I have a real problem with the worst purveyors of anti-Semetism. You know...the Hamas, Hezb'allah, ISIS types in the world, who are now engaging in all sorts of vile barbarism against the people of Israel...AGAIN!!
It's bad enough there's no such thing as a palestinian. As has been presented many times before now, that word was first used by the Roman Empire and was a region in which a variety of peoples inhabited. Europeans controlling the area retained the word to describe the region, but there was no "palestinian" people which didn't include arabs, Jews, Zoroastrians and a few others.
Eventually, plans by the colonizers to divvy the land resulted in arabs pissing themselves and deciding the Jews must die and some chose to call themselves "palestinians" as if that's an actual nation or people. But they were just arabs who lived in the same area those others listed lived.
But again, this has all been explained. All that matters now is that playing nice with muslims serves no one and certainly hasn't served Israel. The bottom line is this: Israel deserves more land than they have, and the pallies...especially those in Gaza...barely deserve to breathe. They're animals, who exist only to murder. The few who aren't like that are Israeli citizens living the good life. The rest are vermin who live in squalor, getting next to nothing of the billions poured out by foreign nations...including ours...to improve life for that assholes.
And now, instead of using the financial aid to become the nation they pretend to be, they've turned of the barbarism to 11 and as far as I'm concerned, if the consequences of them doing so results in THEM being wiped off the face of the earth, it will be a greatly improved face. That goes for all the other islamists, too.
28 comments:
For historical events that have occurred so recently, and are so well documented, the amount of ignorance on this topic is astounding. The reality is that the Brits went out of their way to empower the Arabs, and to facilitate their stated goal of exterminating the Jews. Now, the Brits graciously agreed to leave some ships off the shore to pick up any survivors and transport them to refugee camps, but they did nothing to facilitate anything resembling an even conflict. Let's also not forget that the original Mandate was a "two state" solution and that it was Arabs outside of "Palestine" that most vociferously objected to a Jewish state. Let's also remember that Jerusalem was NOT within the original borders of Israel.
Of course then the Arabs attacked with overwhelming strength, from all of the land borders, and they lost. Decisively. Then they tried another attack in '67, then another in '73 and lost both times. Not only did they lose all of these wars, they also lost territory. The IDF chased the vaunted Arab armies across the '48 borders and that Vaunted Arab armies (heavily supported by the Soviets) couldn't even protect their own territory. Hell, the UN had to intervene and stop the rout in one case.
Finally, let's not forget that those Arabs who chose to stay in Israel during the '48 war (at risk of death from their own people) got full citizenship and fully participate in the life of Israel.
The Islamic world has some great propagandists, and many on the left go along willingly (ignoring much of the reality). Muslim majority nations are some of the most oppressive, theocratic, and exclusionary in the world yet somehow those on the left keep perpetuating the "oppressed Muslim" trope.
Finally, every Arab country that tried to wipe Israel off of the map in '48.'67', '73, and through support of terrorism, could have easily absorbed the refugees they created in '48. But they chose not to. With all of the oil wealth in the Arab world, they could easily support those in Gaza, but they don't. Strangely enough, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Jordan which all share land with generally the same physical characteristics of Israel could have built a flourishing, modern, multicultural, state just like Israel. Instead they chose to focus on destroying Israel instead of helping their citizens/subjects. One is compelled to wonder why.
"1937: Arabs reject the Peel Commission to create a Jewish and Arab state. 1947: Arabs reject the UN partition plan to create a Jewish and Arab state. Wage war against the new nation of Israel. Lose more land than the partition gave them. 1967: Israel wins yet another war against its Arab neighbors, conquering Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai in a defensive war. The Arab League declares the "three no's": No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Israel voluntarily hands control of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism back to the Islamic Waqf, and made it illegal for Jews to pray there. 1979: Israel voluntarily hands the Sinai back to Egypt, returning land conquered in a defensive war. 1993: Israel recognizes the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Oslo Accords. Yasser Arafat uses it to support terrorism. 2000: Israel offers Yasser Arafat recognition of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its Capital. Arafat rejects it and launches the Second Intifada. 2005: Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip, dismantles all its settlements, and forces Jews to leave their homes. Palestinians respond by electing Hamas who turn it into a terror state. 2008: Israel offers Mahmoud Abbas once again recognition of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its Capital and even offered to dismantle all their settlements. And once again, the Palestinians reject it. 2010-2021: Hamas launches periodic rocket attacks against the state of Israel and builds terror tunnels in order to kidnap and murder Jews while using the people of Gaza as human shields against the IDF. 2023: Hamas commits the worst act of mass murder against Jews since the Holocaust."
The Arabs/Palestinians have repeatedly rejected compromise after compromise due to their refusal to accept the existence of Israel. Israel has made unilateral compromise after unilateral compromise in attempts to live peacefully. It's just history.
