true culprit and engineer of their poverty. Palestinians
      make for the best example of a people living on the end of
      strings controlled by fiendishly evil people. Those who
      keep supporting this situation are equal in guilt with the
      Palestinian hierarchy because they designed and pay
      for the conundrum in the effort to destroy Israel. The
      entire area around Israel is truly a Hells kitchen……William

  • Texas Patriot

    Yet another in a long series of misguided and mistaken analyses by Daniel Greenfield in which he continues to confuse Israel’s well-recognized right of self-preservation and self-defense, which is legitimate, with an imaginary right to take vengeance and punish aggressors, which is not. States, nations, and individuals have a right of self-preservation and self-defense. Only God has a right to take vengeance and punish.

    It is mine to avenge; I will repay.

    Deuteronomy 32:35

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      Every legitimate government seeks justice by punishing criminals. From what you wrote I assume your against punishing the perpetrators who murdered that Muslim boy in east Jerusalem.

      Reading Daniels article you’ll notice Israel is denied by her critics both the right of self-preservation via war and policing that is part and parcel of government rule.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Any act of military self-defense could be called “taking vengeance” and “punishing aggressors”. After Pearl Harbor, we fought the Japanese for four long, hard years, nearly burning Tokyo to the ground and annihilating Hiroshima and Nagasaki – was that also “vengeance” in your eyes? As I said, there’s very little difference between responding to an attack and “vengeance”, and therefore such “vengeance” is morally justified.

    • StanleyT

      Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Military experts like British Colonel Richard Kemp have made it perfectly clear that Israel takes every precaution to limit the consequences of its self-defence. The IDF has the lowest civilian to combatant casualty rate of any Western army. That’s hardly “vengeance and punish(ment).

      You sound a lot like those who accuse Israel of disproportionate response, when, in fact, the real measure of proportionality is whether or not the action is sufficient to stop the attacks. In Israel’s case, it clearly never has been. In short, Israel has yet to take off the kid gloves and is about as far as possible from the picture you paint.

      • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

        Limiting the consequences is part of the problem. Shock and awe until the population renounces war and begs for peace – that is what is needed. You cannot win a war without defeating your enemy.

    • cxt

      Exactly how do you establish the difference between the 2?

      And its not an “imaginary right” to “punish aggressors.”

    • Well Done

      Israel NEVER “takes vengeance and punishes”. It merely strikes back against acts of violence at those who perpetrate it, as is Israel’s right. Its’ call self-preservation. Your post is at war with itself.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You probably should have read the article.

      You also really need to stop with the out of context Bible quotes. Israel’s wars were described as G-d’s vengeance (e.g.Numbers 31:3)

      • Texas Patriot

        I read the article, and I don’t disagree with the idea that the people of Gaza are in some sense collectively responsible for the acts of whatever governments or terrorist organizations they permit to exist and operate there.

        But the issue of how Israel goes about defending Israelis from external aggression, could not be of greater importance, both from the standpoint of God’s view of the matter and also from the standpoint of good strategy for winning wars, as articulated by Sun Tzu and discussed previously.

        Regarding Numbers 31:3, it states as follows:

        So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them.

        How shall we reconcile this with God’s own words in Deuteronomy 32:35?

        It is mine to avenge; I will repay.
        In due time their foot will slip;
        their day of disaster is near
        and their doom rushes upon them.

        Does God need mere humans to carry out his vengeance? I think not.

        Although Moses was a great prophet and a great leader, there is no question that he himself lacked the requisite faith to be allowed to enter the Promised Land:

        Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it.”

        Deuteronomy 34:4

        • Daniel Greenfield

          You’re reading translations that don’t capture the meaning of the original text.

          When G-d says Li Nikam Ve’Shileim, Vengeance and Repayment shall be Mine

          it’s referring to the end of days, it doesn’t preclude human actions in the name of G-d beforehand, but since all humans are flawed, as you’ve pointed out, such actions will be inherently flawed and incomplete.

          • Texas Patriot

            That’s That’s an interesting analysis, but I think it’s fair to say taking revenge “in the name of G-d” is a very risky business. Unfortunately, it’s all too easy for us very fallible humans to mistake our own enemies for God’s enemies, and as God himself said, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name”. Exodus 20:7

          • Chavi Beck

            It’s not only the translation problem, it’s context. Deut 32 (31?) is not commandments, it’s the song of Haazinu, describing the entire future in very profound poetry; think of it as prophecy on steroids.

            Face it Texan, you can’t pick and choose which verses please your homemade morality. Either try to learn G-d’s, or quit pretending to have done so.

          • Texas Patriot

            CB: Face it Texan, you can’t pick and choose which verses please your homemade morality. Either try to learn G-d’s, or quit pretending to have done so.

            Knowing God’s laws is one thing. Knowing how to apply and follow them in a particular situation is another.

            “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

            Matthew 22:36-40

      • Chavi Beck

        TexaxPatriot believes that we need to follow G-d’s commands, but on the
        other hand, that it’s unwise (his word) to be bogged down (I think
        that’s also his phrasing) with minutiae (ditto) of Biblical commands.
        In
        other words, the Bible is there to be selectively held up, like Hillary
        Clinton’s, but please don’t tell him what it actually says.

        • Texas Patriot

          Not at all. I believe that if the Israeli people today want to occupy the land promised to their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Israeli people should do their very best to keep the commands of God and follow the words of God to the very utmost. As Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

          • Chavi Beck

            ROTFL that would be Deuteronomy 8:3. I’m glad to hear that Jesus disagreed with you on the importance of studying Deuteronomy…

          • Texas Patriot

            There’s no disagreement. Jesus did say that. He may have been quoting Deuteronomy, but he said it:

            Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

            Matthew 4:4

            Otherwise, Jesus was quite clear about the need to study Deuteronomy:

            “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

            Matthew 5:17-20

        • Chavi Beck
    • Habbgun

      Lets be honest. You only believe Israel could act legitimately if it turns to Christianity which is a valid Christian point of view. Nothing wrong with admitting rather than couching it in secular language. I have no problem with saying Jesus is not the messiah. Being a practicing Jew pretty much means no one would be shocked if I said so.

      So now that we know where you are coming from. Which Christianity should Israel choose. Catholicism maybe? Should it be the new homeland for the Copts. Are we going to be Eastern Orthodox? Inquiring minds want to know.

      • Texas Patriot

        Habbgun: Lets be honest. You only believe Israel could act legitimately if it turns to Christianity which is a valid Christian point of view. Nothing wrong with admitting rather than couching it in secular language.

        That’s not the issue. If Jews wanted to be Christians, it would be easy enough for them to choose it. All of Jesus’ early followers were Jews, and Jesus himself was a Jew. Rather, the issue here is more complex: how should the State of Israel, a Jewish state, defend itself successfully and consistently with Jewish law?

        From my point of view, there is no question that the State of Israel has a right to defend itself by whatever means are necessary to disable, dismantle, and destroy imminent existential threats to its existence or threats of harm to the Israeli people, whether those threats originate from within its borders or from without.

        Going further and taking vengeance upon its enemies is not only unnecessary, but it risks violating the holy laws of God, as revealed in the Old Testament, and should be avoided at all costs.

        • Habbgun

          Yeah it is. The Holy Laws are further revealed in the Oral Torah. If you wanted Israel to behave according to what you call the Old Testament (not old at all,,,,it is the living Torah) you would want the Jews to consult their own texts and leave it at that. You are advocating Jews live up to YOUR standards which are an outgrowth of your beliefs. At least be honest. Admit it and say what your beliefs are.

          We both know that if Israel was to listen to its Rabbis and the Rabbis were satisfied that Hashem’s laws were being properly carried out and you didn’t like it you would be here writing the same thing and not saying I am satisfied that the Jews have acted as Jews.

          • Texas Patriot

            Habbgun: The Holy Laws are further revealed in the Oral Torah. If you wanted Israel to behave according to what you call the Old Testament (not old at all,,,,it is the living Torah) you would want the Jews to consult their own texts and leave it at that.

            That’s exactly what I think they should do. After all, the creation of the modern State of Israel was a direct outgrowth of the promises of God as contained in the first five books of the Old Testament (or Torah, if you prefer.) But even a casual reading of the words of the promise reveals that the gift of the Promised Land was not unconditional, but was predicated on the idea that Israel would keep all the commands, decrees, and laws of God:

            See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

            Deuteronomy 30:15-20

            P.S. I have not heard of the Oral Torah. Has it ever been written down anywhere? Is it different than the written version?

          • Habbgun

            Oral Torah is the understanding of the Torah as handed down from Hashem to Moses, from Moses to Joshua, then the Judges, Sanhedrin and the Rabbis. Talmud is the discussion of the oral law. Its hinted at in various places in what you would call the Old Testament. The phrase is “as was told to you”. Moses of course judged the people’s disputes and that is of course also Torah. There is no shortage of the discussion of proper warfare in these sources. Just as there is plenty of discussion of what the kosher laws are, what Sabbath observance means and exactly how the sacrifices were carried out in the Temple. I’ve taken on Judaism as a vocation and Chess as a hobby.They work quite well in tandem in making me know I just ain’t smart. Each week I try to learn a little more and know less as the result.

          • Zontas Hierospirit

            Reading over Texas Patriot’s and your words just now makes me think Texas Patriot is overstepping their authority. And, what’s worse, is I think Texas Patriot should really look at what his own country is doing at the Federal level.

            What do you think of Ron Paul’s repealing 1913 in attempts to stop the Federal Government from giving tons of money to Israel’s enemies? I love giving money to Israel, but when we do stupid things in the name of humanitarian efforts to stay in the UN, and then the humanitarian aid turns into use for more terrorism, I start to gravitate more and more to what God said Abraham did, compared to what Abraham Lincoln did. There is a distinct difference between the two, and that difference is Abraham allowed people to split off and go their own way, and let God deal with them, but Lincoln forced the people to be in union. And I have always been wondering why this is taught as a good thing in schools and not to question it my entire life growing up.

            Ever since the Civil War, Americans feel like they have never really had a real President, like it’s all staged.

            I would just really like to know what you or what Israel would think of that.

          • Habbgun

            It would go both ways. Not giving money to terrorists is not just good for Israel its good for the world at large including the USA and the Moslem world. Giving money to terrorists doesn’t help Arab poverty. The countries stay backward. They just add organized violence to what little they produce.

            So Israelis would love the aid being cut off.

            Unfortunately handing out money creates people who receive the money and like having it. Those Israelis will not be happy. So what. Creating a violent status quo is not the way to go.

            As for Abraham Lincoln and Abraham. Lincoln was a President and not a prophet. He acted as a President but believed in Abraham and what Abraham stood for. That is the best any of us non-prophets can do. The outcome of that is left to the historians.

          • Zontas Hierospirit

            Thank you. I don’t know why but I felt God asking me to ask that. Ron Paul is just never given any chance at all. People call his repeal 1913 and other ideas anti-semitic, and with so many crazy people I feel that people don’t really know what anti-semitism even is anymore and just throw the word around loosely.

            I am not saying Lincoln was all bad. I believe he tried his best to not go to war, it was mostly the collective desire of those men that sent the country in that direction. I am just pointing out that Americans worship Lincoln way too much LIKE a prophet, which is why I compare Lincoln to God, to show he was not perfect after all. When I read God’s Word, God always tends to tell the Righteous to separate from evil, not to infiltrate it and force it to be good. But what’s done is done.

            We know that past behavior predicts future behavior. So because of what happened in 1867, giving power to the Federal government, and then again in 1913, creating the Federal Reserve Banks so that the Federal gov can do whatever it wants, and then after WW2 in the 1960s communists invade our government, we now see President Obama creating communism in America using the Federal Government’s King-like powers that have grown since 1867.

            AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Explains the Communist invasion starting in 1960s)
            http://vimeo.com/63749370

          • Habbgun

            I have a strong dislike for Ron Paul. He is supposedly a libertarian but he accepts and furthers a narrative for the Middle East that is Leftist. That America and Israel are causing the resentment of Islamists and this is all backlash. If you believe in free will. If you believe in free markets you understand that there are always multiple interests. Not everyone you meet in the market is honest or a decent person. The same is for nations. You can’t simply carve out if A then B. If B then C. The Islamists are a major force in the world and their brutal views are theirs. Not the fault of Israel, the United States or even European imperialism.

            I believe someone who will use a narrative in foreign policy will use narrative in domestic policy. If his economic ideas fail he will find groups to blame. I’ve had enough arguments with his supporters. They don’t like Jews believe me. The big irony is that Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporters openly say that Ron and Rand are not afraid to be for the whites. Rand Paul is a big supporter of amnesty. Amnesty disaster for Americans white, non-white, short tall, skinny or fat. I just hate the Pauls.

          • Zontas Hierospirit

            Ron Paul never says Israel deserves any backlash. Only America. You may have been hearing about Ron Paul’s framed newsletters that portray him as having said that. Ron Paul has publicly denied it over and over and over again that he ever said anything is Israel’s fault.

            The Newsletters that Framed Ron Paul and forever caused people to scorn him as anti-semitic:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters#Responsibility_for_articles

            I don’t like Rand Paul.

            This is everything Ron Paul has ever said about Israel:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Israel

            Ron Paul even says the same exact thing in THIS article back in 2011, that Hamas refuses to accept political accountability.

            Ron Paul is being framed! God have mercy.

      • Chavi Beck

        great post Habbgun
        thanks

        • Habbgun

          Glad you think so. Its the best an ignoramus like me can do. I know some converts to Judaism from Christianity that would eviscerate him. They would know where is really coming from. How he is interpreting things and what his argument really is.

          • Texas Patriot

            Habbgun: I know some converts to Judaism from Christianity that would eviscerate him.

            Please invite them to join the conversation. I’d love to chat with them.

          • Habbgun

            Not going to happen. I should have said have met because I lost touch. Converts can be an ornery bunch. You would have had an interesting time.

      • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

        His view isn’t even Christian – it merely wears that cloak. Anyone calling for Israel to restrain themselves against an existential threat is an anti-Semite.

    • Drakken

      Render unto Cesar’s what is Caesars, and render unto God what is God’s. Humanity and especially western civilization has the God given right to defending what is ours and preserving it.

