Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
 Subscribe in a reader

The "Palestinians," In Their Own Words

| 58 Comments | 10 TrackBacks
Dave from Israellycool writes: bq. The translators at MEMRI have published a report on Palestinian sermons over the last three years. It is very important that your readers (especially those sitting on the fence vis-a-vis the war on terror and the Israel-palestinian conflict) read this." It is. As MEMRI notes: bq. "Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The sermons are broadcast live every Friday at noon from mosques under control of the PA and are shown on PA television." As you read the whole thing (thanks, Randall Stevens!), don't miss the calls for the destruction of the USA. Someone remind me again why creating another Talibanesque terror-state in the Middle East is a good idea?

10 TrackBacks

Tracked: December 29, 2003 8:12 PM
Fair Criticism from The Eleven Day Empire
Excerpt: James Bow wrote in the comments here, concerning criticism if Israel's foreign policy: And it is unfortunate that Foxman lumped
Tracked: December 30, 2003 10:35 PM
Palestinian hatred from PunditFilter
Excerpt: Israellycool, via Winds of Change, suggests that "those sitting on the fence vis-a-vis the war on terror and the Israel-palestinian conflict" read this MEMRI report on Palestinian sermons that detail their extreme hatred for the US and Israel, among ot...
Tracked: December 31, 2003 7:29 PM
Excerpt: I found this at Instapundit (Glynn Reynolds). It cuts right to the heart of the issue(s). THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT TRY to play a "neutral arbiter" in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We should, in fact, be doing our best to...
Tracked: December 31, 2003 8:41 PM
IT'S WHAT THEY DO BEST from Pejmanesque
Excerpt: Via Joe Katzman and Glenn Reynolds, I see this piece summarizing the type of sermons that have been delivered in the Palestinian territories over the past three years. To say that the sermons are disturbing is to put in mildly....
Tracked: December 31, 2003 9:31 PM
Excerpt: Little Green Footballs and Winds of Change have been discussing this report from MEMRI about sermons from preachers employed by...
Tracked: January 1, 2004 5:46 AM
Excerpt: Instapundit has a rare post on the PLO Arabs..and your humble servant inspired it. Background: After I read the Memri article, I felt moved to email the "big" bloggers who probably did not see the post on my blog. Glenn...
Tracked: January 1, 2004 6:21 PM
New Political Beginnings from Burningbird
Excerpt: Today is also the start of what could be one of the more interesting political years, if interesting is the word to use. I can't remember when I've felt more urgent about a political race and the potential ramifications associated with the winner. It's...
Tracked: January 1, 2004 9:59 PM
Poor Judgement from Instapundit from WiredOpinion - Jonathan's Journal
Excerpt: Kevin Drum has graciously requested that someone critique Glenn Reynolds’s recent post on U.S. foreign policy regarding Palestinians. I can give it a shot. Before I begin, let me just say that I respect Professor Reynolds and his work at...
Tracked: January 5, 2004 1:59 AM
Palestinian hatred from PunditFilter
Excerpt: Israellycool, via Winds of Change, suggests that "those sitting on the fence vis-a-vis the war on terror and the Israel-palestinian conflict" read this MEMRI report on Palestinian sermons that detail their extreme hatred for the US and Israel, among ot...
Tracked: January 21, 2004 6:01 AM
Excerpt: U.S. President George W. Bush has just delivered his 2004 State of Union address. In case you didn't notice, "Jerusalem" was mentioned as one of the places where the enemies of America were engaged in violence. Maybe the President has...


"Someone remind me again why creating another Talibanesque terror-state in the Middle East is a good idea?"

(1) It gives Kofi Annan another embassy in NYC to go to for cocktail parties;
(2) It creates a new market for the EU to sell weapons to;
(3) It makes professors in the political science and humanities departments of western universities feel that they've actually accomplished something with their lives.

Kirk, re: #3, you don't know how right you are:

"“My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose.”

The Web site quotes Neumann as writing, “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”"

From an email correspondence written by Trent University Professor Michael Neumann.

