Posted on 07/30/2014 1:04:49 PM PDT by Nachum
The age-old anti-Semitic blood libel makes yet another appearance to justify Hamas’s targeting of innocent Israeli civilians and threats of a new genocide of the Jews. But the international media is too busy presenting Hamas press releases as news stories to take any notice.
“Top Hamas Official Osama Hamdan: Jews Use Blood for Passover Matzos,” MEMRI, July 28, 2014:
In a recent TV interview, Osama Hamdan, top Hamas representative in Lebanon and a member of the Hamas political bureau, said: “We all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians, in order to mix their blood in their holy matzos.”
Following is an excerpt from the interview, which aired on the Lebanese Al-Quds TV channel on July 28, 2014.
Osama Hamdan: The Israelis concentrate on killing children. I believe that this is engraved in the historical Zionist and Jewish mentality, which has become addicted to the killing of women and children.
(Excerpt) Read more at jihadwatch.org ...
Some of this is just mind-numbingly ignorant.
Yeah, but that guy met Jesus on the way to Damascus and changed his mind.
I don’t know about Jews slaughtering Christians but even if they did, they aren’t doing it now and I could forgive them for it. Its a moot point anyway.
Hamas must be in a hell of a bad shape to try this crap.
Hitler really got his moneys worth when he pushed the Nazi Propaganda in Arabic—back in WW II. Somewhere he’s smiling—in Hell—He still has followers of his hate.
Seems like it doesn’t it.
I can’t remember a time when Muslims did NOT slaughter Christians, so whatever he’s talking about is not a relevant argument coming from Hamas.
Christians are Jewish by adoption ‘whereby we cry Abba Father’...grafted in according to the Bible. NT.
Just watch, one day this idiot will have his own show on MSNBC
What’s rational about an almost 2,000 year old grudge?
The Jews were initially the persecutors, but the Roman Empire surpassed them not long after.
"Back in 1784, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had to decide whether to appease or stand up to armed Middle Eastern pirates. Sound familiar?
.... The Middle East, a term coined by Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of McCain’s boyhood idols, is where both American warfare and American diplomacy began in the late 18th century, as our infant republic faced its first post-Revolutionary struggle against the evocatively named Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire.
The regencies of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers (future homes of Muammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat, and the Islamic Salvation Front, respectively) had been hosting and sponsoring Islamic piracy since the Middle Ages. Scimitar-wielding corsairs would regularly interrupt the flow of trade and traffic along the coasts of North Africa, seizing European vessels and taking their crews into bondage. Cervantes wrote his first play, in the 16th century, about the dread corsairs, and by the 18th, the American colonies had a minor seagoing presence in the Mediterranean protected by the redoubtable British Navy. But the Crown was reluctant to war against so petty an antagonist, preferring to pay “tribute” to the Barbary States instead, as a shopkeeper would protection money to the mafia. After the U.S. broke away from England and became its own nation, however, the geopolitical dynamics changed, as did the American equanimity with doing business with pirates.
In 1784, corsairs attacked the Betsy, a 300-ton brig that had sailed from Boston to Tenerife Island, about 100 miles off the North African coast, selling her new-made citizens as chattel on the markets of Morocco. The U.S. was not free of its own moral taint of slavery, of course, but it would be impossible to hasten the industrial development that would eventually render the agrarian-plantation economy obsolete if merchant ships could not be assured of safe conduct near the Turkish Porte. Other vessels, such as the Dauphin and Maria, were also seized, this time by Algiers, and the horrifying experiences of their captive passengers relayed back home were the cause for outrage. James Leander Cathcart described the dungeon in which he was being kept as “perfectly dark…where the slaves sleep four tiers deep…many nearly naked, and few with anything more than an old tattered blanket to cover them in the depth of winter.”
In response, Thomas Jefferson, then the Minister to France, suggested a multilateral approach of what we would now term “deterrence.” He asked that Spain, Portugal, Naples, Denmark, Sweden and France enter into a coalition with America to dissuade the regencies from their criminal assaults on life, liberty and the pursuit of international commerce. As Michael Oren, in his magisterial history Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to Present relates, “By deterring, rather than appeasing, Barbary, the United States would preserve its economy and send an unambiguous message to potentially hostile powers.” Jefferson thought it would impress Europe if America could do what Europe had failed to do for centuries and beat back the persistent thuggery of Islamists. “It will procure us respect,” said the author of the Declaration of Independence. “And respect is a safeguard to interest.”
This sober judgment fused the cold calculations of latter-day “realism” with the morality behind revolutionary interventionism: not only would America protect its citizens from plunder and foreign slaveholding; it would ensure that other countries under “Christendom” were similarly protected.
Though Jefferson found a stalwart Continental ally in a former one, the Marquis de Lafayette, France squelched the idea of a NATO made of buckshot and cannon. While waiting for funds that would never come from Congress for the construction of a 150-gun navy, the sage of Monticello resigned himself to further diplomacy with the enemy. In 1785, he dispatched John Lamb, a Connecticut businessman, to secure the release of hostages in Algiers, held by its dynastic sovereign Hassan Dey. Lamb failed ignominiously.
At the same time, John Adams, then minister to England, agreed to receive the pasha of Tripoli, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Ajar, in his London quarters to discuss a possible peace deal. Adams described his interlocutor as a man who looked all “pestilence and war,” a suspicion that was soon confirmed by the pasha’s demand of 30,000 guineas for his statelet, plus a 3,000 guinea gratuity for himself. He also did Adams the favor of estimating what it would cost the U.S. to broker a similar deal with Tunis, Morocco and Algiers — the total price for blackmail would be about $1 million, or a tenth the annual budget of the United States.
Adams was incensed. “It would be more proper to write [of his meeting with ‘Abd al-Rahman] for the… New York Theatre,” he thundered. He agreed with Jefferson that a military response was increasingly likely, but Adams doubted his country’s economic ability to sustain it. For the short term, he thought it better to offer “one Gift of two hundred Thousand Pounds” rather than forfeit “a Million annually” in trade revenue, which the pirates were sure to disrupt. Not long thereafter, Jefferson joined him in London to prevent the “universal and horrible War” and reach an accord with the refractory envoy from Tripoli. Both gentlemen of the Enlightenment, and comrades in revolution, affirmed America’s desire for peace, its respect for all nations, and suggested a treaty of lasting friendship with the regency. ‘Abd al-Rahman listened well, but his reply was one that would shock modern ears less than it did those of the two Founding Fathers:
“It was… written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged [the Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon wheoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
SSDD
In the last 100 years:
National Socialists slaughtered Jews and Christians.
International Communists slaughtered Christians.
Mohammedans slaughtered Jews and Christians.
I don't seem to recall any Jews slaughtering Christians.
I think this Osama fellow might be not in touch with reality.
Which describes most liberals and Muslims.
Many Jews support Christians and are our friends.
I do not know any Muslim who accepts Christianity’s right to exist.
Do these Hamas leaders take quaaludes? Or is it 4 way window pane acid? Maybe they spent too much time at the bar in the hotel in Qatar. But back to reality, the Blood Libel thing has been a muslim BS item for years in their quest to exterminate all the Jews (IE, Genocide) The Muslim Arabs racial hatred of Jews has really gone too far, and our own administration under Obama actually side with these freaks (Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS) The world has gone crazy
Nice try hadji! Christians know better.
This is Muzzie pschological projection. We know who the bloodthirsty barbarians are and it ain’t Israel.
I don’t accept Iz Lame’s right to exist so I guess we’re even.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.