      • Texas Patriot

        Welcome back, Drak. I’ve been missing you, man. Where have you been since ISIS took over Iraq and Syria?

        • Drakken

          Still in the general area, it is a sh*tshow to say the least, the Kurds are finally taking action to finally take what is theirs and they will keep it. ISIS is now on the edges of Jordan and that is where it is going to get really interesting, the Jordanians are getting extremely nervous, I expect suicide bombings any day now.

    • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

      Israel’s highest duty is to defend its people. That means killing bad guys who kill their own.
      _
      This isn’t Star Trek – there is no forcefield Israel can raise around itself to deflect rockets. The only way to engage in self defense is to kill those who attack you and inflict so much damage to their society that they learn to cease their aggression. War is won when the heart of the enemy is crushed and they want nothing more than peace.

      • Texas Patriot

        H: Israel’s highest duty is to defend its people. That means killing bad guys who kill their own.

        Israel’s highest duty is to the God who chose the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for a special purpose, who protected and saved them from the Egyptian Pharaoh, who led them into the wilderness by a pillar of fire and fed them with manna from heaven, who gave them the Promised Land and gave them the alternative of living by his commands, laws, and degrees or facing utter destruction and death.

        H: This isn’t Star Trek – there is no forcefield Israel can raise around itself to deflect rockets. The only way to engage in self defense is to kill those who attack you and inflict so much damage to their society that they learn to cease their aggression. War is won when the heart of the enemy is crushed and they want nothing more than peace.

        Don’t kid yourself. There are many ways to defend against the wild beasts of the earth who want to attack and destroy others, and the use of deadly force is always the last resort.

        “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

        “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

        “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

        ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    Very well-reasoned. But are there any Likud politicians in Israel bold enough to take this line? And will a coalition government ever be able to act boldly against the PA/Hamas without sundering the coalition?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      A coalition government might, but finding an electable leader who will is just as much of a problem in Israel as it in in the US

  • Clive Walters

    To the extent that Israel faces military violence, it needs to make such violence too costly for Hamas, et al, to deliver. Trouble is I don’t think that Israel has sufficient political will to do that, and would find it hard to out-propagandize Hamas et al.

    A good start would be relentless bombing to prevent missile attacks, not retaliate, but prevent. That’s what I’d expect my government to do. We should expect that the Israeli government would be supported internationally to do the same.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      As long as Hamas knows that it can survive its latest bout of violence, it will eventually repeat it.

      That’s a big part of the problem

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        hamass always pulls the “poor me” card when it gets its HamASS kicked by Israel.

        Israel needs to target and KILL hamASS leaders – cut off the head of the hamass snake.

    • Drakken

      You either go big, or go home, this road Israel is now traveling has been tried time and time again. The time has come to put a stop to this Islamic madness once and for all time. Time to bring back the tried and true method of warfare of Total War Doctrine with the added flavor of a Roman Carthage, without quarter or mercy for you will get none from the muslims.

  • StanleyT

    Mr. Greenfield, one of your very best ever – and that’s saying something! You make this so incredibly clear, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could argue with you. Thank you.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you Stanley

    • truebearing

      The world is full of idiots, liars, and fools. There will always be someone who will argue about these issues, whether it makes any sense to or not.

      • Webb

        Don’t forget the psychopaths.

        • truebearing

          And them too. That about covers the Left and the Muslims.

  • cxt

    Extremely good read—neatly punctures the myth of “collective punishment claims by the PA.

    The PA could have had 90% of every thing it wanted for the last 40 years or so. All they had to do was stop murdering Jews.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      But that’s 90% of what it wanted. You mean it could have had 90% of what it asked.

      • cxt

        Good point.
        I should have said “political demands.”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      but then they would have lost the support of the Muslim world

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Arabs always overplay their hand – which is good for Israel.

      I expect Islamists to raise their demands in Eurabia, and cross the line with a mass casualty terrorist attack, which will result in the expulsion of millions of Muslim from Europe.

    • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

      In other words, they’d have to convert to Christianity.

  • emptorpreempted

    Excellent article, making a point that is rarely heard but of the utmost importance. In effect, it’s a one-way war: it’s as if one of two opposing armies were allowed to fight normally, while every single shot fired by the other side were treated as a separate crime and a violation of “human rights.” What is worse, it’s not clear to me that the Israelis themselves realize the absurdity of it.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      exactly, it’s a problem that pervades the War on Terror

      one side fighting a war, the other side fighting a crime problem

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    It time to take back Gaza and establish Israeli law.

    The Egyptians realized the MB tyranny once the MB was in power. They took back Egypt by force. Clearly the MB rule in Gaza (i.e. Hamas) is equally abhorrent and needs to be removed by force. Obama’s pro-Islamist policies have failed through out the region. He is discredited and this is an opportunity to act.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      I wish some reporter, at a White House briefing, would ask Obama what he would do if the US was under constant rocket attack from outside.

      Challenge Obama.

      • truebearing

        We already are. He is not only leaving the borders open, he is enforcing open borders. We are being invaded and he is doing it intentionally as an act hostile to the survival of this democratic republic.

        Obama doesn’t believe in borders. He is a transnationalist, ie communist. The only things that matter to him are his two ideologies, Islam and Marxism, and his messianic ego. Borgers are things he imposes on those he rules. The a-hole couldn’t care less about the integrity of the US or Israel, in fact, he means to see both destroyed.

      • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

        Obama would do nothing, but a real U.S. president would bomb them until they stopped moving, and then bomb for another 30 days before sending in ground troops.

    • Drakken

      Time to give Gaza the Carthage treatment, for you do not let your enemy be behind your lines in order to attack you later.

      • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

        Hamas delenda est.

  • Hard Little Machine

    This is why ISIS will eventually be greeted as ‘a new and noble nation’ by the west. All of the benefits of hobnobbing with the Obama’s of the world and none of that odious law-stuff and such like.

    • Drakken

      ISIS is already picking at the edges of Jordan and as per usual, Obummer is at a loss of what to do.

  • PATRIOT.WW48

    Responsibilities, from what God calls “wild-a$$-men”, who’s hand will be against all other men. There is only one answer for all rag-heads

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      sand naz is need Nakba. Eternal Nakba.

    • Drakken

      It is a very simple equation, no more muslims = no more problems.

    • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

      That’s assuming that Muslim claims about their lineage are even true (which they probably aren’t).

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Every time Israelis are murdered, the Jewish State is accused of punishing Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza for the actions of a few individuals.

    That’s because most people today view terrorists as being radicals and extremists and Islamists, which according of the prevailing paradigm only represents a tiny fraction of the Islamic totalitarian world. As a matter of fact, the word terrorist also happens to be a euphemism for radicals, extremists, and Islamists. Gee, I wonder where people got that idea?

    If people understood instead that all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, including women and children. Since waging jihad, which is a holy war waged by all Muslims against all infidels in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims, and that because Islam is a so-called religion that executes all apostates and all blasphemers, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent. As opposed to only a few radicals, extremists, and Islamists that allegedly perpetrate terrorism for various manufactured grievances. Then people would not accuse the infidel state of Israel of punishing Muslims for the actions of only a few individuals.

    As a matter of fact, if people were attuned to the fact that more than anything else Islam is an extremely rabid form of totalitarianism that seeks world dominance as opposed to being a so-called religion, and that all non-conformers are routinely executed for apostasy and blasphemy, then people would never accuse the infidel state of collectively punishing all Muslims for the actions of a few.

    Now the issue then is why most people believe what they believe today, and the answer, of course, is because they have been misled by those who write about Islam.

    If people generally understood that Muslims aren’t murdering innocent civilian infidels in cold blood because they are terrorists, but instead because they are jihadists fighting a holy war to ultimately make Islam supreme, and that murdering innocent civilian infidels, per the dictates of Sharia, is proscribed for them because it is the weak underbelly of the infidel world, then perhaps people wouldn’t blame the infidel state of Israel for punishing all Muslims for the actions of a few. Indeed, when Muslims murder innocent civilian infidels, terrorism has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

    The PLO/Hamas unity government is a state when it wants something from the United Nations or the United States, but it’s not a state when it comes to taking responsibility.

    What you mean responsibility? Waging jihad is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another according the dictates of Islam. Hence, the PLO/Hamas unity government is responsible for waging jihad both violently and non-violently against the infidel state of Israel. It certainly isn’t responsible for preventing and policing jihad and it is incredibly foolish to even think it is.

    As a matter of fact, the so-called Palestinians are nothing but the proxies of the greater Islamic totalitarian world, and the jihad being waged against the infidel state of Israel is only a tiny part of the much greater global jihad at large that is being waged against all infidels and all infidel states throughout the world.

    The Muslims who live in Gaza and the West Bank are considered citizens when it comes to having political rights, but not when it comes to taking responsibility for the consequences of their political decisions.

    They are citizens but not of a democracy, but citizens of a mostly Sharia state instead, i.e., an Islamic totalitarian state, where non-conformers are routinely executed for apostasy and blasphemy. Hence, those Muslim citizens are also jihadists waging jihad (holy war) against the infidel state of Israel.

    Terrorists routinely operate in such legal twilight zones,

    The notion that only a few Muslims are terrorists, i.e., radicals, extremists, and Islamists as opposed to all mainstream orthodox Muslims being jihadists is exceedingly fantasy based. All Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), instead, waging a jihad per the dictates of Sharia, which is a holy war waged against all infidels in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, and non-conformers are routinely executed for apostasy and blasphemy.

    Indeed, the jihad being waged against the infidel state of Israel is just a tiny part of the much greater global jihad at large that is being waged against all infidels and all infidel states throughout the world today. As a matter of fact, the entire infidel world, as opposed to just tiny Israel, has a collective jihad problem.

    Meanwhile, Muslims also wage jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, both violently and non-violently. As a matter of fact, the prevalence of non-violent jihad relative to violent jihad that is too often confused as being terrorism, is astronomically far greater and as a result represents a far more substantial threat for the infidel world relative to the threat emanating from violent jihad.

    As a matter of fact, unless something very drastic happens in the near term, several Euroloon countries in Europe will become Muslim majority countries in the second half of this century courtesy of demographic conquest, which is a form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad.

    Indeed, if the Jewish birth rate weren’t so high in the infidel state of Israel, Muslims would be pursuing the jihad primarily through mass Muslim infiltration and demographic conquest, i.e., non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, as they are pursuing jihad throughout Europe, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc., etc., etc. with the only exception in the world being Japan.

    When Israeli teens are killed by Hamas terrorists, instead of it being a case of a statelet engaging in random terror as a collective punishment, it’s put down to some populist impulse as a result of the “occupation.”

    That’s because it is portrayed as being a random act of terrorism as opposed to what it actually is, which is a deliberate act of jihad, which is a holy war waged by all Muslims against all infidels in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. In other words, it wasn’t a random act of terrorism perpetrated by Muslim radicals and extremists caused by occupation. Instead, it was a very deliberate violent act of jihad perpetrated against the infidel world at large, as all Muslims wage jihad against all infidels in the world collectively to ultimately make Islam supreme.

    If the majority of people were attuned to jihad as opposed to terrorism, they wouldn’t blame it on occupation or poverty and despair or harsh Israeli policies, because they would automatically know that the Islamic totalitarian world is waging jihad against the entire infidel world collectively, and that we are, indeed, in the midst of a clash of civilizations.

    Most people don’t believe that today, because they believe that only a few random Muslim radicals, extremists, and Islamists are perpetrating indiscriminate acts of terrorism in response to various grievances such as occupation, poverty and despair, and harsh Israeli policies in the case of the infidel state of Israel.

    But when Israel strikes Hamas, it’s suddenly collective punishment if any members of the civilian population that support the terrorist group and willingly act as its human shields are killed.

    Again, if most people understood that all Muslims, including women and children, are jihadists in one form or another, or otherwise executed for blasphemy and apostasy, per the dictates of Islam, then they wouldn’t jump on Israel for doing what is necessary for it to defend itself. Indeed, as opposed to only terrorist groups, all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent. Teach the people that and Israel’s problem is all of a sudden solved.

    But Israel is in a state of armed conflict with the statelet of the Palestinian Authority. This armed conflict has been going on for around two decades.

    No, that’s also entirely incorrect. Israel is the victim of a violent and non-violent jihad waged against it by the Islamic totalitarian world through their proxy – the so-called Palestinians, and that jihad being waged against the tiny infidel state of Israel is just one tiny part of the much greater global jihad at large that is being waged against all infidels and all infidel states throughout the world to ultimately make Islam supreme. Moreover, the jihad waged perpetually against the infidels in Israel has existed since long before Israel ever manifested into a state.

    All the peace process accomplished was to give the PLO and Hamas the power and infrastructure to wage full scale war without the obligation to follow any of the rules of war and without giving their victims the right to fight back by treating them as an enemy state.

    The peace process is non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad to weaken Israel. Muslims can only make a Hudna with infidels, which is a temporary truce that they will inevitably break when they deem the time is right.

    According to the dictates of Islam, there can never be peace between Muslims and infidels until all infidels have been subjugated into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and Islam has been made supreme via the imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law).

    Any Muslim signing a permanent peace agreement with Israel, as Anwar Sadat did, will be targeted for assassination and assassinated the same way Anwar Sadat was. Hence, any solution for Israel’s jihad problem will have to be as a part of a much larger collective effort involving the entire collective infidel world acting together cooperatively to put an end the global jihad.

    Israel has been dealing with this as a military conflict. Its enemies have the support of the civilian population that they hide behind.

    Again, all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, or otherwise executed for apostasy and blasphemy according to the dictates of Islam. Thus, if most people understood that all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, then they would also understand that there is no civilian population for violent jihadists to hide behind.

    • Fool_Killer

      Nice.
      Very, very nice.

    • Webb

      Exactly. It’s like being a member of the Presbyterian church and saying you don’t agree with its actions against Israel. But if you are sincere, you’ll cancel your membership and never return.

  • zoomie

    wwi ended and many in germany thought they really did not lose. it took wwii to convince them otherwise. the arabs haven’t lost yet.

    • Americana

      That’s not the understanding you should have of the WW II militarist resurrection of the Germans at all. The Germans so resented the reparations that were demanded that Hitler had incredible political impetus behind the Nazis to permit the Germans to take action against those nations who’d forced Germany to make reparations to the point of starvation.