Only alternative i see is to integrate the territories under jordanian flag and that same territories being demilitarized. A sort of buffer zone.I am not talking about all territories that will be suicide.

Or maybe being a UN territory that Kofy will administer but seeying the UNWRA exemple that might not be the best idea.

On other side i dont see Jordany being forever a stable country. They currently live in donors money from Saudis to USA and Europe...

Infamouse: Wow, that is seriously F***ed up. And that is actually a professor at a western university saying that? are you sure it's not the University of Jedda or something? I hate it when reality is more ridiculous than humor (i.e. often).

lucklucky: various versions of that idea have been floating around since '67. Jordan doesn't want them, even though Jordan is already 2/3rds "palestinian." And as for Kofi, he can't administer his own organization; the UN couldn't administer it's way out of a paper bag. Have you been following recent events in Serbia? Wasn't that supposed to be Mad. Albright's great masterpeice? Ooops.

Because the alternatives are worse.

Michael Neumann is a professor of history at Trent University in Ontario. He has published various articles declaring that anti-semitism doesn't exist, or that if it does exist, it's perfectly understandable given the vileness of the joo, err, Israelis.

For his declaration of his right to tell whatever lies are necessary about Jews in order to destroy Israel, he was ordered to apologize. He will not face any other form of censure or punishment from his employer.

"Someone remind me again why creating another Talibanesque terror-state in the Middle East is a good idea?" Whenever I ask a qustion like that, I'm usually informed my premises are wrong. Something like, "It's NOT good to create a talibanesque terror-state, but here's why everying Bush and his cronies are doing will lead to exactly that result." Argggghhh!

Professor of PHILOSOPHY, not history. (Jeez, that's bad enough, imagine what kind of history the guy would teach... probably stuff straight out of Germanen-Erbe.)

Worse for whom, Expat? Worse for the terrorists, I'm all for that. Worse for the few peaceful Palestinians, it's unfortunate but acceptable. Worse for the Israelis, who, had they truly lived to the same moral standards as the Palestinians, would have annihilated the entire Arab race years ago, is unacceptable. The creation of a new Taliban-run state next door to Israel is beneficial only to the terrorists, and potentially deadly to Israel, so it should be no surprise that many people strongly oppose it.

The Islamists are fast embracing the same nihilist approach to the "invaders" who gave them gold for their land as the American natives did, and are likely to soon suffer the same fate. No doubt, a few hundred years into the future, we'll feel horribly guilty about having driven them all into reservations (in Siberia, perhaps) and leaving their glorious culture in ruins. But it's much easier to feel guilty when they are no longer massacring entire villages of women and children.

How about a secular state in the cis-Jordan? Screw the extremists on both sides! If a constitutional democracy is good enough for Americans, why isn't it good enough for the folks west of the Jordan river? Why should we Americans pay to subsidize a "Jewish" or any other religious state? What would Ben Franklin & Thomas Jefferson say?

Perhaps Palestinian statehood is part of an inexorable historical process. Arafat gets his terror state, an actual declaration of war against actual nation states can occur between Israel and Palestine, and some messy, but metastable resolution can be implemented (pro- peace regime/cultural change at gunpoint a la post WWII Japan and Germany? ethnic cleansing via deporting Palestinians... somewhere else? apartheid/U.S. indian reservation style substates? Beats me).

At present, Israel lacks the political will (though it certainly has the military capability) to implement any of these policies - this might change over time, and an actual state of war might simplify this. Similarly, Arafat & Co. won't be around forever, and it's always possible that (post Palestinian civil war) an actual Palestinian leader more interested in, say, his people's welfare than asymmetrical warfare will turn up to run the Palestinian state. Things do change over time.

The quote from Neumann demonstrates the reality of "academic freedom" and the university tenure system: the utter lack of intellectual accountability on the part of professional academics.


What's even worse is the LA Times gave this guy space in thier rag to spout off that "antisemitism is A Minor Problem, Overblown".


A summary:

A disorganized, pseudo-state has a propaganda arm that wishes nasty things to happen to the primary supplier of their main enemy.

