It s The Jews, Stupid

Arutz Sheva ^ | 26 April 2002 | Allison Nazarian

[SJackson]

You may be correct but after loosing a few wars they may have changed their outlook and expectations a little.

There's no reason to think that. They agreed to ammend the charter in 93, and have never so much as made an attempt.

Ever read their "phased plan" adopted in 1974 (lots of sources, on here: http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plophase.htm). In brief:

1-Through the "armed struggle" (i.e., terrorism), to establish an "independent combatant national authority" over any territory that is "liberated" from Israeli rule. (Article 2)
2-To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)
3-To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely ("liberate all Palestinian territory"). (Article 8)

They've never revoked this either. IMO, they think they're near the end of 1, establishing an "independent combatant national authority", in which they can consolidate Arab strength (sheltered by UN peacekeepers?) per step 2.

[Semper]

Fundi-islam is committing suicide by cop. Israel and the U.S. are the only nations, both capable and willing to carry out that function.

I'm not sure the U.S. should yet be included - even though the Arabs see it that way.

Think of the world media as the O.J. jury.

Can't do that. The media may be providing incorrect and/or incomplete information but they can not make a final decision. The O.J. jury clearly made a final (and incorrect) decision.

[Nonstatist]

The Barak Peace Plan offered a large percentage of what was originally supposed to be Palestinian land. This was seen as still incrementally taking land. If it was agreed upon that Palestine consisted of X amount of land, why should they not get all of that land.

They agreed to give back 95 % of the pre-67 land back and the other 5 % they offered to substitute Israeli land in the Gallillee (total about 100%)

So instead of accepting that deal, or countering it with something close or anything whatsoever, Arafat stormed out and chose to have teenagers sneak in and blow themselves and innocent children and other civilians to pieces (close to 500 victims)

You are wrong, BTW. It has no logic associated with it. Just hate. Sometimes one side is more wrong (a lot more wrong) than the other.. Duh!

[SBprone]

You said it all bro!

All I can add is that the while the jihadists have no real understanding of the west, their bluster about putting infidels to the sword tells us a lot about what they fear and respect.

They can be kept at bay by a superior civilization that is willing to speak to them in their own language of armed force.

[SevenDaysInMay]

So Jews think that they have a right to life?

The IDF can and will wage war on the mullah motivated murdering muslim maniacs. This sociopathic Islamic culture which praises this "teen suicide mass murder" should be driven to cultural suicide as was demonstrated in "downtown" Jenin, a proper 21st Century urban renewal.

Live by the bomb. Die by the bomb. The Arab's coveted Middle East is on the way to becoming a dusty scab. Pan-Islamists are at war and they shall have it.

[Euro-American Scum]

Why would people who keep loosing wars love them?

Ask Yasser Arafat.

There could be a strong case made that the U.S. is a "war-loving" nation (we usually win and just look at most of our war movies).

Oh please! Usually we get remarks like this on or approaching the anniversary of Hiroshima. America is evil, blah, blah. Unjustified use of force, blah, blah. Warmongering imperialists, blah, blah. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

The truth of the matter is America has stood against the forces of evil in the world since day one. Yes, including Vietnam. If you don't think so, talk to any of the Vietnamese boat people who escaped the Communist "re-education" camps.

You want to see a war-loving culture, look to Europe, Asia and the Middle East, not to mention numerous South American despots. All this talk of war-loving America is just fodder for the hate-America crowd.

Also, we have the most effective and massive war machine in the history of civilization - we are the war leader of mankind; the world is trying to follow our example.

If that's the case it was because we needed it. Just ask Neville Chamberlain how effective his "Peace In Our Time" deal with Hitler turned out in Munich in 1938.

And if the world is trying to follow our example, you can thank your lucky stars that even if they do perfect the technique, we still have the power to blow them off the map.

[RFH]

Again, because a "highly influencial" person has particular beliefs does not mean all people of that nation think that way. James Carville was a highly influencial member of the Clinton administration and you could get some horrendous quotes from him - is that a fair indicator of American thinking?

No, but 49% of the US voted for Al Gore. So, almost 50% of the US has "James Carville" beliefs. Fair indicator of American thinking? Probably. Unfortunately.

[Semper]

Ever read their "phased plan" adopted in 1974

A lot has happened since 1974 (if I believed everything the U.S. government said 1974, I would be very unhappy now - which is the case).

Step 3 - To provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely..

We are getting close to the all-out war part - which will result in major world upheaval no matter who "wins". Israel seems to be co-operating with this plan quite well.

[Semper]

Just because people voted for Algore does not mean they think like James Carville - in fact there is a good arguement that they don't think at all.

[Catie]

Semper, Defending oneself is not hatred. This "cycle of violence" crappola has got to stop, lest we find ourselves facing a 2d Holocaust. Deny me -- look at France, heck look at the entire European continent, where the ugly face of Anti-Semitism is raising is ugly face everywhere.

[Semper]

you will not ever convince me that Islam is a peaceful religion nor will you ever convince me that the propaganda coming out of these terrorist countries is true.

See, we do agree. I don't want to convince you of those things. What is important is how people relate to each other - not the letter of any particular human religion. What is important is the truth - not propaganda from whatever source.