      • zoomie

        yeah, patton was wrong too eh ? right at the 11th minute, A HOL

        • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

          The main French army commander said at the time that Versailles was not peace, but “an armistice for twenty years”. He turned out to be overly optimistic about the time frame.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        That was the sympathetic anti-war argument that Hitler to gobble up chunks of Europe before anyone did anything.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Isolantionist and FAKE anti-war/Pro-hitler movement whose goal was to give cover to and “understand” hitler.

      • Webb

        Wow, you think exactly like a Waffen SS officer.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Like one buried in Bitburg.

        • Drakken

          Now that is insulting a Waffen SS Officer.

  • reader

    Liar. The British were attacked not to force them into granting Israel statehood, but because the British blocked Jewish refugees from reaching the Mandate and thus collaborating in extermination of the European Jewry. The British did not grant Israel statehood, the UN did.

    • Americana

      You must not be aware of the entire gamut of Jewish terrorism attacks. Your premise might have been true for those Jewish terrorism attacks that occurred prior to and during WW II but not after WW II after the Holocaust had already occurred.
      _____________________________________________________

      Here’s one such list from The Guardian newspaper:

      EARLY ZIONIST TERRORIST GANGS.

      Soon after the end of World War II, there were three basic para-military Zionist organizations in Palestine, working against the Arab people, with the specific purpose of driving it out of Palestine. These were the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang.

      Before the British Mandate, the Jewish settlers had formed a group of mounted armed watchmen called “Hashomar” and with the advent of the British Mandate, it became the Haganah (Defense). With a membership of 60,000 Zionist Jews, the Haganah had a field army of 16,000 trained men and a unit called the Palmach, which was a full-time force, numbering about 6000.

      The Irgun Zvai Leumi included between 3000 and 5000 armed terrorists, and grew out of the Haganah and its Palmach branch in 1933. The Irgun was not ready to obey the Jewish Agency which sought to dilute the terror of the Haganah in order not to lose its respectability.

      In 1939, one of Irgun’s commanding officers, Abraham Stern, left the parent organization and formed the Stern Gang, numbering some 200 to 300 dangerous fanatics.

      SOME EARLY EXAMPLES OF JEWISH-ZIONIST TERROR.

      August 20, 1937 – June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.

      November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants (see below).

      November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

      July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.

      October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

      June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

      September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

      December 11, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

      December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.

      December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

      December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

      December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the “Carmel Brigade” attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.

      1947 — 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel’s borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the “Israeli Forces” totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.

      January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded.

      January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

      January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.

      January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

      January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

      December 13, 1947 — February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

      February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..

      March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.

      March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

      March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.

      April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.

      April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.

      April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.

      May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

      May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

      April 25, 1948 — May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them.

      THE SS PATRIA.

      November 25, 1940. In September, 1940, around 3,000 Jewish refugees from Vienna, Prague and Danzig were attempting to reach Palestine. In a convoy of four river steamers, they set sail down the Danube and reached the Romanian port of Tulcea where they transferred to three Greek cargo ships named Atlantic, Pacific and Milos. Conditions on board these three ships were horrendous, reminiscent of Japanese hell-ships later in the war. Eventually the ships reached Palestinian waters, but the British Colonial Office refused them permission to land. It was finally decided to deport the refugees to the island of Mauritius where a special camp was to be built. The three ships were then brought into Haifa harbour where the liner Patria was berthed. The refugees were then embarked on the Patria and as the last passengers from the Atlantic were coming on board, a tremendous explosion ripped the liner apart. The death toll amounted to 267 refugees killed. The explosion was the work of the Jewish underground army, the Haganah, who had meant only to damage the ship to prevent it sailing but had miscalculated the amount of explosives needed to disable the ship. Many say that this was no miscalculation and was deliberate murder of Jews by Jews, in an attempt to influence British immigration policy to Palestine.

      A LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS.

      The first act of air piracy in the history of civil aviation was carried out by Israel, in Dec. 1954, when a civilian Syrian airliner was forced down in Tel Aviv and its passengers and crew held for days, despite international condemnation.

      In 1968, Israeli commandos blew up 13 civilian airliners at Beirut airport in Lebanon.

      The first deliberate shooting down a civilian airliner was carried out by Israel, when a Libyan airliner was shot down by Israeli jet fighters over Sinai, in Feb. 1973, on the direct orders of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, killing all 107 of its passengers and the entire French crew.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        That material doesn’t come from The Guardian, it comes from Guardian, a 9/11 Truther site that also claims that the Jews made up the Holocaust.

        And let’s not forget this great and vital story from that same site

        “Erasmus has provided some photos that prove the Apollo moon landings were one giant hoax (just like 9-11).”

        Would you care to repost that material as well?

        And then there’s this compelling claim about 7/7

        Another thing that doesn’t add up is that the four allegedly took a train to King’s Cross station and were seen as a group-before splitting up to go each their own way. I can’t see real terrorists being that stupid.

        Yes, indeed, the whole thing stinks.
        This is another stupidity like 9/11.
        A Jew False Flag operation.

        Do you agree with that?

        • Americana

          Daniel, you know VERY WELL that I don’t support any of the false flag attempts by any of the groups claiming various jihadists didn’t execute 9/11, 7/7, and so on. In fact, you even complimented me on at least several of my posts where I attempted to steer someone who believed the U.S. and Israel were the countries behind the 9/11 attacks to more sane information. Why would I at this point turn 180 degrees in the other direction and say these London and Madrid attacks were false flag operations?

          I’ll certainly get yet another of the Jewish terrorism listings from another site. This list is from the MilitaryWiki:

          1939Edit

          June 12 – A British explosives expert was killed trying to defuse an Irgun bomb near a Jerusalem post office.

          August 26 – Two British police officers, Inspector Ronald Barker and Inspector Ralph Cairns, commander of the Jewish Department of the C.I.D., were killed by an Irgun mine in Jerusalem.[35][36]

          1942Edit

          February 12 – Lehi leader Avraham Stern was shot and killed by British detectives in Tel Aviv.

          1944Edit

          February 12 – British immigration offices in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa were attacked by Irgun.

          February 14 – Two British constables were shot dead when they attempted to arrest Lehi fighters pasting up wall posters in Haifa.[37]

          February 18 – A police patrol shot and killed a Jewish civilian who had not replied swiftly enough to its challenge.[37]

          February 24 – A British police official and four CID officers were wounded in bombings.[37]

          February 27 – Simultaneous bombing attacks were launched against British income tax offices.[37]

          March 2 – A British constable was shot and severely wounded after coming upon Irgun fighters putting up a poster.[37]

          March 13 – Lehi killed a Jewish CID officer in Ramat Gan.[37]

          March 19 – A Lehi member was shot dead while resisting arrest by the CID in Tel Aviv. Lehi retaliated with an attack in Tel Aviv that killed two police officers and wounded one.[37]

          March 23 – Irgun fighters led by Rahamim Cohen raided and bombed the British intelligence offices and placed explosives. A British soldier and Irgun fighter were killed. An Irgun unit led by Amichai Paglin raided the British intelligence headquarters in Jaffa, and Irgun fighters led by Yaakov Hillel raided the British intelligence offices in Haifa.[38]

          April 1 – A British constable was killed and another wounded.[37]

          July 13 – Irgun fighters broke into and bombed the British intelligence building on Mamilla street in Jerusalem.[38]

          September 29 – A senior British police officer of the Criminal Intelligence Department was assassinated by Irgun in Jerusalem.[39]

          November 6 – Lehi fighters Eliyahu Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim assassinated British politician Lord Moynein Cairo. Moyne’s driver was also killed.

          1945Edit

          January 27 – A British judge was kidnapped by Irgun and released in exchange for Jewish detainees.

          March 22 – Lehi members Eliyahu Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim were hanged in Cairo.

          April 23 – The Irgun mounted a raid on Ramat Gan police station during which guns were successfully seized, but two members were killed and Dov Gruner injured and taken prisoner.[40]

          April 25 – Lehi attacked a lightly guarded military car park and killed seven British soldiers of the 5th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion. Some British soldiers retaliated by damaging Jewish property.[41]

          August 14 – Irgun fighters overpowered and disarmed two British sentries, and then blew up the Yibne Railway Bridge.[42]

          November 1 – Night of the Trains – Haganah fighters sabotaged railroads used by the British, and sank three British guard boats. At the same time, an Irgun unit led by Eitan Livni raided a train station in Lod, destroying a number of buildings and three train engines. One Irgun fighter, two British soldiers, and four Arabs were killed.

          December 27 – Irgun fighters raided and bombed British Intelligence Offices in Jerusalem, killing seven British policemen. Two Irgun fighters were also killed. Irgun also attacked a British Army camp in Northern Tel Aviv. In the exchange of fire, a British soldier and Irgun fighter were killed, and five Irgun fighters were injured.[43]

          1946EditThe King David Hotel after the bombing, photo from The Jerusalem

          January 19 – Jewish fighters destroyed a power station and a portion of the Central Jerusalem Prison with explosives. During the incident, two persons were killed by police.[44]

          January 20 – Palmach attacked the Givat Olga Coast Guard Station. One person was killed and ten were injured during the raid. A Palmach attempt to sabotage the British radar station on Mount Carmel was thwarted. Documents seized by the British indicated that the attacks were retaliation for the seizure of a Jewish immigrant ship two days before.[44][45]

          February 22 – Haganah fighters attacked a police Tegart fort with a 200 lb bomb. In the firefight that followed, Haganah suffered casualties.[46]

          February 23 – Haganah fighters attacked British mobile police forces in Kfar Vitkin, Shfar’am and Sharona.

          February 26 – Irgun and Lehi fighters attacked three British airfields and destroyed dozens of aircraft. One Irgun fighter was killed.[47]

          March 6 – A military truck carrying 30 Irgun fighters disguised as British soldiers approached a British army camp at Sarafand, where the fighters infiltrated into the armoury and stole weaponry. An exchange fire began after the fighters were discovered. The remaining weapons and ammunition in the armoury were destroyed by a mine, and the truck then drove off at high speed. Four Irgun fighters were captured, two of them women. Two of the captured fighters were wounded.[48]

          March 25 – The Jewish immigrant ship Wingate was fired on by British police as it docked in Haifa, killing a Palmach member.

          April 2 – Irgun launched a sabotage operation against the railway network in the south, inflicting severe damage. The retreating fighters were surrounded after being spotted by a British reconnaissance aircraft. Two British policemen were killed, and three British soldiers were wounded. Two Irgun fighters were killed, four wounded, and 31 arrested.[49]

          April 23 – Dozens of Irgun fighters disguised as British soldiers and Arab prisoners infiltrated the Ramat Gan police station, then ordered the policemen into the detention cell at gunpoint, blasted open the door to the armoury and looted it. Irgun porters loaded the weapons onto a waiting truck. A British policeman on the upper story shot dead the Irgun Bren gunner covering the raid from a balcony on the building opposite the police station, then fired at the porters, who continued to load weapons under fire. One Irgun member was killed as he ran to the truck, and Irgun commander Dov Gruner was wounded and subsequently captured by the British. After the weapons had been loaded, the truck drove off to an orange grove near Ramat Gan.[50]

          June 16–17 – Night of the Bridges – Haganah carried out a sabotage operation, blowing up ten of the eleven bridges connecting British Mandatory Palestine to the neighbouring countries, while staging 50 diversion ambushes and operations against British forces throughout Palestine. Haganah lost 14 dead and 5 wounded in the operation.[51] The British responded with raids on Kfar Giladi, Matsuba, and Bet HaArava, encountering only minor resistance. Three Jews were killed, 18 wounded, and 100 detained.[52]

          June 17 – Lehi attacked railroad workshops in Haifa. Eleven Lehi members were killed during the attack.[53]

          June 18 – Irgun fighters took six British servicemen as hostages and released them after the death sentences of two Irgun fighters were commuted.

          June 29 – Operation Agatha – British military and police units began a three-day operation, searching three cities and Jewish settlements throughout Palestine and imposing curfews, arresting 2,718 Jews and seizing numerous arms and munitions which were found unexpectedly. The Jewish Agency building was raided, and numerous documents were confiscated. During the operation, four Jews were killed and 80 injured.[44]

          July 22 – King David Hotel bombing – Irgun fighters bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was home to the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities and the headquarters of British forces in Palestine and Transjordan. A total of 91 people were killed, including 28 British soldiers, policemen and civilians. Most of the dead were Arabs. Another 46 people were injured. Irgun suffered two casualties when British soldiers became suspicious and fired at a group of Irgun fighters as they fled from the scene, wounding two. One of them later died from his injuries.[54]

          July 29 – British police raided a bomb-making workshop in Tel Aviv.[44]

          July 30 – Tel Aviv was placed under a 22-hour curfew for four days as 20,000 British soldiers conducted house-to-house searches for Jewish militants. The city was sealed off and troops were ordered to shoot curfew violators. British troops detained 500 people for further questioning and seized a large cache of weapons, extensive counterfeiting equipment, and $1,000,000 in counterfeit government bonds were discovered in a raid on the city’s largest synagogue.[44]

          August 13 – A crowd of about 1,000 Jews attempted to break into the port area of Haifa as two Royal Navyships departed for Cyprus with 1,300 illegal immigrants on board, and a ship with 600 more was escorted into the port. British soldiers fired on the crowd, killing three and wounding seven.[44]

          August 22 – Palyam frogmen attached a limpet mine to the side of the British cargo ship Empire Rival, which had been used to deport Jewish immigrants to Cyprus. A hole was blown in the ship’s side.

          August 26 – British troops searched two Jewish coastal villages for three Jews involved in the Empire Rivalincident. During the operation, 85 persons, including the entire male population of one of the villages, were detained.[44]

          August 30 – British soldiers discovered arms and munitions dumps in Dorot and Ruhama.[44]

          September 8 – Jewish fighters sabotaged railroads in fifty places in Palestine.[44]

          September 9 – Two British officers were killed by an explosion at a public building in Tel Aviv.[44]

          September 10 – British forces imposed a curfew and searched for militants in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan, arresting 101 people and wounding four.[44]

          September 15 – Jewish fighters attacked a police station on the coast near Tel Aviv, but were driven off by gunfire.[44]

          October 6 – A member of the Royal Air Force was shot and killed.[44]

          October 8 – Two British soldiers were killed when their truck detonated a mine outside Jerusalem. A leading Arab figure was wounded in another mine attack, and mines were also found near government house.