Bacause of this, a palestinian state is a bad idea.

After all, it isn't as if the US has ever done this. Dr. Suess never penned racially inflammatory missives on the public dime during WWII, and of course we were much less organized as a cohesive state than those Palistinians.


OK, I don't disagree completely with your notion that this is troubling, but repeat after me, "the plural of anecdote is not 'data'."

Israel is a secular democracy. There are Christians and Muslims who hold office in the Israeli parliament. When is the last time an Islamic nation allowed any kuffar to hold a government office higher than "staff janitor?" Even Turkey, the most secular of Islamic governments, won't allow such a thing.

Tatterdemalian, Israel has an official, state religion - Judaism. That makes it a religious democracy not a secular democracy. While it may tolerate some amount of other religious practice in the country, all religions are not equal. For example, they have banned 'external' christmas decorations in the major cities over the holiday season every year since 2000. In addition, Israel funds Jewish religious instruction and provides special treatment to Jewish religious personnel (exemption for the draft for folks in religious school, for example).
The U.S., in contrast, has an Amendment to our Constitution forbidding the establshment of a state religion - that is a secular democracy.

"Israel funds Jewish religious instruction"

Christ. So does France and they're secular fundies. Some people define "secular" differently. I've had Frenchmen tell me the US has no separation because our leaders profess religious beliefs publically.

Green boy:

"For example, they have banned 'external' christmas decorations in the major cities over the holiday season every year since 2000."

I'd like a link or I call bullsh*t.

I wish someone could gather and translate the same Friday preachers from Iran. They also regularly call for the destruction of US [and Iraq, and Serbia and Russia and Israel and the UK depending on the period] but are also source of everyday amusement for the Iranians because of their wide calibre of stupidity.

The really bad thing about preachers is that they can always find someone to listen to them.

It's highly unlikely that a talibanesque state would emerge in a Palestinian state. The Taliban grew out of a conflation of Wahhabi Islam and Pashtun tribal culture, neither of which is particularly strong in the occupied territories (Wahhabism to some degree, Pashtun tribal culture not at all). If a future Palestinian state becomes a terrorist sponsor, it will do so in terms unlike the Taliban.

The current Palestinian bantustan is only sustainable due to being propped up by Israel and the US - as soon as the props are taken away it will collapse and something new will arise. The props consist of actual financial support on the one hand and constant humiliation at the hands of Israeli troops on the other - both support Arafat. The solution today is the same as it was in 1967 - Israel takes the minimum territory needed to ensure security (under the "Just War" principle), compensates the landowners who lose their land, and gets the hell out.

As bad as the palestinian leadership is, the occupation is worse. The occupation is slowly corrupting Israel and has united her enemies. As long as the occupation continues, Arab nationalists will have a fresh stream of images of Arab humiliation to use in shutting down discourse on the real problems their societies face.

If a real "terror state" emerges in the newly independent occupied territories it can be dealt with. Israel has the power to suppress any such emergent threat. A terror state would provide a legitimate cause for war, a war that all involved know Israel would win. The benefit is that it would be a real war, soldiers fighting soldiers, not this grinding occupation that pointlessly humiliates civilians (thereby recruiting for the terrorists) and forces otherwise decent soldiers to perform increasingly brutal police actions.

The various enemies of peace in Israel and the occupied territories are united in opposition to the fence because they know it means giving up on their respective dreams of driving the other side entirely out of "their" land. The fence is the best hope for peace in the middle east, and it will most likely end up being the new international border. The state on the eastern side of that border may be a total mess, but it after an initial shakeout it will almost certainly be less terroristic than Israel's other neighbors, just due to the ever present threat of overwhelming force.

I just wonder why the Palestinian Authority doesn't simply declare independence and have done with it. Perhaps their sponsors might find it uncomfortable...

anderson - Israel only funds the Jewish religion. In their basic law, they term Israel "a Jewish & democratic state"

angua - here's a link note information at the very bottom of the page. I was in Jerusalem for Xmas 2000 BTW and saw the ban in effect. I also saw Orthodox Jews hassling some Russian Jews who were celebrating "Winter Holiday" in a public place. Why was your post so hostile?