A fine summary of the history of Israel versus the scum of the earth. One point about which I wonder was the notion that Jerusalem was outside Israel. Are you speaking of more modern times, as in, the division of the region back in the 30's & 40's? I'm pretty sure King David declared it Israel's capitol a few years earlier.
During the 1948 Partition Jerusalem was not allocated to either state. After the IDF/Palmach/Haganah captured Jerusalem, Israel did give the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock back to the custodianship of the Islamic clergy.
In general when I'm talking about the history of Israel, I'm referring to modern Israel, post 1948. If I'm referring to the British occupation, I'll usually call it The Mandate. Before that I'd probably refer to The Ottoman Empire. Obviously ancient Israel is part of the lineage and justification for modern Israel to exist, but it's kind of pointless to use it in a discussion of what's happened post '48.
I thought that's what you were referencing, but simply wanted clarification.
While bringing up history might be of little use with modern notions of legality, I'd say it's most relevant to any discussion regarding a fake nation versus an actual nation which has lasted around 5000 years with much of that time inhabiting a region larger than the current Israel, including Jerusalem as its capitol. The problem, of course, is acquiescing to the false claim of nationhood by a group of murderers who exist only to annihilate Israel. Even if they're successful in wiping out or neutering Hamas once and for all, there's still Hezballah and other vermin ready to fight for the cause of murder, including the pallies and all the assholes who pretend they're "oppressed" by anyone but other muslims. Indeed, I'd say bringing up this factual history of Israel and their haters is absolutely essential.
I agree that the ancient history is definitely part of the narrative, but the current discussion revolves around the post Mandate Israel and has it's own set of issues. What's interesting is that the "palestinians" chose to take the name of the Roman province/British mandate, rather than to call themselves Canaanites, Jebusites or one of the other ancient societies that lived in the area. It'd likely be bullshit, but at least it'd give them a narrative to compete.
It's ALL bullshit if it comes from them. I seem to recall their actual nationality being provided in histories of the region and the formation of this terrorist "nation". Possibly Jordanian, but I can't recall with certainty. What's totally clear is that they are ethnically "palestinian" as if that's a real thing, as all who lived in the region, despite their ethnicity, were regarded as people of Palestine. This of course included Jews, so...
“The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times.”
So, ethnically pretty much everyone of the Semitic peoples is some sort of a mix of all of them. It's clear that there is no "palestinian" ethnicity that is distinct from the Jews that never left in the Diaspora.
You've saved me a lot of investigative effort
Thanks, having kind of a slow day. It helps that I've done a decent amount of study into the early years of modern Israel, and have an immense amount of respect for their ability to defend, build, and prosper in a piece of land that hadn't been productive for ages.
The muslims have a twisted version of "laying up treasures in heaven" which precludes any productive activity hear on earth...apart from their twisted version of activity which is to wipe out the Jews. Right in their midst is an example of how to truly serve their own needs, with remnants of that example, by which they could have benefited, left behind after Israel's exit from Gaza. Yet how do they respond?
I don't have strong disagreements with much you write in the initial post, Marshal, but I'm hesitant to use dehumanizing language -- "animals," "vermin," etc. -- even as Hamas proves by their actions that they dehumanize their victims.
Much of what they do is in the same category of Macbeth, and I wouldn't dehumanize that character, either.
Instead, they're *villains* and should be opposed, not because they're a subhuman plague, but because they demonstrate the very worst of what humans are capable of.
But that's just me.
...and it's been forever since I've commented. Hey, Craig... I hope everyone's doing well!
Bubba
I am perhaps overly sensitive to dehumanizing language, since Christ Himself called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" in Matt 12:34. :-)
The Muslim concept of Insha Allah, I believe, has led to a fatalist worldview among many/most Muslims. It allows Muslims to do, or not do, almost anything and have a ready excuse for doing so. There is also a thread from the Quran that tells Muslims that things should be better for them, than for anyone else. That they should basically win all the time. Yet if one looks at the real world, it's pretty clear that Muslims in general are not doing as well as most infidel societies, which would seem to create some level of cognitive dissonance. The fact that so many will believe what they're taught, as opposed to what they experience, seems like a concern. Of course any religion that teaches that everyone else is an infidel who should be either converted or killed seems like a problem as well.
Bubba,
Welcome back!
"I don't have strong disagreements with much you write in the initial post, Marshal, but I'm hesitant to use dehumanizing language -- "animals," "vermin," etc..."