          October 10 – Haganah raided a camp in Atlit where illegal Jewish immigrants were being held, freeing 208.[37]

          October 30 – Irgun launched an attack in the Jerusalem Railway Station, killing two British guards.

          October 31 – The British embassy in Rome was damaged by a bomb.[44]

          November 1–2 – Palmach sank three British naval police craft.[37]

          November 9–13 – Jewish underground members launched a series of land mine and suitcase bomb attacks against railroad stations, trains, and streetcars, killing 11 British soldiers and policemen and 8 Arab constables.[44]

          November 17 – Three British policemen and a Royal Air Force sergeant were killed by a mine.[44]

          November 18 – British police in Tel Aviv attacked Jews on the streets and fired into houses in retaliation for the mine attack that occurred the previous day. Twenty Jews were injured.[44]

          November 20 – Three people were injured when a bomb exploded in the Jerusalem tax office.[44]

          November 25 – The Jewish immigrant ship Knesset Israel was captured by four British destroyers. Efforts to force the Jewish refugees onto deportation ships were met with resistance. Two refugees were killed and 46 wounded. Haganah attacked the Givat Olga police station and the Sydna-Ali coastal patrol station, wounding six British and eight Arab policemen.[37]

          November 26 – The British launched a massive search operation and established a 1,000-man cordon on the Plain of Sharon and in Samaria, looking for the perpetrators of the previous days attacks and illegal weapons. Jewish settlers put up violent resistance to the soldiers. The British reported 65 soldiers and 16 policemen wounded, while the Jews had 8 dead and 75 wounded.[37]

          October 31 – The British embassy in Rome was bombed by the Irgun, wounding three.

          December 2–5 – Six British soldiers and four other persons were killed in bomb and mine attacks.[44]

          December 28 – An Irgun prisoner was lashed eighteen times.

          December 29 – Night of the Beatings – Irgun fighters kidnapped and flogged six British soldiers. The British responded by ordering their soldiers back into army camps and setting up roadblocks. A car with five armed Irgun men carrying a whip was stopped. British soldiers opened fire, killing one Irgun fighter. The remaining four were arrested.[55]

          1947 Edit

          January 5 – Eleven British soldiers were injured in a grenade attack on a train in Banha carrying British troops to Palestine from Egypt.[44]

          January 12 – A Lehi member drove a truck bomb into a police station in Haifa, killing two British and two Arab constables, and wounding 140.[44]

          January 26 – A British banker was taken hostage from his home by Irgun, and a British judge was captured the following day. Both men were released when British High Commissioner Alan Cunningham threatened martial law unless the two men were returned unharmed.[44]

          March 1 – Irgun bombed the Officers Club on King George Street in Jerusalem, killing 17 British officers and wounding 27, resulting in martial law that lasted 16 days. Immediately after martial law was declared, two Jews were shot and killed, one of them a four-year old girl standing on the balcony of her home. During the period of martial law, 78 Jews suspected of membership in the Jewish resistance were arrested.[56]

          March 9 – A British Army camp was attacked in Hadera.[44]

          March 11 – Two British soldiers were killed.

          March 12 – Irgun attacked the Schneller Camp, which was being used as a barracks and office of the Royal Army Pay Corps. One British soldier was killed and eight were wounded. A British camp near Karkurwas also raided, shots were fired at the Sarona camp, and a mine exploded near Rishon LeZion.

          March 29 – A British officer was killed when Jewish fighters ambushed a British cavalry party near Ramla.[44]

          April 2 – The Ocean Vigour, a British freighter used to transport captured illegal immigrants to Cyprus, was damaged in a bomb attack by Palyam, the naval force of the Palmach.[44]

          April 3 – The British transport ship Empire Rival was damaged by a time-bomb while en route from Haifa to Port Said.[44]

          April 7 – A British patrol killed Jewish militant Moshe Cohen.[44]

          April 8 – A British constable was killed in retaliation for Cohen’s death.[44] A Jewish boy was also killed by British troops.

          April 13 – The Jewish immigrant ship Theodor Herzl was captured by the British. Three Jewish refugees were killed and 27 injured during the takeover.

          April 14 – The Royal Navy captured the Jewish immigrant ship Guardian. Two Jews were killed and 14 wounded during the takeover.[44]

          April 19 – Four Irgun fighters (Dov Gruner, Yehiel Dresner, Mordechai Alkahi and Eliezer Kashani) were hanged by British authorities. Irgun retaliated with three attacks; a British sentry was killed during a raid on a field dressing station near Netanya, a civilian bystander was killed during an attack on a British armoured car in Tel Aviv, and shots were fired at British troops in Haifa.[44]

          April 21 – Irgun member Meir Feinstein and Lehi member Moshe Barzani killed themselves in prison with grenades smuggled to them in hollowed-out oranges, hours before they were to be hanged.[44]

          April 22 – A British troop train arriving from Cairo was bombed outside Rehovot, killing five soldiers and three civilians, and wounding 39.[44]

          April 25 – Lehi bombed a British police compound, killing five policemen.[44]

          April 26 – A British police official was assassinated.The prison wall after the break

          May 4 – Acre Prison break – Irgun members working with Jewish prisoners inside Acre Prison managed to blow a hole in the wall, and assault the prison, freeing 28 Jewish prisoners. Irgun commander Dov Cohen, two Irgun fighters, and six escapees were killed in the raid.[57] Three British guards were also killed.[58] Five of the fighters and eight escapees were captured.

          May 6 – A British counter-terrorism unit led by Roy Farran abducted 16 year-old Lehi member Alexander Rubowitz, later torturing and killing him.[59]

          May 12 – Two British policemen were killed by Jewish fighters in Jerusalem.

          May 15 – Two British soldiers were killed and seven injured by Lehi. A British policeman was also killed in an ambush.

          May 16 – A British constable and a Jewish police superintendent were assassinated.

          June 4 – Eight Lehi Letter bombs addressed to high British government officials, including Prime MinisterClement Attlee, were discovered in London.[44]

          June 28 – Lehi fighters opened fire on a line of British soldiers waiting in line outside a Tel Aviv theater, killing three soldiers and wounding two. One Briton was also killed and several wounded in a Haifa hotel. A Jewish fighter was also wounded.

          June 29 – Four British soldiers were wounded in a Lehi attack at a Herzliya beach.[44]

          July 17 – Irgun carried out five mining operations against British military traffic in the vicinity of Netanya, killing one Briton and wounding sixteen.[44]

          July 18 – A British soldier was killed.[44]

          July 19 – Irgun attacked four locations in Haifa, killing a British constable and wounding twelve. A British soldier was also killed.

          July 20 – A British soldier was killed.[44]

          July 26 – Two British soldiers were killed by a booby trap.

          July 27 – Seven British soldiers were wounded in an ambush and mine explosions.[44]Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paicekilled by the Irgun

          July 29–31 – The Sergeants affair – British authorities hanged Irgun commanders Avshalom Haviv, Yaakov Weiss and Meir Nakar. In retaliation, Irgun hanged British intelligence corps sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin, who had previously been abducted and held as hostages, afterwards re-hanging their bodies from trees in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya. A mine laid underneath exploded as one of the bodies was being cut down, injuring a British officer.[60][61] In a separate incident, two British soldiers were killed and three wounded by a land mine near Hadera planted by Irgun fighters. British soldiers and policemen reacted by rampaging in Tel Aviv, breaking windows, overturning cars, stealing a taxi and assaulting civilians. Groups of young Jews then began stoning British foot patrols, causing them to be withdrawn from the city. Upon learning of the stonings, members of mobile police units drove to Tel Aviv in six armored cars, where they smashed windows, raided two cafes and detonated a grenade in the second one, and fired into two crowded buses. Five Jews were killed and fifteen wounded.[62][63]

          August 1 – An anti-British riot broke out during the funeral procession of the five Jews killed the day before, and 33 Jews were injured. In Jerusalem, an attack by Jewish fighters on a British security zone in Rehaviawas repulsed. One attacker was killed and two captured.[44]

          August 5 – Three British police officers were killed by a bomb.

          August 15 – Irgun bombed a British troop train north of Lydda, killing the engineer.[44]

          September 3 – A postal bomb sent by either Irgun or Lehi exploded in the post office sorting room of the British War Office in London, injuring two.[64]

          September 21 – A British messenger was killed.

          September 26 – Irgun fighters robbed a bank, killing four British policemen.[65]

          September 27 – A Jewish illegal immigrant was killed by the British.

          September 29 – Irgun bombed a British police station in Haifa, killing 13 and wounding 53.

          October 13 – Two British soldiers were killed in Jerusalem.

          November 12 – A total of 21 were killed in British-Jewish clashes.

          November 14 – Four Britons were killed in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

          December 12 – Jewish underground bombing attacks on buses in Haifa and Ramla killed 2 British soldiers, 20 Arabs and 5 Jews.[66]

          December 25 – Lehi members machine-gunned two British soldiers in a Tel Aviv cafe.[44]

          December 29 – Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs wounded when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi at Damascus Gate.[67]

          1948Edit

          January 7 – A British officer was killed by Jewish militants near Hebron.[67]

          February 29 – As part of the Cairo-Haifa train bombings, Lehi fighters mined a train that included coaches used by British troops north of Rehovot, killing 28 British soldiers and wounding 35.[68]

          March 1 – Irgun bombed the Bevingrad Officers Club in Jerusalem, killing 20 Britons and wounding 30.[69]

          April 6 – Irgun fighters led by Ya’akov Meridor raided the British Army camp at Pardes Hanna, killing seven British soldiers.[70]

          April 20 – Jewish snipers attacked British soldiers and policemen throughout Haifa, wounding two policemen and a soldier. British forces killed five snipers.[71]

          May 3 – A Lehi book bomb posted to the parental home of British Major Roy Farran was opened by his brother Rex, killing him.[59]

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Numbskull,

            We’re talking about close to a century of violence between Arab jihadis and non-Muslims in the territory. Please explain why you can’t go back to the start of the violence with your timeline?

            I’ll tell you why. Because the British were sovereign and did not protect the Jews. The jihadis attacked them violently for years and eventually the Jews as the oppressed third-party fought back in the only ways that they could.

            What they didn’t do was that they did not pretend to want a state and then turn down the chance so that they could continue to claim to be victims of the UN or the UK or whoever. They actually moved on and dealt with life. The only thing “wrong” that they did was allow jihadis to take over many centuries before.

            Now they’re trying to fix the mistakes. You’re trying to help jihadis.

          • Americana

            If objectivefactsreallymattered to you, you’d acknowledge the Palestinians didn’t know what politically to hope for during the negotiations over the creation of Israel and the partitioning viz the United Nations and/or the British government. The Palestinians knew they were outside the political sphere of influence and that the Arabs who were inside the political sphere were role playing for their own aggrandizement, not to secure the future of the Palestinians. They may have approached the political situation in a flawed manner — for decades — but there’s no reason to perpetuate this diplomatic failure or, worse, compound the diplomatic failure by inaccurate assessments of what is best for the Palestinians and what is best for Israel..

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The Palestinians knew they were outside the political sphere of influence and that the Arabs who were inside the political sphere were role playing for their own aggrandizement…”

            Why are you now distinguishing between “Arabs inside the sphere of influence” and those outside? These were the same groups of people more or less and the difference between “Palestinians’ and “other Arabs” in the region is that the “Palestinians” got caught up in the jihadi vanguard movement against non-Muslim sovereignty. They “lost” (and in some cases won) internal struggles among their own comrades and cohorts.

            “…not to secure the future of the Palestinians.”

            Anyone that loses an election can say the same thing. These are not schisms caused by anything other than who got forced to the front in the jihad. And in some cases these shock troops and their leaders volunteered for their respective roles.

            “They may have approached the political situation in a flawed manner — for decades — but there’s no reason to perpetuate this diplomatic failure or, worse, compound the diplomatic failure by inaccurate assessments of what is best for the Palestinians and what is best for Israel.”

            Why is Israel accountable for what happens among the factions of their enemies? What is best for Israel is to neutralize violent opposition and challenges to their sovereignty. That should be obvious to anyone, but it’s not because people don’t organize their thinking rationally.

            What’s best for the “Palestinians” is to somehow completely transform this modern entity. And we can’t do that for them. They have to first look after their own material interests realistically before we can even consider it worth helping them. Otherwise it’s against our interest to help them at all. And yet we do.

            Why is that?

          • truebearing

            “Numbskull”

            You could have stopped right there. Brevity is the soul of wit, and in this case the soul of accuracy

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Here’s one such list from The Guardian newspaper:

        The Guardian Newspaper is an anti-Semitic rag that presents only a one sided view that always demonizes Israel while apologizing for Muslims. Moreover, just because Jews in pre-Israel fought against the tyranny of the UK, the same way American revolutionaries also fought against the tyranny of King George, and yes they were also vilified as terrorists by the Brits too, does not make them terrorists, the same way American revolutionaries were also not terrorists.

        As a matter of fact, the terribly anti-Semitic Guardian newspaper has about as much credibility as you, since it is obvious that you are also a terribly anti-Semitic bigot. Indeed, if you were really concerned about peace between Israel and the so-called Palestinians, the last thing you would do is engage in anti-Semitic bigotry against Jews and the state of Israel. Indeed, you don’t have an ounce of credibility since it is obvious you are nothing but a bigot, and your sole purpose for posting in this thread is not because you give a hoot about peace, but instead because you are obsessed with vilifying and demonizing Jews.

        • Americana

          If I were really into vilifying and demonizing Jews, I’d write posts that are a lot more like some of those posted by the American Nazis that buzz in and out of here. Whether you like it or not, I’m interested in an equitable peace between the warring parties.

          The fact you will not acknowledge there is the same justification for the Palestinian liberation terrorism says only that you’re bigoted in favor of the Jewish terrorists. The Jewish terrorists may be admirable in some respects, they’re also as heinous in other respects as any other terrorist murderers.