What's wrong with a constitution and free elections for all the people of the cis-Jordan?

anderson - Israel only funds the Jewish religion. In their basic law, they term Israel "a Jewish & democratic state"

angua - here's a link note information at the very bottom of the page. I was in Jerusalem for Xmas 2000 BTW and saw the ban in effect. I also saw Orthodox Jews hassling some Russian Jews who were celebrating "Winter Holiday" in a public place. Why was your post so hostile?

What's wrong with a constitution and free elections for all the people of the cis-Jordan?

"If a real "terror state" emerges in the newly independent occupied territories it can be dealt with. Israel has the power to suppress any such emergent threat. A terror state would provide a legitimate cause for war, a war that all involved know Israel would win."

Yeah, because the UN and EU would be thrilled if Israel asserted its rights and attacked Syria tomorrow or any time in the last 20 years. The hypothetical Palestine would be protected so long as they avoided getting a nuke and blasting all of Tel Aviv at once. So long as they blasted it a couple of buses at a time Israel would not be allowed to have a real any more than they can now.

"What's wrong with a constitution and free elections for all the people of the cis-Jordan?"

Sounds great in theory, but look at a map. There are already 21 Arab states, all of them overwhelmingly Muslim. They occupy a substantial portion of the earth's landmass, and are highly (and ever more) populous. There is only one Jewish state, which is only a sliver geographically, and has had to struggle for its survival militarily and demographically. A binational state would mean, in real, pragmatic terms, that the Jewish people (yes, they constitute a people) would cease to have a sovereign state, because they would quickly become a minority in it. It might be argued that even so they would continue to have a homeland, given constitutional guarantees of their freedom and safety, but there is little basis for confidence that such a binational state would continue to be democratic and constitutional as the Palestinian population surged into the majority. That isn't racism at all, it is realism, and a strong indicator to this effect is the very collection of sermons linked to in Joe Katzman's entry. The Islamism of Hamas, which explicitly seeks to establish Muslim sovereignty over the Holy Land (and to restore the Caliphate more broadly) will not fade if all "Palestinians" are suddenly granted Israeli citizenship.

The Palestinians, whose plight (especially as individuals) I very much recognize, are indeed entitled to be citizens of a sovereign state which protects their human rights. If a binational constitutional democracy is such a laudable idea, then let it be established in Jordan, where Palestinians constitute 70% of the population. Let those who would pressure Israel to grant citizenship to all Palestinians west of the river instead pressure Jordan to accept the West Bank and its population (neither of which it currently wants), minus some small amount of territory to be retained by Israel for security reasons (again, look at a map).

A binational state in Israel might be a reasonable solution if the union of the two nations in question were not a marriage made in hell. But even more to the point, and too little remarked upon, is that the Jews in Israel do not constitute an ethnic, cultural, racial, religious monolith which requires the imposition of diversity, quite the contrary. The fact is that they are already highly diverse, with a vast range culturally, racially, and religiously; yes it's one religion, but highly multifaceted, with much variety in its practice (or rejection). It is an extraordinary enough achievement that Israel has achieved such cohesion as it has; let the remarkable and unique Jewish people build their post-diaspora future in their only sovereign state without what amount in practice to attempts to dismantle it politically and demographically. The Arab and Muslim future is not remotely at risk; the Jewish future is.

Israel is a Jewish state like the USA is a Christian state... which is to say, it's almost entirely secular, except in the minds of certain people who start foaming, ranting, and raving at the mere sight of a crucifix or Star of David.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a poll to see, of all the people who think Israel is a country ruled by bloodsucking Zionist fanatics, how many also think the USA is run by witch-burning, child-molesting Catholic inquisitors. I'd guess it would be well above 80%.

Give 'em a large plot of ground, under the surface.