The worst implication is toward animals and vermin who don't deserve the insult of having terrorists compared to them. Animals don't murder and then celebrate having murdered, so terrorists are incomparably evil. But we make do with the language we have. These bastards have dehumanized themselves. Even the Nazis didn't dance around with the corpses of their victims displayed as something to be praised. They've earned the special degree of contempt in which I hold them. They've denied themselves...as have their supporters...of any sympathy for suffering their actions bring upon them. The world is better off without a single one of them.
Craig,
Indeed. We would love to see everyone come to Christ, but it would be next to impossible to find one who claims to be a Christian who would demand the life or property of those who won't convert. And certainly none think it's cool to abuse those who won't.
Bubba,
Good to see you back. Love to see you comment more often. I do agree that there is a point where trying to adequately express disgust with the actions of certain people or groups can cross a line into dehumanization, although I'm not sure what that is in this case.
Bubba,
"villans" is too nice a word. I prefer barbarians or even human refuse.
I get the inclination to describe this as civilization vs barbarism, but civilization can be cruel (as with the Inquisition) and Adam and Eve lived in a very primitive state before and after the Fall.
I just see Islam as being a rival civilization (see, Clash of) but one capable of villainous cruelty on a regular basis.
You're mixing terms which have no relation to each other. "Primitive" doesn't denote barbarism or a lack of civility or an absence of civilization.
Islam is a "civilization" the same way nazism intended to be and communism came to be. Again, not helpful here.
The focus MUST be on the actions of the islamists with regard to Israel and the West. Their barbarism is without legitimate motivation and as such they are unworthy of concern or friendship until THEY repent of their sins and live in promotion of peace and brotherhood...two things about which they clearly have no interest.
Bubba,
The Inquisition wasn't any sort of civilization; it was a horrid teaching and behavior of the Roman Catholic Church ONLY.
Islam is a religious/political/cult system and there is not much civilized in it.
Art, the LEFT invented the term "Islamists" as meaning those who are mean people vs the Muslims who are "nice." Muslims are the people, Islam is the teaching, so all Muslims are "Islamists."
The teachings of Islam is about converting the whole world by the sword and the barbaric behavior is just part and parcel of their belief system.
I've read many a piece responding to the common understanding of the Spanish Inquisition (and others like it). To say myth and legend has corrupted history is an understatement.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/beyond-the-myth-of-the-inquisition-ours-is-the-golden-age-4139
https://www.lumenchristi.org/news/2016/08/inquisition-what-really-happened
I have another on tap, but it's long and I haven't the time to review it...which I like to do before posting simply because the title or headline looks to be in agreement (like some people we know are wont to do). Suffice to say, in the context of the times, the Inquisition wasn't nearly what some believe it to have been and thus, I reject it's reference as an example of cruelty within an ostensibly civilized society or "a horrid teaching and behavior of the Roman Catholic Church ONLY." (Were those Roman Catholics running those Salem Witch Trials?)
I agree that all muslims are islamists and I maintain the certainty that peaceful muslims are not the most convicted in that "faith". That is to say, the best muslim is down with wiping out Jews and non-Muslims, while the best Christian seeks harm on no one.
I found the first article to be a bit "long in the tooth" but didn't see any total figures for how many were executed during the Catholic (Spanish, French, etc were all Roman Catholic and NOT Christian) inquisition for heresy (defined by Rome vs Scripture). My point is still that the Catholic Church who perpetuated the inquisition was NOT a "civilization."
Some people have said that Islam needs its own reformation, since the Christian Reformation had a modernizing effect -- but that was only a side effect of returning to the New Testament, with sola Scriptural.
The Koran is NOT the Bible, the content is very different, and Islam may have already experienced its renewed focus on its founding text -- one that preaches jihad rather than grace.
I believe both Muslims and contemporary Jews need Jesus, not least because of Christian ethics.
Bubba,
The problem with a Muslim reformation is that there is so much in the Quran that supports the sorts of things Hamas is engaged in that something based on "sola scriptura" for Islam will probably make the problem worse. It's a matter of moving away from the Quran, not deeper into it, as you note.
"My point is still that the Catholic Church who perpetuated the inquisition was NOT a 'civilization.'"
Agreed, Glenn, but they were part of a civilization, one probably labeled fairly accurately as Western Christendom.
I could have mentioned Carthage or the Aztecs instead, but my point is that being part of a civilization is no guarantee of civil, decent behavior.
Despite its tendency not to innovate, the Muslim world probably does constitute a civilization -- just one that is often implacably cruel towards unbelievers and even its own women. That makes them an evil civilization, not a barbaric civilization, which I would argue is a contradiction in terms.
Clearly a civilization can be "uncivilized". Therein lies the distinction between the two. The pallies are an "uncivilized" civilization. Ours, despite it's flaws remains a far more "civilized" civilization...at least nominally. The modern progressive pushes farther from that goal. But still, we can say we're far more civilized than the pallies.
We should feed them all to the lions.
Post a Comment