          • Drakken

            Your bloody delusional if you think that there will be peace from the ragheads, for they never ever will give the Jews of Israel any peace unless they take it all, that is a fact undisputed. Yet here you are trying sing kumbaya when the facts say otherwise. It comes down to a very simple concept, your either support and defend Israel a western nation, or you throw your support to the ragheaded savages, there is NO middle ground any longer.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            reader AKBAR!

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        LOL!

        You want to focus on what happened back in 1947 – and for some strange reason ignore Islamofascist Terrorism directed at Britain.

        - July 7th, 2005 bombing of London transport – 52 died, 700 injured
        - Beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby
        - shooting of policewoman Yvonne Ridley
        - muslim rape gangs targeting indigenous non-Muslim British girls
        - open threats of 9/11 scale attacks on the UK and Eurabia
        - bombed passenger plane Pan Am 103 crashing on Lockerbie
        - terrorist plot alert which requires passengers prove their electronic equipment are not bombs

        And American colonists, the European settlers of North America, “terrorized” King Georges army – and defeated them – and won their freedom from Britain.

        Happy Eternal Nakba!

        • Americana

          I’m not ignoring Muslim terror at all. I’m pointing out that there is a remarkable similarity between the Jewish terrorism and what some of today’s Muslim terrorism is. Of course, the Jewish terrorism basically ceased after the establishment of the state of Israel. So, by that measure, the Israelis shouldn’t be quite so quick to condemn all Palestinian terrorism that’s meant to secure the liberation of Palestine.

          You can keep up the pretense that the Palestinians are committing only extremist terrorist acts but it’s patently clear when one compares the list of attacks by the Palestinian groups and the Israeli/Jewish groups that they are similar. Only trouble is, the Palestinian attacks have gone on for far longer and for that reason the scale of the attacks have grown ever larger and the targets became more and more sensitive because they haven’t achieved their aim of a Palestinian state. Would the Palestinians cease and desist if they achieved a state?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “You can keep up the pretense that the Palestinians are committing only extremist terrorist acts but it’s patently clear when one compares the list of attacks by the Palestinian groups and the Israeli/Jewish groups
            that they are similar.”

            SIMILAR?

            “Terrorist” attacks by Jews are SIMILAR to Terrorist attacks committed by Muslims???

            Which “Terrorist” attacks by Jews are similar to the following Muslim terrorist atrocities?

            - When did Jews hijack 4 passenger planes, lie to the passengers that if they don’t resist, they will be safe, yet fly the planes into buildings – causing the collapse of two of the buildings and the deaths of close to 3,000 people???

            - When did Jews behead a British soldier in London and justify it?

            - When did Jews execute a suicide bomb attack on London transport – like Muslims did on 7/7 2005?

            - When did Jews shoot a British policewoman to death in London?

            - When did Jews hold a demonstration in London threatening massacres as you see Muslims doing in the following picture?

            http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/london-muslim-protest-8.jpg

            Please answer.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            - When did Jewish “terrorists” bomb London transport system as British Muslim terrorists did on 7/7 2005?

          • Americana

            As I made quite clear, the Palestinians have ramped up the scale of their terrorism because they haven’t achieved a Palestinian state. Would the Jewish Irgun have done the identical thing — choosing larger and ever larger targets that killed more and more civilians if they hadn’t achieved the state of Israel? it certainly seems they might have considering what ramping up of targets the Irgun and Haganah did for as long as they were in business. As for quibbling over just how many civilian deaths were acceptable for the Irgun, you must not know that a Jewish terrorist group talked about poisoning the water supply of MULTIPLE GERMAN CITIES after the end of WW II w/the hope of killing 6 MILLION Germans. One German life for each Jewish life that was taken by the Holocaust. Revenge would have been appealing after the Holocaust, so this is only posted to indicate that the Jewish terrorists had no limit for the number of victims it sometimes demanded. The Irgun may have salvaged their reputation of Jewish freedom fighters merely because the British and the United Nations finally caved and gave in to the creation of Israel. If the Irgun were still fighting today for the creation of a Jewish homeland, who knows what the total number of victims would have been or what they would have chosen for targets? Based on what the Irgun et al DID DO, I don’t believe they would have continued bombing trains.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Americana,

            When did the Irgun bomb London transport as British Muslims did on 7/7/05?

            When did the Irgun behead a British soldier like Lee Rigby as British Muslims did?

            When did the Irgun detonate a bomb on an inflight passenger plane as Muslims did to Pan Am 103?

            When did the Irgun hold a demonstration in London with placards threatening death and destruction as British Muslims are doing in the following picture?

            http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00441/news-graphics-2007-_441437a.jpg

            I deal in FACTS. You deal in wishful thinking that you can blame Jews for acts of barbarity committed by Muslims.

            Americana, Please join me in condemning the prophet of Satan you call Muhammed.

          • Americana

            As I said, we don’t have a clue what the Jews would do if they were still fighting for a Jewish state today, decades after the Holocaust killed 6 MILLION Jews in the single worst case of genocide in the history of mankind. One clue as to their willingness to upscale their attacks though, is that there was a Jewish terrorist group that DID PLAN the mass poisoning of German cities in order to execute one German for every Jew that was killed in the Holocaust. That tells me that there was the POTENTIAL, if not the GUARANTEE, that the Irgun would have continued to ramp up their terrorist attacks on softer and softer and larger and larger targets until the world agreed to a Jewish nation.

            Someone brought up the sinking of a Holocaust immigrant ship in an earlier thread and claimed that it was a mistake on the part of Jewish bombers. That bombing of that Jewish immigrant ship was definitely an act that IGNORED the potential for mass casualties. Even if the ship was only meant to be disabled, it still was an action that put ALL those Jews on board at risk. I don’t happen to believe it was simply a mistake and a miscalculation because there were no other instances where the Jewish bombers made such an egregious mistake. As for the other attacks you mention, as I’ve written, we don’t have a clue what the Jewish Irgun would be willing to do at this point in time if they were still fighting for a Jewish state.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Yoo Hoo, Briticoma, I’m STILL waiting for your link to a UN report of Jewish terrorist attacks.

            WHERE IS IT????

            http://www.un.org/en/

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “Would the Palestinians cease and desist if they achieved a state?”

            A “Pal-e-SWINE” would be as likely to cease its terrorism as have Al Qada, ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Fascist Iran.

            The more terrorism is committed by Islamofascists, the more likely the War on Islam will commence.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “Would the Palestinians cease and desist if they achieved a state?”
            Answer:
            less than a year after the signing of the Oslo accords, in a speech delivered in a Johannesburg, South Africa mosque on May 10, 1994, Arafat stated: “This agreement [Oslo], I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce…But the same way Muhammad had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort.” (Ha’aretz, May 23, 1994)

            Arafat thus reassures his people that the Oslo accords are a similar temporary measure meant only to hold until the Palestinians are ready to attack and defeat Israel.

            And he is not alone. Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf), Arafat’s deputy, explained the meaning of the Phased Plan to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Anba (Dec. 18, 1988): “At first a small state, and with the help of Allah, it will be made large, and expand to the east, west, north and south. I am interested in the liberation of Palestine, step by step…. According to the Phased Plan, we will establish a Palestinian state on any part of Palestine that the enemy will retreat from. The Palestinian state will be a stage in our prolonged struggle for the liberation of Palestine on all of its territories.”

            And in an interview carried by the Egyptian daily Al-Arabi (June 24, 2001) Feisal Husseini, a senior Palestinian minister and key player at the Madrid and Oslo conferences, explicitly stated that the Oslo agreement must be understood as one step in the “Phased Plan,” and that the Palestinian strategy is to defeat Israel by means of a “Trojan Horse”:

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not ignoring Muslim terror at all. I’m pointing out that there is a remarkable similarity between the Jewish terrorism and what some of today’s Muslim terrorism is”

            You’re inverting cause and reaction. If you’d started the timeline earlier it would have been clearer. Put all documented terror events on a single timeline so that it’s easier for the reader to see what a “cycle of violence” looks like in the Middle East.

          • Drakken

            Would the Pali’s cease and desist with jihad if they got a state? The answer is a resounding NO!

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        https://actforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/london_muslim10.jpg

        How long until British Muslims returning from Jihad in Syria and Iraq with their new training, make good on their threats an turn their islamofascist fury on the UK ALA 7/7/05?.

        • Drakken

          Oh look! Targets!

        • ObamaYoMoma

          How long until British Muslims returning from Jihad in Syria and Iraq with their new training, make good on their threats an turn their islamofascist fury on the UK ALA 7/7/05?.

          I sort of don’t think they will, because the Muslims over in Britain are waging a kind of grand jihad via stealth and deception to destroy Britain non-violently by their own hands from within, and so for it has been working like a charm. Violent jihad attacks could possibly alarm the British infidels and jeopardize that jihad.

          One of the reasons so many Brits hate the state of Israel and hate Jews so much and at the same time are so sympathetic towards Muslims is because the British education system inculcates their citizens with the notion that the Jews in Israel prior to the creation of the state of Israel were terrorists. Those Jews weren’t terrorists, they were freedom fighters fighting British tyranny, just like the American revolutionaries also weren’t terrorists, but freedom fighter fighting against King George’s tyranny. Thus, after undergoing that kind of inculcation, it is very hard for British subjects not to view Jews and the state of Israel as being anything else but terrorists.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The crime Israel committed was not being massacred and defeated by 5 Arab armies – counter to British wishes and expectations.

    • Americana

      Ah, so FPM is rewriting history. Well, OK then. Be my guest, rewrite history and pretend that the Jewish “freedom fighters” were JUST freedom fighters and weren’t freedom frighteners. The fact is, the Jewish terrorists fought until they achieved what they demanded — a Jewish state. Sounds remarkably similar to what the Palestinians are fighting for if you take the long view of their struggle. Only by acknowledging the rights of both of these peoples are we going to solve this. Pretend that Israel deserves sovereignty and you will find there will always be an Arab entity that is ready to rock the boat. The fact there have been Arab politicians who’ve taken the courageous steps they have to sign peace treaties calls for equal courage from Israelis to achieve peace.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        If Israel were the problem, then Arabs/Muslims would be living in Peace with their non-Jewish/non-Zionist/non-Israeli/non-wrong-kind-of-Muslim neighbors – and there would be peace elsewhere in the Middle East and East Asia and Eurabia.

        But there isn’t peace. Wherever the vile ideology of jihad, Islamoimperialism, Islamofascist exists, there is death and destruction.

        May the prophet of Satan called Muhammed, continue to roast in H E L L for all time. INSHALLAH!

        • Americana

          Daniel, not sure why you’d accuse me at this point of being a conspiracy theorist since I debunked one person’s belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theory that those attacks were committed by the Israeli Mossad and the U.S. You even gave those posts of mine a PUBLIC THUMBS UP vote for their accuracy. There were at least three posts to which you attached your name. I’d say we both know that I’m not a Truther of any stripe. I retrieved that list because it was the least ‘buggy’ electronic list of Jewish terrorist attacks I could find. I didn’t need to strip out coding or double-spacing, etc.

          If you find the list objectionable because you consider each and every attack a legitimate freedom fighter attack, you should go down the list of attacks and DELINEATE WHY YOU FIND EACH ATTACK ACCEPTABLE. It might also serve a purpose if you noted whether or not you consider each attack as qualifying as terrorism or not. That would be a boon to the FPM readers to know what is and isn’t terrorism as far as you’re concerned. If you don’t work your way down the list and indicate why each target is acceptable for specific reasons then we’ll take away from your refusal to differentiate between legitimate targets and illegitimate targets that you give tacit approval to all Jewish terrorism.

  • zoomie

    yup, no telling what might happen after 6 million people get cooked.

    of course the bad guys in what was becoming Israel would have been next if the wimps remained in charge in the west.

    i seem to remember hearing a brit once say ” peace in our time “. he was holding up a piece of paper somebody scribbled on, right ? or is my memory down some hole ?

    • Americana

      There’s no question but that the world’s Jews had justifiable grounds for wanting a nation after the Holocaust. Our options now are a Gordian knot of difficult choices — whether you’re neutral or whether you have a side you support — that are guaranteed to create generational antipathies that will last into the foreseeable future unless we’ve very, very lucky and the right personalities come from each side to negotiate peace.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          No Napping on the Keyboard.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I posted an except directly from her post alone and my response to it, and the post went into that moderation black hole. So I took my response out of it and it still went into that moderation black hole. Finally, I posted my response without her excerpt, and it was finally accepted.

            What you see right there is the remnants of me removing her excerpt and filling in the spaces with X’s to make it disappear, which usually happens but not this time for some reason.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Israel gets Jews.
        Socialist UK get Sharia Law thanks to traitwhores like Lauren Booth, Jennie Tonge, Der Guardian, Robert Fisk, BBC Arabists, HO Arabists, Dhimmi Charles, PressTV Manwhore Ha Ha George Gallowsway.

      • truebearing

        You don’t want peace. You want an end to Israel. Whenever you get your rear end kicked in a debate, which is every time, you fall back on your phony peace rhetoric. If you really wanted peace, you would expect the Muslims to deal with Israel honestly by taking responsibility for the endless terror attacks, and stopping them, and by acknowledging Israel’s right to exist. You would also acknowledge that the Palestinians are a fabricated nation whose people are not from the region they claim, but from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.

        • Americana

          OMG, truebearing, you simply cannot acknowledge that there are Palestinian Arabs who’ve been there in Palestine for umpteen hundreds of years. They’ve got olive groves that are hundreds and hundreds of years old. Don’t tell me they don’t have such old olive orchards because I know some of the permaculture guys who’ve gone there to help start permaculture process farms there to help restore soil to the desert. These folks w/provenance for their lands within Palestine are NOT from Jordan or from Egypt or from Syria or from anywhere else, otherwise they wouldn’t have provenance of their homes and orchards. Provenance trumps lies each and every time.

          If there were a Palestinian state, there might be no further need to worry quite so frantically about Israel’s right to exist. As for you folks kicking anyone’s butt in debate, you wouldn’t opt for calling people mentally ill quite so frequently if you stood on solid debate ground. So, no, I’m not worried about your debate skills or anything else about your material you present here. There’s plenty to contest on the Israeli side as well as the Palestinian side.