Just came back from Israel on Monday, and I don't know whether or not there is a ban on Christmas lights, but if there was, it was not enforced. There were lights on every lampost for many blocks on Betzalel street in Jerusalem.

Once a viable Palestinian state is created, Israel can then declare total war against that state and annihilate them once and for all(As it could never do against a poor, downtrodden band of "refugees"). Much like Republicans should be donating to Dean to guarantee Bush in '04, perhaps lovers of peace should utilize the pleas of the useful idiots (UN, Leftist academia) to hasten the destruction of our enemies.

Green Boy,


Trolling any anti-Semitic Holocaust denial websites recently?


And believe it or not, there is no state religion in Israel. Read their Declaration of Independence.

To "Andrew Case" (aka Oslo Forever!) - We've heard everything you've said before, word-for-word, from the Clinton State Department, the Israeli Left and the European acadamy. The result: much more death, much more violence. Every inch of independence the "Palestinians" (i.e. the Arabs living in the western part of TransJordan) have been given they've used to ratchet up violence to take more. How many more wars do you need to see? When you say "Israel is more than capable" (of taking care of military threats) you are right - they are doing so right now by making sure that an "Oslo" with all its attendant death and misery never happens again. And the "occupied territories" by the way, were Judea and Samaria long before there was ever such a thing as an Arab or a Roman or a UN bureaucrat.

To the various religious discussants: yes, the conflict between the secular and the religious within Israeli society is an issue, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. It's a red herring. And anyway, thanks to army service, the well-established civil and democractic society, and of course all the militantly secular Russian Jews (a great number of whom are scientists), there is just about zero chance of Israel becoming anything other than a western, secular Democracy, that happens to be Jewish in a way that is not different from how western European countries are Christian (or, going forward, Muslim).

I'm so proud of starting this excellent thread of comments. And I could be anybody. I could even be Glenn Reynolds! You don't know.
The blogosphere is so great.

Doubtless Arafat had this stuff playing on Palestinian TV while he was at the White House shaking hands on our TV with Bill Clinton.

They must laugh at our naivete, the same way Hitler and his fascists laughed at the credulity of the French and English public, and the way Stalin did when he prophesied (correctly) that the Western communist parties would toe whatever line he told them to.

Of course we had the last laugh in both cases, as we will eventually against these tin-pot Middle East dictators and terrorists.

The only question is, as it was before, is how many of our own peoples' lives will be sacrificed in the meantime, victims of our own fecklessness, before we summon the resolve needed to deal with them?

Regarding the secular character of Israel:

Yes, there are religious parties in Israeli politics, but when their influence on policy became disprortionately large, the electorate responded by launching the Shinui party into sudden prominence. Not only is Shinui thoroughly secular, but its raison d'etre is opposition to the religious parties. Its electoral success, winning the third largest vote total in the most recent election (after Likud and Labor) is an example of how well Israeli democracy functions, and how effectively it responds to encroachments on the secular character of the state.

The Jewish state is not defined primarily by religion, because Jewishness is much more than a religion. The Jews are those who share a certain (extremely peculiar) history and tradition, not who adhere to a certain theology or ritual practice; a minority of Israelis are religiously orthodox, and many Israeli Jews are aggressively anti-religious. It is a fallacy to infer from the intrinsic Jewishness of Israel that it is not a secular country.

Israel is indeed a secular state. Its first President was a scientist and non-believer. True, one can find a range of beliefs from ultra-orthodox to non-believers. As one of the latter who has spent time at the Weizmann Institute, I can assure you there are many, many non-believing Jews in Israel, strongly supportive of the only democracy in a sea of autocratic and savage Jew hatred.

GreenBoy's posted link to 'zundelsite' is run by notorious Anti Semite Ernst Zundel in Canada.He's a Holocaust denier and 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' disseminator.All in all, not the most reliable source for info on Israel.


I think the future of the Arab world might just be in danger from its own ignorance, hatred, and barbarism.

I'm afraid that the world today is very similar to what the mid 1930s were like. But unlike the Nazis and Japanese Militarists who blustered their way to war, the radicalism brewing today may lead to a conflict that puts World War 2 to shame.

