19 posts tagged “arabs”
It is amazing the light that declassified documents bring to move back the darkness of lies.
I was reading an essay by Ted Belman of Israpundit in which he utilizes sources that have examined declassified documents from the UK which demonstrate the Israeli modern heritage that began in 1948 is being compromised by the West (especially America) to the undeserving favor of Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.
In essence every point the Western supported Islamofascist thugocracy terrorist government syndicate known as the Palestine Authority is based on a lie.
I feel in my heart (because I have no proof that I know to access) that the West is turning anti-Israel (and in some cases anti-Semitic) and pro-Palestinian Authority because of the enormous influence that Islamic nations with oil now hold over the West. It is an influence based on economics, which in stable political times is a greater weapon than a military arsenal.
Before World War II there is no way the Western Nations would allow third rate medieval governed nations to pull the purse strings of power. The Europeans especially would have sent there various national military armada and demand this is how it is going to work to keep the Western economies moving.
Leftists and third rate nations call this imperialism; I call it protecting the National Interests and National Security of the constituent populations which the Western governments represent.
The modern West views using force or war as a political weapon as repugnant because of the weariness of nearly a century plus of internecine wars in the West; thus when the National Interests (the secure well-being and domestic prosperity) of its citizens are threatened by medieval notions Dar al-Islam and Sharia Law the West looks the other way and makes self-loathing excuses for the brutality and designs of oil empowered Islamic Culture.
Once powerful nations of Western Europe are beginning to feel the squeeze of Islamic Culture sucking the life force of Western Culture from it soul.
America is in the early stages of this Islamic Culture sucking. Europe is often called Eurabia today. Will there be a time when America’s heritage of Christian influence, Liberty, Freedom, Domestic Tranquility, the Pursuit of Happiness and so forth will nullified by a term such as Amerarabia?
Polls conducted by Arabs that call themselves Palestinians and polls conducted by Israelis demonstrate that a majority of these Palestine Authority Arabs support terrorism against Israel while the Israeli polls show that a majority of Israelis want to stop further withdrawals from Judea/Samaria (the West Bank).
So someone in the West tell me again how creating a sovereign Palestinian State will bring peace to the Middle East.
JRH 3/24/08
Here is a balanced political self-examination of America from the Hoover Institution. It steps on some toes and yet explains why some anti-Americanism is unjustified. It is a fascinating read.
JRH 3/12/08
The foolishness of Arab appeasers at the reception of distorted half truths from the Arab sympathetic Mainstream Media (MSM) always makes Israel the villain when so-called Arab civilian casualties occur when Israel defends itself from attacks Jew hating Arab terrorists who call themselves Palestinians.
Evelyn Gordon writing for the Jerusalem Post reveals the full story that the MSM and Palestinian propagandists leave out.
JRH 3/6/06 (Hat tip to ICEJ News)
**********************************
Civil Fights: The canard of 'disproportionate force'
Mar 5, 2008 21:35 | Updated Mar 6, 2008 14:44
International denunciations of Israel came thick and fast this week. The EU's rotating president, Slovenia, condemned the "disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces against the Palestinian population in Gaza." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon slammed Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" response to Palestinian rocket attacks. Even the US State Department urged Israel to "exercise caution to avoid the loss of innocent life," which is merely a milder version of the same premise: that Israel is to blame for all Palestinian civilian casualties, either because it uses "disproportionate force" or because it exercises insufficient "caution." Yet media reports on the fighting in Gaza reveal that in fact, the blame frequently lies with Palestinian behavior.
Take, for example, an Israeli air strike that killed two Palestinian teenagers last Wednesday. According to The New York Times, "witnesses in Gaza told the Palestinian news media that the civilians were hit while standing at a launching site watching Hamas militants firing rockets." There can be no more justified military activity than targeting terrorists in the very act of firing rockets at civilians. If that is "disproportionate," all military activity is. Moreover, since Hamas eschews uniforms, the IDF has no way to distinguish rocket crews from civilians who are cheering them on. Thus any civilian who rubbernecks at a rocket launch is clearly and deliberately putting himself in danger - which in itself should absolve Israel of responsibility.
BUT MORE importantly, for that very reason, most armed forces do not allow civilians in firing zones. The IDF, for instance, generally declares active combat areas "closed military zones" from which Israeli civilians are legally barred, and it enforces such orders. Other Western armies do the same.