          • truebearing

            Double OMG!! The olive groves don’t pre-date Israel, apparently. And even if there were a few Arabs living in the area mistakenly named “Palestine” by the Romans, it isn’t justification to create a country for them…especially a country where the vast majority are from somewhere else and support the genocide of their neighbor.

            People wouldn’t suggest you are mentally ill if you didn’t act like it. Using “Webb” as a screen name being a good example of arrested development, not to mention dishonesty.

          • hiernonymous

            “Using “Webb” as a screen name being a good example of arrested development, not to mention dishonesty.”

            That’s a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up?

          • truebearing

            I don’t need to. The moderators removed her childish comments and that is all that matters. Your insane belief that you are in charge here is your mental problem, not mine.

          • Americana

            The fact there are Biblical references to reestablishing Israel is a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that Israel and the Jewish kingdoms were extinguished umpteen thousands of years ago. There is no honesty to the political resurrection of Israel in the modern age and pretending the Jewish kingdoms were there throughout history until the present day is convenient dissimulation. The Jewish kingdoms were wiped off the map by numerous conquests thousands of years ago. The reestablishment of the Jewish state was a political act of will by the international community. Let’s hope it resolves itself as a political contretemps by the Israelis making the right choices.

            Again w/the ridiculous accusation of using someone else’s BB name. I’m simply and always ‘Americana.’ I’ve never borrowed another’s name and i certainly would not borrow Webb’s name…

            It’s not a “serious accusation,” hieronymous, when there are some who do this sort of thing regularly. it’s their version of cat and mouse.

          • truebearing

            It isn’t a ridiculous accusation in the least. The fake Webb comments were addressed to people who had been arguing with you. I flagged them and now they are gone. It seems highly unlikely someone would pose as Webb, then answer comments directed at you, using your arguments and style of writing.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s not a “serious accusation,” hieronymous, when there are some who do this sort of thing regularly. it’s their version of cat and mouse.”

            It would be a serious accusation if it came from someone to be taken seriously.

          • Chavi Beck

            The number “two” is not part of the set “umpteen thousands,” as they apparently forgot to teach you in Advanced Placement Mathematics.

          • Chavi Beck

            1. The number “two” is not part of the set “umpteen,” as they apparently forgot to teach you in Advanced Placement Mathematics.

            2. I must have somehow missed the rampant zionist claim that the Jewish monarchy has survived the exile. What is stated as true, and is absolutely true, is that the Jewish nation has survived. The only nation to survive conquest and dispersion for so many generations, and then reacquire actual sovereignty (as opposed to govt-in-exile status) in its ancestral homeland.

            You seem to mourn this fact as if your own grandfather were a Muslim Jerusalemite olive. Not very American of you, dude.

          • hiernonymous

            I know that there have been a lot of posts flying around, so this might have escaped your attention.

            Can you support this accusation you’ve made about Americana using “Webb” as a screen name?

          • truebearing

            Obviously my flagging her for violations of the terms of use got the comments removed. Any other mysteries you need solved, monitor boy?

          • hiernonymous

            Flagged comments are generally removed. So we have an allegedly removed comment that was allegedly falsely attributed to Webb that you claim was written by a particular poster, and not a shred of proof. What we do know is that in the days before the comment was removed, you failed to take the opportunity to support your accusation.

            Pathetic.

          • hiernonymous

            “People wouldn’t suggest you are mentally ill if you didn’t act like it. Your use of “Webb” as a screen name is a good example of arrested development, not to mention dishonesty.”

            You still haven’t offered any support for this accusation. Are you just making stuff up?

          • Americana

            There’s far too much expertise displayed by certain folks w/this fifth columnist baloney of writing fake posts and claiming someone they’re attempting to vilify is the author. It’s like the fake mental health claims…Which they claim they’re entitled to make since they’re all psychologists and psychiatrists in real life.

          • hiernonymous

            Yep, it’s pretty transparent stuff. The best thing I can suggest is to call them on it and show how transparent it is.

          • truebearing

            Your comments using Webb’s name got deleted, but don’t try to play innocent. They were made in response to comments directed at you. Why would someone else use Webb’s name to answer replies addressed to you? To discredit you? I doubt it. You do that better than anyone else could.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s been a revealing incident. You made an accusation. When asked something as simple and direct to identify the post you were talking about, and your reasoning and evidence for concluding that you knew the author, you spent days squirming, engaging in bombast, making shrill attempts to turn the burden of proof on its head – anything, anything but a simple “here’s the link to the post, and this is how I know who wrote it.” You’ve been palpably desperate for an out, and apparently you’ve decided that “the post was there but now it’s gone, what a shame” as the best you can manage.

            You had your chance to make your case. Having made a public accusation, you had only two acceptable courses of action: to immediately substantiate your claim, or to retract it. You were too craven to do either.

            “You do that better than anyone else could.”

            Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…you simply cannot acknowledge that there are Palestinian Arabs who’ve been there in Palestine for umpteen hundreds of years. They’ve got olive groves that are hundreds and hundreds of years old. ”

            What does that have to do with sovereignty? They’d have their olive groves if they’d collectively put down their weapons and negotiate in good faith with the de facto, righteous sovereign.

          • Drakken

            It don’t matter if a raghead has been there 500 years or 1 day, the land belongs to those who have the means to keep it.

      • Drakken

        You are far from neutral, you openly side with the Islamic savages over the western allies in Israel.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Why wouldn’t she? She is obsessed with vilifying and demonizing Jews and Islamic savages are her partners in crime.

        • Americana

          No I don’t side w/the Muslims, Drakken, you’d just like to assign me to that non-neutral position. I haven’t sided w/either side and that’s what bothers you. I’m supposed to just go along w/the consensus that the Muslims are savages… You can’t even write a single post about the matter at hand without inserting slurs or calling for genocide. The Palestinians have been promised a state. Finally, after the United Nations agonizing over the issue, the U.N. granted the first status step toward that state.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Your about as neutral as that antisemite nut case Karen Armstrong.

          • truebearing

            Why are you calling yourself “Webb,” Americana? Have finally realized that your idiotic arguments have ruined your efficaciousness as a troll, so have to resort to childish deception?

          • Drakken

            Honey, there ain’t no middle ground here, period, your either are for the Islamic savages, or your with Israel, period. You call it genocide, I call it warfare, semantics at best.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        “generational antipathies”, like the sunni/shiite disagreement which has led to 1,000,000 dead in the Iraq/Iran war and teh 160,000+ dead in Syria.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Our options now are a Gordian knot of difficult choices…”

        Also bullshit. It just seems that way because we haven’t been choosing wisely over the past few decades.

  • Webb

    Ever wonder why Americana and Hernio are so nutty? Here it is: “As he grows old, the narcissist often becomes the target of constant derision and mockery, a sorry sight indeed.” From, I Love to be Hated – The Masochistic Narcissist. The book is titled, Malignant Self Love http://samvak.tripod.com/narci… They come on this site to torment, and in return they get constant derision and mockery, yet keep coming back for more. They have to have it and they’re magnets for it. That’s why so many readers have identified mental illness in them. They’re incurable, and we’re simply responding to their sickness – not to logical arguments. Now it all makes sense. Feeding a twisted pathology.

    • Americana

      You’re so lame! Always w/the mental illness claims. If it weren’t so nutty for you and trubearing to continue to try to lace “narcissism” and other mental ailments in w/each and every criticism you make of us and of Pres. Obama, your claims might have some SLIGHT TINGE of credibility. But the fact you’ve claimed that Obama’s “narcissism” explains this, that and the other aspect of his political decisions and that a Muslim woman who’s a paranoid schizophrenic is a paranoid schizophrenic like ALL OTHER Muslims, WEAKENS your argument to the point of NULLIFYING IT.

      You respond to our logical arguments by illogically arguing mental illness on our part. Everyone who argues politics would fall into the masochistic narcissist camp if your premise were true. To any psychiatrist looking at these threads, they’d identify you as being in deep denial about every aspect of the situation. From being unwilling to identify the INDIVIDUALITY of the JIHADS to claims about the PERCENTAGES of Muslims engaged in active jihad to the cheapazz tactics of claiming one’s DEBATE PARTNERS are mentally ill, those are tactics used by those unwilling to engage in legitimate debate by USING FACTS rather than TACTICS. There is certainly pathology afoot, but it’s the pathology of presenting highly questionable theses to be devoured unquestioningly by American demographic groups.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        You are a bigot who doesn’t care about peace, because you only care about vilifying and demonizing Jews.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Lots of words. Little sense – especially when scraping the bottom of the Internet for support for your nutty claims, by cutting and pasting from 9/11 Troofer sites.
        .

        Happy Eternal Nakba!

        • hiernonymous

          Are you challenging the accuracy of the information she provided? She offered two sources, and on first read-through, the list is consistent with what I have read in many sources over many years. Are you denying that there were Jewish terrorist groups, are you claiming inaccuracies in the summary of their activities, or do you simply find the topic uncomfortable and find that a digression is in order?

          • Bklyn Farmer

            It appears that both of you were not critical when viewing the list, labeling any incident where a fatality occurred and act of terrorism is at best a stretch if not outright misinformation, for example the last on the list of acts of zionist “terrorism” concerns the Libyan airlines downing here is it in context:

            Only months before the Yom Kippur War, Israel was on a high state of alert in February of 1973, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 drifted into Israeli airspace over the Sinai Peninsula, then under Israeli control was shot down after ignoring repeated requests to change its flight path while under fighter escort. Israel intelligence warned of the possibility of passenger airplanes laden with exlposive would be detonated over densely populated areas [pre 9/11]

            So was this an act of terrorism or just someone who wants to defame Israel and this is just one example. For many Jihadists apologist every act of the IDF an act of terrorism.It appears that both of you were not critical when viewing the list, labeling any incident where a fatality occurred and act of terrorism is at best a stretch if not outright misinformation, for example the last on the list of acts of zionist “terrorism” concerns the Libyan airlines downing here is it in context:

            Only months before the Yom Kippur War, Israel was on a high state of alert in February of 1973, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 drifted into Israeli airspace over the Sinai Peninsula, then under Israeli control was shot down after ignoring repeated requests to change its flight path while under fighter escort. Israel intelligence warned of the possibility of passenger airplanes laden with exlposive would be detonated over densely populated areas [pre 9/11]

            So was this an act of terrorism or just someone who wants to defame Israel and this is just one example. For many Jihadists apologist every act of the IDF an act of terrorism.

          • Americana

            There have been several instances where passenger planes have been shot down by paranoid regimes all around the world. Some have been acknowledged, some have not. The fact that shoot down of a passenger jet was included on the list doesn’t change the vast majority of the incidents of Jewish terrorism on the list. Since I wasn’t the one to compile the list and I didn’t decide which incidents qualified for inclusion and which didn’t, you can’t blame me for the implications of its inclusion. Israel is not going to successfully whitewash its history of Jewish terrorism nor should it attempt to do so. It looks hypocritical if it attempts to do so. I’d hardly claim the IDF is guilty of enormous human rights abuses but it certainly isn’t free of human rights abuses entirely. It’s maintained an admirable standard of behavior under difficult conditions for a long time. But there’s a reason why so many former IDF high ranking major generals and general staff support the two-state solution at this point in time. They see treating the enemy as human beings w/human rights and national rights as the only way forward.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “Paranoid regimes” -As someone who saw the smoke rise after the planes hit the World Trade Center, as someone who comforted the wife as she frantically tried to contact her husband who was in the area, as someone who saw the faces of New Yorkers who were in mourning I found your post disgusting. Yes it has everything to do with the credibility of you list because it supports your demonizing Israel. No context that each Irgon attack on the British military was in response to their execution of an Irgon, that the unfortunate sinking of a ship was only supposed to disable it so it would not be able to be sent back, that many of the actions were in retribution to Arab killing, that villages did have arm Palestinian paramilitary that fought against Israel, that you do not differentiate collateral fatalities caused by the Israelis compared to the targeted civilians by the Palestinians. You’re all to happy to run with it as long as it fits your convoluted narrative.

          • Americana

            You will seize upon anything in a post, Bklyn Farmer, to smear someone or distort someone’s viewpoint. At least one of the lists I’ve posted labeled some of the killings of British soldiers as reprisal murders. The fact some of those murders by the Irgun were REPRISAL KILLINGS for the execution of captured Irgun fighters still doesn’t change the fact that Israeli TERRORISTS were executed for bombing civilian sites or killing British diplomats and those terrorist acts MERITED DEATH SENTENCES. The Irgun didn’t accept that those men committed terrorism and they didn’t believe they merited death sentences so they captured British soldiers and held them hostage or they readied a bombing and only did the bombing if the British went ahead and executed the Irgun fighters.

            This is how reprisals work, whether they be by the Irgun or by the Palestinians. Take off the rose-colored glasses and look at those first terrorists as exactly what they were — POLITICAL TERRORISTS. Considering some among the nascent Israelis had made plans to murder 6 MILLION GERMANS by poisoning water supplies for major German cities after WW II as reprisal for the Holocaust suggests, to me, that there’s NO TELLING what the Irgun would be willing to do today if Israel still wasn’t a reality. Surely you understand that the only thing that stood between the execution of the mass poisoning plan that was readied by Irgun fighters and was derailed by someone within the Israeli government or intelligence service was HUMANITY and COMMON SENSE? We’d be having a very different discussion right now if the Irgun fighters had actually been able to commit that terrorist act.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Distorted by quoting you, if you don’t like the way it sounds don’t say it. Also while you having a fit over the 6 million Germans that were not killed by the Irgon try some outrage for the 6 million Jews that were actually killed or the millions of Russians killed by Stalin or the millions killed by Moa instead of the millions not killed by the Irgon. What kind of convoluted logic rules you fantasy world.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You failed to respond whether you also agree with your source’s claims that the Jews were behind the 7/7 bombings.

          • Americana

            Since I’ve stated the 9/11 attacks weren’t a U.S.-Israeli conspiracy, and you actually CHECKED, voted those posts ‘UP’ for approval w/your name, you know very well I’d never endorse the 7/7 London transport bombings as being suitable fodder for another such conspiracy theory. Now you’re going to continue to try to label me a conspiracy theorist because of where I grabbed a list from because it was the cleanest, most easily managed list? (IE, I didn’t have to go into the text and take out double spacings and coding that prevented the list from posting on this site? It wasn’t a tabular list, etc.)