The hatred and irrationality that appears to grip much of the Muslim public is reaching an intensity that is truly frightening. Can't they see that this level of of vitriol is leading them down a dark dark path? IF we have a few more 9/11s or worse, how long will it be before the civilized world REALLY TAKES ACTION? Iraq and Afghanistan are minor expeditions in terms of forces sent and a percentage of GDP spent.

If radical muslims pull off mass-casualty terrorists incidents (which seems to be where they are eventually heading), even Europe will have enough. When push comes to shove, the rest of the world can't afford even the economic, let alone the social costs, of hundreds of thousands of American dead.

Can't they see that in a cataclysmic fight against the secular world, that they are doomed? In just a few years of fighting the Germans, American and British planes were laying to waste fellow christians who looked just like them, and were sometmes even related to them (Eisenhower isn't a French name), knowingly killing civilians by the tens of thousands in places like Hamburg and Dresden. What do they think we'll do if they kill us by the tens of thousands with Pakistani nukes? Appeal to the UN for sanctions? The Geneva convention and human empathy only go so far in a war, once its really them or us in a battle to the death, the gloves will come off.

God help us if it comes to that. I despise war, its a tragedy even for the victors, and I'd do just about anything to avoid a fight, All things being relatively equal, I don't care what people think or say about me, my country, or my civilization, but when I see vitriol that all but ensures a future war that threatens everything I love, then yes, I've got some problems and the people who are stupidly pushing the world toward an apocalyptic war ought to be warned in the harshest way possible before the shooting starts that when pushed enough, we can want to kill you as much as you want to kill us.... And if you think you'll win that fight, you're sorely mistaken.

It's about time the public be told the whole truth about these sadistic, barbaric monsters who, besides calling for the destruction of the Jews like their nazi mentors, back every mosern tyrant on the face of the earth from Iraq to China to North Korea and back to Africa. The palestinians are an unworthy people who deserve nothing except their miserable lives.

As I read's comment, I had a few thoughts:

- Excellent comments

- If it comes to mass war, it will be a terrible thing. But if the only choice the world is presented with is "Islam or Death" - then all of Islam and it's followers will die. And that's a lot of dead humans. A terrible loss.

As I wrote that, I wondered - how is Islam different than the Nazi's? Seriously. Can anyone provide some similarities and differences?

Israel cracks down on Christmas
Associated Press
November 25, 1999

JERUSALEM -- Crucifixes and Christmas trees have been banned from Israeli hotel lobbies during the millennium holiday season because they are offensive to Jews, Israel's chief rabbi said yesterday.

With a flood of Christian pilgrims expected during the holidays, Israel's rabbis earlier this month said Christmas
celebrations had to be held out of sight in closed-off rooms. Crosses are "against the Jewish religion" and the sight of a
cross or a Christmas tree "is forbidden for a Jew," chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau told the Foreign Press Association

And hotels face further restrictions because both Christmas and New Year's fall on Friday night - the Jewish Sabbath.

There can be no music in the hotels on Friday night, because "music, using microphones ... is a desecration of the

The decision to keep Christmas celebrations hidden in closed rooms was a compromise reached between hotels and
tour operators eager to draw Christian visitors and the rabbis who issue the valuable certificates ensuring that the hotels
are kosher.

Some rabbis have tried to stop any Christmas and New Year's celebrations in hotels that receive the kashrut certificates
- which includes most hotels in the country.

Here is the link:

"Israelly cool"? I don't think so.....

Kirk - You're not paying attention. The Clinton Department (and the Bush State Department, too) explicitly oppose a fence, as do most European governments. Oslo failed because it didn't acknowledge the need for physical separation, at least until passions cool.

Good to see that lying anti Semite Dennis "Justin" Raimundo searching around for anti Israel stuff on the web. A homosexual such as Raimundo would be safer in Israel then in any of the Islamofascist nations he adores.

Mideast: Christian-free zone?

Posted: December 30, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003

You saw the images on television this Christmas season - Israeli soldiers patrolling Bethlehem.