But Hamas needs civilian casualties to fuel Palestinian and international anger at Israel. So rather than barring civilians from its launch zones, it welcomes them. And if they do not volunteer for the victim's role, it co-opts them - as happened last weekend: "Palestinian gunmen took up positions in homes while the civilians were still inside," Haaretz reported.
Firing back at people who are shooting at you is also clearly legitimate military activity; no law of war obligates soldiers to let themselves be mown down without a fight just because there are civilians nearby. Moreover, soldiers have no way of knowing whether the civilians have fled or are still inside a house; all they can be certain of is the presence of gunmen.
Under such circumstances, civilian casualties are inevitable. But those casualties are not caused by "disproportionate force" or insufficient "caution"; they are the direct result of Hamas's decision to use civilian homes, with the people still inside, as bases for targeting Israeli soldiers.
Moreover, civilians are not always innocent. Those whose homes were invaded by Hamas were presumably unwilling hostages. But some Palestinians voluntarily serve as "human shields" for terrorists - and by actively aiding and abetting terror, they turn themselves into combatants.
In one widely publicized case in November 2006, for instance, the IDF, seeking to avoid civilian casualties, announced two planned air strikes 30 minutes in advance to enable civilians to leave. Instead, Hamas used the loudspeakers of local mosques to urge civilians to flood the area and serve as human shields. Hundreds did so, and the IDF - precisely because Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties - consequently aborted the strikes. Yet these civilians were hardly "innocent": They deliberately intervened in an armed conflict on the terrorists' behalf.
What is most noteworthy about such incidents, however, is what they say about the Palestinian claim - mindlessly parroted by the international community - that the IDF fires indiscriminately, without regard for civilians. In fact, Hamas summoned civilian reinforcements precisely because it knew a civilian presence would prevent the air strikes. And the civilians came for the same reason - not because they sought death, but because they knew the IDF would not shoot them.
IN ANOTHER incident that same month, hundreds of Palestinian women purposely entered a combat zone to shield gunmen besieged by IDF soldiers. Again, they were deliberately abetting combatants. And again, they knew they could do so safely, because the IDF would not shoot them. And indeed, the soldiers held their fire as the wanted men escaped by mingling with the crowd.
In July 2006, The New York Times described another Gaza battle as follows: "[Israeli] soldiers fired at groups of armed Palestinians who fought in the streets, sometimes surrounded by curious and excited children." Why any parent would let his children outside during a gunfight is a mystery. But unless these parents were deliberately sacrificing their children for propaganda purposes, such behavior demonstrates a truly extraordinary faith in the IDF's efforts to avoid harming civilians.
Contrast this with Palestinians' behavior when the combatants are not Israelis. During last May's Hamas-Fatah infighting, for instance, the Times reported: "The streets of Gaza City were empty except for the gunmen, with shops shuttered and residents remaining indoors, usually in interior rooms farthest from the windows." No "curious and excited" children surrounding the gunmen in these battles: Gazan parents who trusted the IDF with their children's lives evidently placed no similar reliance on Palestinian forces.
THE MEDIA reports above, and numerous others like them, make three things clear: (1) Palestinians know full well that Israel strives to avoid civilian casualties; indeed, as their behavior demonstrates, they count on this. (2) Palestinian civilians frequently deliberately put themselves in the line of fire - either to help the combatants, or, like those "excited children," merely to cheer them on. (3) Palestinian terror groups deliberately foster casualties among their own civilians: Not only do they not discourage civilians from entering combat zones; they force them to do so - for instance, by invading civilian homes - when there are no volunteers.
In short, Palestinian civilian casualties usually result not from "disproportionate force" or "insufficient caution" by the IDF, but from Palestinian behavior, on the part of both civilians and terrorists.
But of course, realizing this would require actually reading reports of the fighting. It is much easier just to skim the headlines and issue stock condemnations of Israel.
__________________________
© 1995 – 2007 [sic] The Jerusalem Post. All rights reserved.
Yehuda Dramain has posted a similar treatise of The Land of Israel and its uncontested Capital Jerusalem in at least two Jewish Publications: YnetNews.com and Jewish Russian Telegraph. I know little of Dramain except for her obvious passion for the Land Israel.