          • Drakken

            You seem to be under the impression those few Generals carry any weight? They don’t, the general consensus is that one way or another this is going to take force of arms to resolve, but you certainly grasp at any straw to give your argument respectability.

          • Americana

            The general consensus of WAR MONGERS is that this is going to take force of arms to resolve because they see it a as the only guaranteed way to achieve their aims. There are other soldiers, far higher ranking than you, who believe there are other options if both sides see reason. Those Major Generals are neither as few as you like to claim nor are they as unimportant as you like to claim.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Did 19 Arab/Muslims hijack 4 passenger planes on September 11, 2001, lie to the passengers that if they don’t resist they will be safe, yet fly two of the planes into buildings in Manhattan, causing both buildings to collapse and the death of about 3,000 people?
            True or False?

          • hiernonymous

            I can’t speak to what the hijackers said to the passengers, but, yes, they hijacked two planes and flew them into the WTC, causing them to collapse. It’s reasonable to suppose that the hijackers, being willing to murder people en masse, would not balk at lying to them. Relevance?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Since you’re a stickler for accuracy, you should know that 4, FOUR passenger planes were hijacked by 19 Arabs/Muslims on 9/11/01.

            9/11 proved that some Arabs/Muslims are capable of unspeakable Crimes Against Humanity.

            Some Arabs/Muslims Lie to advance their genocidal goals as exemplified by the 9/11 sneak attack.

            Some Muslims in the UK celebrated the 9/11 attacks and call the 19 Muslim terrorist “The Magnificent 19″ and attempted to hold a celebration honoring them.

            The world sees Syria where 160,000+ have died – Arabs killing Arabs – some with poison gas – a WMD.

            The world saw Muslims killing each other, 1,000,000 dead – in the 8 year Iraq/Iran war.

            A question is what is “some”. A minority? 10%? 10% of 1.4 billion is 140,000,000. Is that number reassuring?

          • hiernonymous

            “Since you’re a stickler for accuracy, you should know that 4, FOUR passenger planes were hijacked by 19 Arabs/Muslims on 9/11/01.”

            Yes, I was responding to your focus on the planes that flew into the WTC.

            “9/11 proved that some Arabs/Muslims are capable of unspeakable Crimes Against Humanity.”

            Can you name a nationality or religion for which that statement is not true?

            “A question is what is “some”. A minority? 10%? 10% of 1.4 billion is 140,000,000. Is that number reassuring?”

            I think that a significant portion of every population, regardless of nationality or religion, is capable of unspeakable atrocities. I find many things unsettling rather than reassuring; among those is the disturbingly large number of people who dedicate their energies, day in and day out, to vilifying a particular people.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You focused so intently that your penchant for accuracy was lost. FOUR passenger planes were hijacked, not two as you posted.

            Today the population that has engaged in terrorism against passenger planes are Arabs/Muslims. The recent concern over modified electronics hiding bombs are due to buzz from Islamist terrorist circles.

          • hiernonymous

            Here’s what I wrote: “…they hijacked two planes and flew them into the WTC…”

            That’s correct, and followed your focus. They also hijacked a plane and flew it into the Pentagon, and a fourth that was brought down short of its intended target. You made no mention and showed no interest in the Pentagon or Pennsylvania aircraft, and it would have been inaccurate to state that four planes were hijacked and flown into the WTC.

            “Today the population that has engaged in terrorism against passenger planes are Arabs/Muslims.”

            That’s half correct. The majority of recent bomb-related attacks or attempts against passenger aircraft have been by Muslims (though not necessarily Arabs). Hijackings are another story.

            “The recent concern over modified electronics hiding bombs are due to buzz from Islamist terrorist circles.”

            Probably so.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            There were 4 planes hijacked by Arab/Muslim terrorists.

            Not two as you sloppily posted.

          • hiernonymous

            If you simply wish to repeat yourself, allow me to direct your attention to my last post for an answer. You may follow this loop around as many times as it takes for comprehension to dawn or your eyes – or fingers – to exhaust themselves.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            When Americana cuts and pastes from 9/11 Troofer websites, do those sources enhance her credibility or diminish it?

          • Americana

            Let’s see, I’ve posted the very same list of Jewish terrorist attacks from the 1) United Nations, 2) the Guardian, and SEVERAL other web sites. There are numerous web sites that post sourced information from other reputable sources because they don’t have the research staff to compile such information on their own. There was nothing on that list of attacks on the Guardian site that I hadn’t seen on the United Nations site. Trouble is, the U.N. site has its Jewish terrorist attacks listed in TABULAR FORM so I’ve got to do all sorts of cutting and pasting in order to clean the text of all sorts of coding that prevents the post from making it through the FPM posting process. The fact I don’t choose to redo all the stripping out of coding doesn’t change the factual nature of the list of attacks. Even the Truther sites will occasionally simply post the truth as opposed to THEIR VERSION of the TRUTH. Did I post anything from such a site that is QUESTIONABLE? No, I simply selected the CLEANEST TEXT PRESENTATION in order to save myself time.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Present your link on the UN website that lists terrorist attacks by Jews.

            BTW, the domain should be UN.ORG.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That list is not from the Guardian, it’s from a 9/11 Truther Holocaust denying site that calls itself Guardian

            the difference has already been pointed out to you

          • Americana

            Will lists of Jewish terrorist actions remain posted or will you continue to take them down? Would they remain posted if I post them under the wording ‘Jewish freedom fighter liberation tactics?’ A simple ‘Yes, the list will remain up’ or ‘No, I won’t allow such a list to remain posted on this thread/this site’ will be sufficient.

          • hiernonymous

            I suppose that depends on whether she cut and pasted something accurate or inaccurate. Nothing about her posts suggests that her education comes solely from partisan blogs, if that’s what you’re implying.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You think 9/11 Troofer websites are credible and accurate?

          • hiernonymous

            It depends on what you’re looking for. If I need a picture of, say, Marilyn Monroe, it doesn’t much matter whether I get it from the NYT or the National Enquirer. If I need a list or set of data, again, it doesn’t much matter who provides it. I probably would take any analysis offered by such a site with a grain of salt, and I wouldn’t assume that any argument they offered was complete. In fact, I see such sites as being very much like this one. In this particular case, she was able to produce an independent source of the same data from a different site, so it’s not clear what you are trying to imply here.

            Is “troofer” actually a word, or is this another example of “wit?” Around here, I find it hard to tell sometimes.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Troofer isn’t my doing. It seems similar to Yooof or Axe.

            Americana said she has a statement from the UN that lists instances of Jewish terrorism – but up till now all she can do to support her claim is post from 9/11 Troofer websites or run into a down website.

            http://www.un.org/en/

            I’ve helped her out with the above URL – which works.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So long as we know Hiero has no problem getting his history from sites that claim the moon landing was faked

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Buzz Aldrin punches Bart Sibrel after being harassed by him
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k

            You can skip to 1:30 for the good stuff.

          • hiernonymous

            That’s not what I said, but you already know that.

            Still, considering where you are employed, I’m surprised that you look down on such sites. You’d seem to have more in common with them than not.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You just focus on the truths from conspiracy sites like the “Moon Landing Hoax”.

            The truths are valid even when they come from such a site.

            You could be a fact checker for David Irving.

          • hiernonymous

            “You just focus on the truths from conspiracy sites like the “Moon Landing Hoax”.”

            I invite you to link to any comments I’ve made about a “Moon Landing Hoax.” It’s revealing to watch you try to draw intentionally false conclusions like this.

            “The truths are valid even when they come from such a site.”

            Are you arguing that something that is true stops being true if you find it on a nutty site? That’s a curious argument.

            “You could be a fact checker for David Irving.”

            Really? Which of us is trying to use the “kernel of truth” concept to paint an intentionally distorted picture? Not big on self-awareness, eh?

      • reader

        “You respond to our logical arguments”

        In the real world, it’s called truther garbage. You’re one step away from schizo stage two complicated by “false flag operation” terrets syndrom.

        • truebearing

          Her belief that her arguments are logical is an unmistakable indicator of pathological levels of delusion. She’s a logical as a trap door in a rowboat.

          • hiernonymous

            So you keep insisting, yet you never actually seem to manage to demonstrate the flaws in the logic, nor support your own assertions.

            She has raised an eminently reasonable point in these comments, to wit, that the terrorism employed by the various Jewish groups in the run-up to the establishment of Israel bears similarities to the terrorism now employed by the Palestinians whose very existence, for reasons too transparent to mention, you try to deny. This isn’t evidence of anti-Semitism or being anti-Israeli, and does not logically equate to a challenge to Israel’s legitimacy. Rather, it calls into question the underlying assumptions concerning the roots of the terrorism, the goals of the terrorists, and the appropriate responses to political violence.

            As a study in group dynamics, the insults and declarations of victory are interesting, but they don’t rise to the level of reasoned discourse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “She has raised an eminently reasonable point in these comments, to wit, that the terrorism employed by the various Jewish groups in the run-up to the establishment of Israel bears similarities to the terrorism now employed by the Palestinians whose very existence, for reasons too transparent to mention, you try to deny.”

            How can you compare one thing to the other by only listing one of the (sets of) things you propose to compare?

            Anything can be described as “similar” to something else. It’s questionable how sincere the suggestion is when there is only one list, the list of the members she wishes to attack rhetorically.

            It’s more useful to honestly compare and contrast the differences and then you’ll understand why so many of us reject the fake nationalist movement that is being used to attack Israel.

          • hiernonymous

            GIven that the site seems dedicated, at least in major part, to enumerating the wrongs perpetrated by the Palestinians and Muslims in general, it’s hard to take this criticism without a grain of salt.

            “…fake nationalist movement…”

            Ah.

          • Drakken

            Americana points are an exercise in utter futility and stupidity, one way or another this is going to get solved through force of arms, end of story. The Peace Now crowd openly side with Islamic jihad and are a clear and present danger to us all. The muslims will NEVER EVER give the Jews of Israel any peace, no matter what Israel gives them, it will never be enough. Time to end this madness once and for all time, time to give that rat’s nest of Islamic jihad in Gaza what they so richly deserve, a nice taste of Carthage and the same on the West Bank, then you will have peace. Anything other than that is nothing but wishful thinking and pipedream.

          • truebearing

            Her “points” are flimsy false equivalencies. Jews fighting to secure a safe homeland after a horrific holocaust is in no way equivalent to Muslim transplants demanding a homeland on false pretenses with the ultimate and frequently stated goal of genocide against Israel. Nor is it equivalent to indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian areas, murdering children, detonating suicide vests in markets, and on buses, etc. etc etc. Also, Israel never threatened to wipe out Britain, so her comparison fails as badly as your pathetic defense of her tortured reasoning. I see a pattern here…

            Her comments try to rationalize the roots of terrorism, and never more so than when she attempts her ridiculous explanations for Palestinian motivation. Like you, she ignores the true root cause of all Muslim terrorism: the teachings of Islam. Oddly enough, you both champion Muslims yet dismiss the statements of innumerable Muslim leaders who cite the teachings in the Quran as the compelling motivation for violent jihad. I guess you know more about Islam than the Muslims and consider them to be liars or too stupid to know what they believe and why. You would give a fish instructions on how to swim, too, if it was dumb enough to listen to you.

      • Webb

        You nave no real concept of debate or argument. You’re yammering. I used to be a community assistance specialist for the severely persistently mentally ill, and you fit right in.

        • truebearing

          She and Heiro really hate the narcissism label, so you know you’re hitting close to home when you acuse them of being narcissistic. The Left in general doesn’t like being outed for the nutjobs they are. Truth of any kind really irritates them. Muslims are the same way.

          Oh no! What have I done? I stereotyped leftists and Muslims. The politically correct horror of it all. I feel so…so….good.

          • Webb

            Good for you. Bad for the nutjobs. I admire your posts.

          • truebearing

            Thanks.

            Don’t look now, but Americana is using your screenname.

      • truebearing

        People who capitalize words throughout their comment are seeking attention and displaying signs of an infantile temper tantrum. It suggests that narcissistic rage is building because the afflicted one isn’t getting her way. Maybe it’s time for the ba-ba and a nice long nap.

        Obama has been doing something similar with his taunting of Republicans — real presidential of him — and his fury at losing popularity by the minute. He’s on the edge of sanity and could at snap any time. Poor widdo Bawack isn’t evewyone’s favowite pwesident any more. Waahhh-Waaaaahhhhh!

        • hiernonymous

          “People who capitalize words throughout their comment are seeking attention and displaying signs of an infantile temper tantrum.”

          Source? Can you support this?

          Caps are often used to provide emphasis in informal writing online. When entire statements or sentences are in all caps, that is conventionally read as “shouting,” but that is not what Americana did. Using italics or bold requires knowledge of HTML tags, and even with that knowledge, us cumbersome on mobile devices, which require one to jump around three virtual keyboards and suppress the capitalization of “I” for each tag, at the beginning and end of the emphasized phrase. This is analogous to the conventions for the old typewriters, which normally lacked italics and required the acceptance of underlining as a substitute.

          Your assessment seems poorly reasoned.

          • truebearing

            Ah, the pompous windbag is coming to the defense of Dull-cinea once more… or is it just ire over the sore topic of narcissism?

            With your penchant for nitpicking and obsession with being the final word in all things, you should be teaching grammar at an elementary school or running a spelling bee.

            Can I support my comment? Why do I need to? Americana clearly gets frustrated when people won’t agree with her drivel, which leads to various manifestations of infantile behavior. In this case, she is capitalizing words to show her anger, not enhance her message. Very childish for her age, and coupled with her tendency to post dozens of times, mostly repetitively, it seems reasonable to assume narcissism is at play. With you it’s even easier to see.

            If you weren’t such a humorless stiff, you would have figured out that I was having a little fun with the mental health theme, but humor doesn’t lend itself to your formulaic self-righteousness, and evidence suggests that you don’t have a sense of humor, so your inability to detect it is understandable.