You heard the Jews blamed for the unrest in the city of David - the birthplace of Jesus.

This column is about what you didn't see or hear in those reports - something of an annual journalistic ritual.

The Christian population of the Palestinian Authority, once representing 20 percent of the region, is down to 2.4 percent. There are fewer than 50,000 Christian Arabs living within the Palestinian Authority.

In 1948, Bethlehem was 80 percent Christian. Today it is 80 percent Muslim.

Where do they go?

Are you ready for a shock?

Many of them prefer life in Israel to life under the rule of Yasser Arafat and his friends in Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In fact, life would be better just about anywhere else, and those who have the ability to leave have left.

This massive display of ethnic cleansing and population movement has been totally obscured by the Palestinian Authority and covered up by the international media. Worse yet, it has even been blamed on Israel.

But Christians fleeing the Holy Land know why they are leaving. All one needs to do is ask them. It began a long time ago. I know, because my grandparents fled for the safety, security and freedom of America. Christians in the Middle East know very well who their enemy is. They know why are they are oppressed. They know who is attacking them. They know who is occupying them.

And it's not Israel.

Here are the facts. Some 2 million Christians have fled the Middle East in the past 20 years. Some estimates are much higher than this. Since Arafat took over administration of the Palestinian territories from Israel, the Christian population has dropped from 15 percent to 2 percent.

They are being driven out. They are being murdered. They are being raped. They are being systematically persecuted. They are being harassed. They are being intimidated.

Such is life for Christians now in Bethlehem and other formerly Christian towns in the West Bank. Just imagine what it will be like when Palestine becomes a real state.

If these people were fleeing Israeli oppression, why did they leave after the Israelis left? It makes no sense. The only way Israel has fed the exodus of Christians from the Middle East is by withdrawing from territories in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, southern Lebanon and elsewhere. When Israel administered those areas, Christian Arabs lived in safety and security.

The truth is the Christian population in Israel has more than quadrupled since 1948. Why? Israel guarantees religious freedom - whereas the Palestinian Authority offers an official religion of Islam.

What has happened in the Palestinian Authority is that the protective hand of Israel has been lifted as it has - under international pressure - given Arafat and the Palestinian Authority more and more autonomy to run its own territory.

Question: What's worse than being bullied, harassed, intimidated and persecuted for your faith?

Answer: Being bullied, harassed, intimidated and persecuted for your faith - and watching the perpetrator of these crimes against humanity successfully blame someone else for committing them.

It's time for the whole world to recognize the mini-holocaust taking place against Christians in the Middle East. It's time to punish those guilty of these atrocities - specifically those in charge of the Palestinian Authority. For God's sake, they must not be rewarded with a state of their own.

The difference between Nazism and radical islamists isn't all that much. Its all about seeking power and righting the wrongs of the past. Hitler wants a third reich. His people are the righful rulers of the world but fate and treachery has prevented their ascension to the throne. So he launches a war against the lesser people who've kept his people down, Jews, Slavs, and to a lesser extent, anybody who wasn't a fascist.

Same story with OBL and the lesser tinpot tyrants. The Muslim empire used to be a great power, but again, like with the Aryans, fate and treachery have conspired to drive the Muslim world into poverty and misery. So OBL wants to be the Sultan of the new Islamic empire, backed up by Middle East oil and Pakistani Nukes. The one big roadblock to his dreams is the U.S., so he attacks us. Israel is just a rallying cry for the rubes, sort of like the Sudetenland was. If anybody thinks their ambitions begin and end with destroying Israel, they are kidding theirselves.

And history repeats itself to an extent again with most of Europe looking like France in the 1930s. The thinking seems to go, "yes terrorism(Hitler) is a problem, but come on, lets not go overboard, we can handle this without it blowing up in our faces. So what if we give him Israel(the Sudetenland), as long as he's not coming at us, it's not a disaster"

I'm not saying its destined to come down to a knock down drag out war, as with Nazism where there were good Germans, there are a lot of Muslims who are as scared of the Islamists as we are. The problem is, like in Germany, there are a lot of Mslims (The Saudi Royal family in particular) who think they can work with the radicals and temper their violent instincts.