Dramain sent this post to SlantRight.com via the Comment/Contact link and I happy to post it for her (I think it’s a “her.” I am not good on Jewish gender names)
This is a brilliant compilation of the reason that Jerusalem should not be divided and traditional Israeli land given to Arabs that call themselves Palestinians for a sovereign nation. Man you HAVE TO READ IT!
Thank you Yehuda Dramain.
Jeff Jacoby writes of the disappointing Bush. With the Secretary of State as the voice piece, President Bush is abandoning a principle of the Bush Doctrine pertaining to terrorism.
Regardless of constant terrorism by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Brigade and other Islamofascist terrorists that call themselves Palestinians; President Bush is determined to create a sovereign nation called Palestine.
National Interests drive domestic and foreign policies of all nations. What do you think a Palestinian State’s primary National Interest would be?
If you thought that National Interest was to live in perpetual peace with Israel cooperating with the Israeli economy to strengthen the infrastructure of a novice Palestinian State, you would be an idiot.
The National Interest of a Palestinian State will be the same as the prime directive of the Arab terrorists since the Arab League set up the refugees they created as a stateless people: none other than the complete and utter destruction of Israel and the Jews that live in the Land of Israel.
And guess what? Part of the Bush dhimmitude to Arab wishes is for Israel to recede to the vulnerable borders that existed between Israel’s creation in 1948 through 1967 prior to one of the Arab invasions to drive the Jews into the sea. The penalty for that Arab invasion was the complete union of Jerusalem under Israeli authority and the acquisition of land Biblically part of Israel and Judaism.
That border recession is like stamping a big sign on an Israeli map that says, “INVADE ME.”
Evidently the Bush Administration is willing to sacrifice Israeli security to drum up Arab friends to stand with him of the true threat of rogue Iranian militancy not to mention Iran being the biggest supporter of transnational terrorist organizations committed to a Jewish holocaust.
So you see President Bush is playing a brinksmanship game between Arabs and Iranians gambling on checking Iran and offering a Palestinian State as a gift for Arab help to check Iran. I am guessing the thinking is that Iran is the current threat to the flow of oil thus affecting our National Interests so President Bush is operating in the NOW of what is left of his term of Office and let the next President be responsible for the existence of Israel.
The problem with that thinking there is a huge chance that Appeasement minded Democrats may win the Presidency in 2008 and allow Israel to be dissolved by American inaction. Did I say “dissolved?” I meant butchered.
The butchering lay in that Bush has been selling weapons to Arabs that has nearly erased Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in superior weapons to potential hostile neighbors.
You can think of the QME in this way. Israel had such a difficult time in punishing Hezbollah for missile launches and soldier kidnapping, that many Middle Eastern nations perceived the first Arab victory and the first Israeli loss in battle since their 1948 Statehood. This was accomplished with better training thanks to Iran more than superior weapons.
Now check this out! America has been selling high tech weaponry to perceived American Arab friends Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. The Saudi’s have never formerly recognized Israel as State. Although Jordan and Egypt have diplomatic relations with Israel they have been involved in every major invasion of Israel since 1948. These Arab nations have benefitted from American training and high tech weapons.
What do you think will happen if Bush succeeds in creating a Palestinian State with Arab allies that have American military training and American high tech weapons?
Has anyone noticed that President Bush has morphed on his support for Israel? For that matter Condoleezza Rice also seems to have morphed when she was elevated from National Security Advisor to Secretary of State? When Rice was in the National Security position I even considered her a potential Republican Presidential candidate.
The President and Rice seem to have swung their pendulum toward the Arabs as a means to reach an end of Israeli/Arab strife. Bush has gone from supporting Israel and relying on Israeli Intelligence to forcing Israel into a position of an existential crisis and ignoring Israeli Intelligence.
There is the appearance that the only Western style democracy in the Middle East is becoming expendable as an ally toward the old career State Department bureaucracy favoritism of cuddling with Arabs.
An extrapolation can be made that the Bush Administration has aligned foreign policy evaluation on the level of the EU which blames Israel for all the violence in the Middle East when all the little sliver of a nation is doing is surviving as a Land for Jews to come to where the government respects their Faith and/or Jewish background (amazingly innumerable Jews have abandoned their Faith in favor of Leftist utopian thinking yet still ascribe to their Jewishness).