          • Americana

            You’re never simply “having fun w/whatever mental health theme” you’re cranking away attempting to attach to either hieronymous or myself. But it’s ludicrous you claim narcissism is our middle name when you’re the only one I’ve ever seen pat himself on the back — TWICE — for a single post and then ultimately try to pretend to graciously acknowledge that the thought content in the post came from other sources. Narcissism might have a real bearing on the conversations on this site and the worst offender is neither one of us.

          • truebearing

            You are twisting the context to make it fit your warped agenda. Heiro tried to find a quote that one-upped a comment I made. I simply said I prefered my version. That is hardly evidence of anything other than preferring a simple expression to a grandiloquent, over-written observation. The narcissistic behavior in that exchange was Hiero trying to elevate himself…something he does relentlessly.

            You will notice that the number of people on this site who think you have mental issues is considerable.

          • hiernonymous

            “You will notice that the number of people on this site who think you have mental issues is considerable.”

            The number of people on this site who will profess to find evidence of mental issues with anyone who takes up a contrary political position is considerable. How surprising.

        • Americana

          Actually, I capitalize words because it gives me the feeling of inflecting my written words. I’d prefer not to switch back and forth in the word program and italicize words and do other manipulation of the text to achieve the ‘inflection,’ hence the ALL CAPS. One button achieves the result.

    • truebearing

      “Ever wonder why Americana and Hernio are so nutty?”

      I’ve never wondered. ;)

  • Daniel Greenfield

    Exactly whose fault is it that the West Bank and Gazan Muslim consensus settles on two terrorist parties?

    If both the Republicans and Democrats supported killing all Asian people, that would say something about America.

    BDS outside Israel is almost always One State Solutionists. Their program doesn’t vary whether or not that there are negotiations.

    The Irgun wasn’t out to wipe out all English people. Unlike Hamas. It was trying to save Jews from the Holocaust after the UK government prevented European Jews from entering Israel.

    Its targets were primarily affiliated with the occupying government and the British imposed collective punishment in response

    There were even riots in the UK targeting Jews

    So I’m not sure what your point is.

    • truebearing

      She likes to see her comments magically appear on the screen…as long as they have something negative to say about Israel.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Besides the obvious, i.e., no elections, all so-called Palestinians are jihadists in one form or another, as jihad is a holy war waged by all Muslims against all infidels in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, and since Islam more than it is anything else is an extremely rabid form of totalitarianism that seeks world dominance as opposed to being a so-called religion, all non-conformers that don’t follow the dictates of Islam, including any so-called Palestinians actually support

    • DontMessWithAmerica

      You all got sucked into to debate with that Americana thing, a she, he or it thing that reasonable people simply need to ignore as we ignore some dog droppings on a sidewalk that has nothing to do with us.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    I expect fetah and hamass to fall out with each other again and restart their fraternal bloodletting to satisfy the prophet of Satan called Muhammed.

  • timpottorff

    Reagan would have had Mr. Greenfield on his cabinet if that were possible. Daniel Greenfield’s clarity on the issues is unmatched and his writing is like a surgeon’s scalpel. I hope the next conservative nominee will digest the wisdom of his analysis on every current issue. (He could not go wrong.) I am daily reminded of his brilliance and wit in each article that he offers. I’m so thankful for someone so gifted as this.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Unfortunately Reagan had na zi p rick buchanan – and Reagan paid his respect to the graves of the waffen ss at Bitburg.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su0Hvt6hTmA&feature=kp

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

      • Webb

        Thanks for sharing this. I learned under Reagan that government is nothing more than an on-going betrayal process. With all of our resources, life in the USA could be so good and beautiful, but the government rapes and robs the resources and then squanders what it steals, and is never satisfied, always wanting more more more. What must the families of the GIs killed by the Nazis in those cemeteries think?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          na zi buchanan pushed Reagan to go there.

          But that’s not all. I am disgusted by durrent day naz i filth in the US like david duke, who fly the swastika in the US, which lost men in WW2 fighting na zi filth.

          • Webb

            Have you heard of Gerhard Lauck in Lincoln, Nebraska?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            There are people living in the US who side with the naz i filth who declared War on the US four days after Pearl Harbor.

            I wish the families of those brave Americans who died to rid the world of national Socialist filth could get their hands on Gerhard.

  • Platopus

    Examples of real news analysis: the article above; Israel is conducting self defense; thugs value inanimate object “land” over people; Israel values people over inanimate object: land.

  • Al Haus

    Its very simple.

    If Israel laid down their arms today, every Israeli man woman and child would be dead tomorrow.

    If the Muslims laid down their arms today, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow.

    It really is that simple.

    Islam is a disease much worse than Nazism. It MUST BE destroyed.

    Or THEY WILL destroy us.

    Everything else is BS.

  • mbrj

    Mr. Greenfield…I am SO impressed that you are monitoring the comments from your article, which was superb BTW, and putting those anti-Semites in their place so that they can’t get away with spewing lies and distortions as fact truth and fact.
    Kol HaKavod!!!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      someone has to

  • meanpeoplesuck

    So- all those dead Palestinian children I see daily are just a figment of my imagination?

    And memo to Daniel- the US is broke. We can’t continue sending trillions of dollars to Israel, we have our own problems that Israel is making worse by pissing off the countries that supply our energy. What we are currently doing is called a lose-lose.

    • Drakken

      Still swallowing I see? If you have such empathy and sympathy for those Islamic savages, put your money where your leftist jihadist loving mouth is and go join their cause. I hear that Rachel Corrie is looking for company, I can hear her screaming from here.

      • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

        Israelis grease their vehicle tracks with terrorist sympathizers. Welcome to the Middle East, enjoy your stay XD.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The majority killed are always men of military age. If you want to swallow propaganda, that’s your choice.

      If you don’t want children to die as collateral damage, tell Hamas and the PLO to fight a conventional war instead of using their own people as human shields.

      Or you could just kiss some more Saudi boot.

      • meanpeoplesuck

        Typical RepubliNaziTard deflection. What do the Saudis have to do with this? And there is no such thing as conventional war anymore. Nice try.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          I hate to rain on your parade moonbat, but the jihad the Islamic totalitarian world is waging against the infidel state of Israel through their proxy – the so-called Palestinians – is just a tiny part of the much greater global jihad at large that the Islamic totalitarian world is also waging against all infidels and infidel states throughout the world.

          So go ahead, bury your unhinged head in the sand and continue to delude yourself moron. Indeed, I know that bit of news will make you sleep well at night moron.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          What do the Saudis have to do with this?

          History, you should learn it. Also current events beyond the headlines on Alter Net

        • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

          We had tank battles in 2003, you flaming moron. Almost 6,000 men died in the battle for Baghdad International Airport – about as many as died at Normandy.
          _
          That’s the thing about war – it never changes.

          • hiernonymous

            We lost 34 men in the entire battle for Baghdad. About 2300 Iraqis died in the fighting. The battle for the airport lasted several hours, and was the most intense conventional fight of the war, but to compare it to Normandy is absurd.

        • American Patriot

          Typical DemoCommunisTurd propaganda coming from a leftist Occupyloser like you, fool. Besides, the Nazis were radical left-wingers, fool.

    • Webb

      How could the US be broke? I don’t believe it. Why would the Federal Reserve quit printing money for us? It makes no sense. What about all of our stimulus Obama gave to us? Who has that? Obama will give us more!

      • meanpeoplesuck

        It doesn’t surprise me that TeaBangers are economic illiterates. Your hero, Chimpy W McHitler took Clinton’s surplus, well, our surplus, and spent it trying to liberate Iraqi oil. We now have a deficit that we largely owe to China. Would have had a deficit even if Grandpa and Caribou Barbie, or Mittens and Eddie Munster would have won.

        • Webb

          Oh, so now we just have deficit and are not broke. I knew you were telling big lie. Shame be upon you. Obama would not eat our stimulus cookies and put it to us from behind. We are better than that. More stimulus will come down from Heaven from this messiah of yours! Pray for us!

        • Knights Hawk

          After Bush, Barry Hussein went into as much debt as all the presidents before him. Why not bring that up? Doesn’t that debt count, since it’s your boy doing it? Obama has been an economic disaster for this country, and you talk of conservative economic illiteracy?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          So Obama’s name was really George W. Bush?

          That explains a lot.

        • UCSPanther

          What you are really saying, is that you believe everything that Pravda says, even as the whole thing is caving in.

          We ain’t stupid, unlike you.

        • American Patriot

          It doesn’t surprise me that Occupylosers are economic illiterates. Your hero, the Radical-in-Chief, took Bush’s surplus, well our surplus, and spend it giving an apology tour to our adversaries. Bush liberated Iraq, while Obama supports establishing Islamist states in Egypt, Libya and other countries in the Middle East. Also, unlike Clinton, Bush never had an extramarital affair that he lied about.

    • BillyBob Bob

      Please to provide URL’s to those “dead Palestinian children” that you see daily. Thanks. Shama-lama-ding-dong.

  • kate5778b

    This is a well reasoned (as usual) article. I will be sharing this. Thank you, Daniel.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

  • kenaan

    Israel is above all humanitarian laws ,special treatment from their God.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      If Israel were killing West Bank and Gazan Muslims mercilessly every day, where are all those tens of thousands dead?

    • Drakken

      If your looking for sympathy for those God forsaken savages, you can find it in the dictionary between the words sh*t and syphilis. Say, if you have such a love for those muslim savages, put your money where your leftist jihadist loving mouth is and go join them.

    • Webb

      Justice? He worked hard for those 72 virgin he-goats (peace be upon them)! Who would deprive him of his pleasures?

    • Stosh777

      You show us some posed picture and we are supposed to rise up and curse Israel? Get real.

      The world has become better aware of the Palestinian propaganda machine over the past decade. Key was the revelation in a French court of law that the supposed video showing the 2000 killing of Mohammed al-Dura was part of a entire DVD of faked scenes of Palestinian casualties. 5000 people, including 4000 Arabs, died as a result of that lie. But I don’t expect you to feel shame…after all, your avatar marks you as a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, follower of an organization whose founder, Hassan al-Banna, was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler.

      • wileyvet

        Or how about the phony Jenin “massacre” in 2002, or the photo shopping of pictures from Lebanon in 2006 ie. extra smoke clouds over Beirut, and burning tire fires made to look like IDF attacks. They will kill their own without any remorse in order to vilify Israel.

        • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

          How about the fake burials where everyone scattered when an Israeli helicopter came overhead (including the “dead” child)?

    • http://www.eveonline.com/ hoodaticus

      I used to have a poster on my fridge of all the Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism. The poster was huge, but the pictures were tiny to fit them all. About half were women and children => indiscriminate slaughter. Most of the Palestinians killed have been militants => self defense.

  • wileyvet

    If anyone would like to know about Hamas, Islam and the conflict, including the US State Department, one need look no further than the Hamas Charter upon its founding in 1988. It opens with the standard Koranic statement ” In the name of the most merciful Allah. The first paragraph is from the Koran, Surah 3 Imran: I have used Pickthal translation.
    Q3:110
    Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
    Q:111
    They will not harm you save a trifling hurt, and if they fight against you they will turn and flee. And afterward they will not be helped.
    Q:112
    Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save (where they grasp) a rope from Allah and a rope from men. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress.
    The document makes it quite clear, in Article 1, that their program is Islam in foundation.
    Article 2 states clearly they are a wing of the Moslem Brotherhood, the same MB that Obama adores.
    Article 5 reiterates that it is Islamic based with roots to the prophet and the Koran is its constitution.
    Article 20 compares Jews to N*zis
    Article 22 states what Hamas believes as far as the all powerful Jew is concerned. The Jews control everything and started the French and Russian revolutions, are behind Freemasonry, Rotary Clubs and the Lions for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests.
    Article 28 states that Zionist are behind the drug trade and alcoholism
    Article 32 invokes The Potocols of The Elders of Zion.
    This is the group that Israel is supposed to play nice with. This is the group that Obama will not condemn, and indeed praises that they have joined a unity government. Unfortunately the Hamas charter also discloses that a political solution to the conflict is a non starter, and rejected the PLOs pursuit of accords, and treaties to end the conflict. To Hamas this is a religious conflict and will only be solved through Jihad, for Allah’s cause.

    • Stosh777

      Superb documentation of the Judeophobic charter of Hamas. I might add from the charter’s genocidal Article 7:

      ‘The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
      “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems
      fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones
      and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is
      a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a
      certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees
      of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).’

      As long as Hamas exists, there can be no peace.

      • wileyvet

        Yes, that’s a good one. The Jews have special trees that aid them. Of course the Hadith make up part of the trilogy of Islamic doctrine, along with the Sira and the Koran. So this again it should be quite apparent that this has everything to do with Islam. Thanks for the addition. Keep shining the light on the darkness that is Islam. The truth will get out and prevail.

      • Zontas Hierospirit

        As a Christian, reading Islamic belief always makes my soul grieve. This one in particular however is far worse than I ever imagined. Nothing that I’ve read in the Quran so far is as bad as this artical 7.

        I’ve never thought of God as a Prophet, but ok. I would rather call God, The Father. Then it says to grant God salvation. So apparently their God isn’t really God at all, and needs to be saved. That’s not a God at all. I almost just wrote it off as just any old pagan idea, but then I realized it could be Lucifer. Only Lucifer would need to be saved from the actual Creator. Lucifer would want God’s creation to turn murderous and hateful and to worship him (as some sort of Prophect) instead of The Creator.

    • jb

      This conflict will end after the Antichrist is thrown in the lake of fire, and not before.

  • trickyblain

    Great article. Great logic. Seems so simple, doesn’t it? I think most American liberals would agree with this analysis (though the international left most decidedly would not).

    Only one minor quibble (as an editor by profession and frequent critic here by hobby, you know I can’t help it). I’d rephrase:

    “They have political powers, but not political responsibilities.”
    To:
    They have political power, but no political accountability.

    Nice work, Mr. Greenfield.

    • BillyBob Bob

      ‘ I think most American liberals would agree with this analysis…’ Only one minor quibble, that’s asinine.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I’m not so sure they would, but thank you

  • Drakken

    You keep running your suck about the Irgun thinking it has any relevance in todays world, it doesn’t. Keep putting your money on a so called peace that does not exist, your going to lose your money honey and you can take that to the bank.

  • ali reza

    Blowing up houses is collective punishment. Your argument that the other side is bad does not change the definition of collective punishment.