It is also important to try to understand how and why different people think the way they do. It is hard to love your neighbor if you make no effort to understand them and assume the worse. We are all children of the same Source even though we may use different terms to describe that Source and even though we may understand that Source differently. If we hate our neighbor, we hate our Source and therefore ourselves.

[Wm Bach]

How would you rank some of the world's other cultures - like the Japanese, Chinese, African, Mexican, Australian, etc.

Modern, modernizing, hopelessly stone aged, welfare culture on the verge of major Ireland-type renaissance, scrappy and modern.

How do you rate the Muslim-Americans?

For the most part, modern having left the nomad mentality behind for the New World.

Have they any positive impact on our culture?

Muslims in the historical sense? In the arts and sciences - Yes. Muslim Americans in the contemporary sense? Yes. Contemporary Islam? No. It's a net loss - an anchor on the rest of the world - a goat powered cart on a busy freeway whose driver stubbornly insists, not only upon nestoring in the fast lane, but upon going the wrong way and charging into oncoming cars to kill the passengers along with themselves.

Isn't our culture somewhat unique since it is comprised of elements of all the world's cultures?

Yes. And Israel to a lesser extent (a conglomeration of ex-Germans and Russians, Americans, Semites, Ethiopians and Christians of all colors/national origins...) Unfortunately, the arab world is turning even more xenophobic.

[SJackson]

IMO, you’re engaged in wishful thinking. Lot’s more recent than 1974. Reassurance to the Arab World while the “peace negotiations” were going on:

"Since the decision of the Palestinian National Council at its 12th meeting in 1974, the PLO has adopted the political solution of establishing a National Authority over any territory from which the occupation withdraws."

- Yassir Arafat, in the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Ayyam, January 1, 1998

……………………

"Within five years we will have 6 to 7 million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem....We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. Jews will not want to live among Arabs. I have no use for Jews....We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

Yassir Arafat, Stockholm, 30 January, 1996, as reported by an attendee of the closed meeting, and printed in the Washington Times, March 3, 1996, by Cal Thomas

………………………….

- "The Oslo accord was a preface for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority will be a preface for the Palestinian state which, in its turn, will be a preface for the liberation of the entire Palestinian land." (Emphasis added.)

· Abdul Asis Shaheen, Arafat's Minister of Supplies in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on 4 January 1998

………………………….

Question: Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?

Arafat: No... no. Allah's messenger Mohammad accepted the al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."

cited in Al-Quds, May 10, 1998

[Semper]

This "cycle of violence" crappola has got to stop

You have grasped the obvious. How will that be done? How can we love both the Jews and the Arabs? How can the Jews love the Arabs and vice verse?

[Catie]

The Jews just want to be left alone, as far as I can tell, and are not a hate-filled people. The Arabs, or rather the Muslims, want to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth because that's what their "religion" calls them to do.

[Semper]

So what is the solution?

[besieged]

One (of many) explanations of this goes as follows: The Palestinians were promised certain land but Israel continued to allow/encourage settlements on that land thereby incrementally taking power away from the Palestinians. The Barak Peace Plan offered a large percentage of what was originally supposed to be Palestinian land. This was seen as still incrementally taking land. If it was agreed upon that Palestine consisted of X amount of land, why should they not get all of that land. Israel had established a pattern of incrementally taking Palestinian land (through the settlements) and the Barak Plan sanctioned this. As repulsive as that weasel Arafat is, his actions have some logic if you look at it this way. I am not saying Arafat is necessarily right, but he and the Palestinians think he is right and they are willing to fight for their land - that is not just hate.

Mr. Semper,

When I read your 1st post in this thread, I clicked on your profile fully expecting to find a "disruptor" who has just joined FR. I must say I was shocked to find a long time member of the armed forces.

I am happy to provide some facts or at least puzzles for you to figure out.

Myth: The Palestinians were promised certain land

Yes, and that land is now called Jordan. In fact, originally, in the Balfour declaration, it was the JEWS who were promised that land. But due to the Arab rage over the proposal, the Jewish land was divided in two, then divided in two again... so only 18% of that original "promised land" was actually awarded to Israel. Then, in 1967, when Israel was attacked by the "war loving neighbors", they got their butts kicked and in the process, Israel took over that "west bank", which was at that time Jordan. According to international law, Israel has the right to that land until a negotiated peace is signed with JORDAN! Well, JORDAN does not want that land back, a fact that is conveniently burried by the media. HOW IN THE WORLD does this situation give legitimacy to a terrorist trying to set up his own fiefdom??? Where are Arafat's claims?

Myth: The PLO is fighting for the land

Fact: Israel took over the West Bank in 1967. PLO was established in 1964. Two things to notice: From 1964 to 1967, there was not struggle for liberation, even though the land was "occupied" by Jordan. Also, the credo of the PLO is the destruction of Israel, 3 years BEFORE it occupied the West bank.

I hope you will reflect on these items.

Regards

[Catie]

I frankly have no idea how to deal with the hatred of millions of Muslims whose religion tells them that the return of "allah" depends on exterminating all non-believers from the face of the earth.

However, history (viz., Chamberlain and Joe Kennedy) does teach that trying to pacify haters only breeds more hatred and violence. Faced with that reality and the fear that the Arafats of the world will not stop with victory in the Middle East, I am forced to conclude that we must back Israel at all costs and allow it to beat the so-called Palestinians into submission.