In Europe the plague of anti-Semitism seems to be growing as Mohammedan immigrants seem to grow larger inciting indigenous Europeans back toward an anti-Semitic mind-set.
I suspect the War on Terrorism is not concluding as Bush envisioned it would in his pro-active days; thus in his last days of President he trying to forge an Arab inclusion to join America on the War on Terrorism (transnational terrorists). To do that, I suspect Bush has decided concessions have to be made to Arabs concerning creating a Palestinian Sovereign Terrorist State even if it is a future threat to Israeli existence.
Read Bill Mehlman’s The Bush Metamorphosis which captured my thoughts of the Bush Administration's political swing. Mehlman is not as specific in his thoughts probably because he is a journalist and I am a blogger; however Mehlman inspire one to think of the long haul transformation of Bush toward Israel.
Rachel Neuwirth writes of the absurd demand of the Arab “Right of Return” to homes in Israel proper which were abandoned during the 1948 War in which Arabs attempted to drive Jews into the sea and end Israel before it tangibly become a sovereign nation. Of course that failed and with the odds against the Jews, Israel was victorious. That was the hand of God, i.e. the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; not the god of Mohammed and the lineage he extrapolates from Abraham and Ishmael as told by an angel of light (deception or psychosis) known as Gabriel.
I am glad that Neuwirth has extrapolated the truth of the Arab flight out of Israel, because until this essay the only bold scenario I have read is from the much maligned Masada 2000 website. (It is maligned because of an extremism of a past hit list against anti-Zionist sources.) Regardless of the extremism of the website in anger, its history is spot on. Neuwirth provides a moderate voice (though obviously slanted toward Israel) that enumerates the facts the contradict Arab and Palestinian lies.
The pure fact of the matter the aggressors were expelled from Israel, it was not some sort of ethnic cleansing as Arabs that call themselves Palestinians would have Western suckers believe. Indeed I believe the Arab refugees dubbed Palestinians should be forced out of the West Bank and Gaza and the land merged into sovereign Israel. Let the Arab nations deal with the problem they created in 1948 by repatriating Arabs that were encouraged to flee under the false assumption the heavy odds of superior Arab numbers would obliterate Jews and Israel.
This excerpt is from the One Jerusalem blog:
In an interview before President Bush's trip to Israel, Prime Minister Olmert stated that Israel must come to terms with dividing Jerusalem and giving up more land in Judea and Samaria.
Olmert's defeatist attitude is the clearest indication that he envisions Israel continuing the process of giving up precious land even though this tactic has only succeeded in bringing Israel's enemies closer to Israel's heartland.
Olmert's mindset is defeatist and will further endanger the people of Israel.
One Jerusalem’s conclusion is based on a Jerusalem Post article.
The article has Olmert openly musing that it is not reality to keep Jerusalem and discharge control of (what the West calls) the West Bank. Olmert’s reasoning is based on Liberal thinking.
Olmert believes for there to be a viable Jewish State it must create a viable Arab state. The alternative being keeping control of the West Bank and Gaza and making the Mohammedan Arabs second class citizens as they demographically grow to out number people of a Jewish heritage (i.e. religious, secular or atheistic) in a one nation situation. That is the Western Left’s current accusation against Israel.
Another alternative Olmert finds unacceptable is to have one nation granting full citizenship to Mohammedan Arabs. Olmert finds this unacceptable because then the Jewishness of Israel (Eretz Israel) would be submerged again in demographics; i.e. the Mohammedan Arab population would be the majority population in a Western style democracy that would give Mohammedans the legal ability to end a Jewish Israel and eject the name “Israel” and replace it with Palestine. In essence this “Palestine” would be a Mohammedan land and Sharia Law would relegate Jews to second class citizens in their own land.
So for Olmert the only alternative to keep Eretz Israel (the Land Israel) is to disengage into a two State solution without a right of return for the Mohammedan Arabs that fled in 1948 believing that invading Arabs would eradicate Jews and restore them to their homes. At least Olmert is against the so-called “Right of Return.”
There is another solution that would be beneficial to Israel yet would bring an international uproar from the West and threats of war from Arab nations. That solution is based on what Egypt, Jordan and Syria as well as the unanimous vote of then Arab League: Create Arab refugees rather than repatriate them into the various losing Arab invaders thus creating a perpetual reason to war and find a way to terminate the Land of Israel.
Israel could unilaterally uproot the refugees that call themselves Palestinians by the brainwashing of their fellow Arabs and move them to a weak nation that could not stop such an uprooting. That nation is the current Lebanon. In justice the nations that should accept the full citizenship of the Arab refugees are the principle invading nations that created them: Egypt, Jordan and Syria. You know that is not going to happen because unofficially that would be a threat to the ruling elites of those nations and officially it would be branded as Israeli aggression against Arabs. Indeed the father of the current King of Jordan ejected the military wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization out of fear it would depose the Hashemite Royal Family. It was an actual battle between Arab entities for control of land in Jordan.
There are other alternatives for Olmert to take to keep Jerusalem (the city of David) as one under Jewish/Israeli rule.
The splitting up of Israel to accommodate Mohammedan Arabs will lead to another war to eradicate Israel anyway. Olmert (or another tough minded Prime Minister) just needs the cajones to move the Arabs out as King Hussein of Jordan did in 1970.
I just came across a classic example of Liberal lying this time relating to the Israeli versus Arabs that call themselves Palestinians conflict.
The pro-Arab Liberal in question is Daniel Levy. Levy was having a kind of forum style debate with anti-Jihadist David Frum on bloggingheads.tv a day after the fruitless (for Israel anyway) Annapolis Peace Conference.
Daniel Levy is a Senior Fellow of the New American Foundation (NAF) that bills itself as neither Left nor Right but a Think Tank for ideas and solutions. The introduction to the snippets of the bloggingheads debate by the Middle East Forum (MEF) says the NAF “advertises” itself as a Center-Left organization. The somewhat maligned but easily accessible Wikipedia posts that the NAF has board members that include the Left and the Right.
The thing is Levy is considered a man of reputable scholarship; nonetheless at the bloggingheads debate between Levy and Frum, Levy is exposed as a Liberal lying fact manipulating pro-Arab anti-Israeli.
JRH 12/18/07
***********************
Rewriting History
Factchecking Levy
by Noah Pollak
National Review Online
December 7, 2007
Daniel Levy has of late become one of the most sought-after leftist commentators on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one of the most frequently quoted and interviewed pundits on the subject in the mainstream press. His name regularly appears in news stories in the New York Times and Washington Post, among other papers. Cultivating an image of expertise and sobriety, he is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, which advertises itself as a center-left source of serious analysis. The day after Annapolis, he debated David Frum for 40 minutes on bloggingheads.tv, the video of which was posted at the end of last week and which has now been posted on the New York Times's website.
Levy's performance was astonishing. His preferred tactic was to repeatedly digress from the debate in order to lecture Frum on what he claimed to be the "historic context" of the conflict; his appearance on Bloggingheads is one of the most misleading performances I've ever seen on the conflict from a putatively serious person. This is a long fact-check, but I think it's a necessary one.
Yasser Arafat's Involvement in the Intifada
Frum: I think there are very few people who would take the view that what happened on the Temple Mount was a spontaneous upsurge of Palestinian public opinion.
Levy: Well, the Mitchell Commission actually took that view. there was a commission, an international commission, that was brought in to say what happened and how do we stop it, and the Mitchell Commission did NOT come out on the side of the argument that said, ‘the Palestinians were just waiting to for a moment to start a violent intifada.' So the one internationally-sanctioned but non-partisan group that was asked to look into this drew a very particular conclusion.
Several minutes later:
Frum: So there are people who say that Yasser Arafat did not start that war?
Levy: Well I'm saying that the Mitchell Commission did not come out with the finding — and this was the only internationally authorized, non-partisan assessment of this — the Mitchell Commission did not come out with that finding, and I think it's very important to put that out there.
Well, indeed, let's put the Mitchell Commission report out there. The MC was charged, in a December 2000 letter from President Clinton, with proposing ways "to end the violence, to prevent its recurrence, and to find a path back to the peace process." The MC report stipulates:
We are not a tribunal. We complied with the request that we not determine the guilt or innocence of individuals or of the parties. We did not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses or the production of documents. Most of the information we received came fr