How it all plays out, who knows, but if it comes to a war, like Hitler, OBL's achille's heal is that he believes his own rhetoric too much and way underestimates the willingness of the enemy to fight back.

So you might say, but aren't we already at war? Yes and no... We're fighting a limited war in reaction to 9/11. but if we were really at total war like we keep saying we are, we'd stop dancing around the Afghan border and go into Pakistan and hunt down OBL.

Hopefully, we win before it comes to that, but there's a good chance this war gets a whole lot more nasty before we win.

Green boy, you sent my poopoo-meter off the charts. Not only does Israel have complete freedom of religion, but THE MUNICIPALITY OF JERUSALEM and the JEWISH NATIONAL FUND DISTRIBUTED FREE CHRISTMAS TREES TO WHOEVER WANTED THEM THIS YEAR.


Wow, is that Jews banning Christmas from Isreali public true?


You're mixing up your terminology. You're saying no Islamic State has allowed christians in high posts, then you're calling Turkey a 'secular Islamic state'.

The definition of Islamic State is a government which enforces Islamic Law (Shariah), and/or derives its authority from religious figures (ie mullahs, ayatollahs etc). Turkey is adamantly secular-democratic. Power and law derives from the constitution and popular election of a free legislature. The headscarf is banned - that's how secular they are. This has been the case since 1924.

It's true that no modern Islamic State has significant female representation I can see, but the list of recent Islamic States would run to about four: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan (defunct) and perhaps Turabi's Sudan (which is now no longer run by Salafi Islamists).

Turkey is a secular, democratic state with a majority Muslim population, which makes it a Muslim country but not an Islamic State. In a similar way, Ba'athist Iraq (defunct) and Syria are examples of secular socialist states in Muslim-majority countries, as is Libya. The second most powerful person in Ba'athist Iraq was Tariq Aziz (a Christian), and out of interest, Libya's representative on the UN Human Rights Commission (incidentally, its Chair), is a woman. Ridiculous, but true.

By the way, this is the same logical puzzle Brownshirt-Boy (oops, sorry Greenboy) is struggling with. Israel is a majority jewish state, France is Catholic, America is Christian. One nation under God doesn't change that, and neither does AP's playing with reality. Speaking of which, please see my next post.

I was about to ask Green Boy whether he was Green as in Islamist or Green as in the Greens Party, until he posted a link from Zundelsite - Green as in the slime that floats on the surface of a stagnant pond. That just about rounds out the three varieties of anti-semite extant today, doesn't it? Red-Green, Islamist-Green and Greenshirt.

A search for the story posted by Justin Raimondo returned eight sites, the first being Zundelsite. (I searched for the exact phrase "Crucifixes and Christmas trees have been banned"). One of them is the geocities site Mr Raimondo cites here (an expurgated version) and another is on Raimondo's own page.

Reading over the full article, it becomes clear this is a Pilgerisation by AP. This is not nation-wide banning of Christmas symbols by the Legislature. The only evidence provided is a series of choppy quotes by Rabbi Israel Meir Lau which appear to be taken out of context.

The quotes clearly refer only to the practice of Christmas and New Year during the Sabbath (Christmas 1999 and New Year's Day 2000 were both on Friday) within Kosher-certified hotels.

Look at this quote from the article:
"Some rabbis have tried to stop any Christmas and New Year's celebrations in hotels that receive the kashrut certificates - which includes most hotels in the country."

In other words, it is a ban on certain practices within those hotels that seek Kosher certification. It is not a nation-wide ban on Christmas, but a limitation on some practices in some parts of some hotels. It is a bit like the way some people 'ban' the wearing of shoes on their carpet, as opposed to the 'ban' against buying from Jews in Green Boy's beloved Nazi Germany.

The article clearly indicates that even within those Kosher hotels, there will be designated places where Christmas and New Years may be celebrated. In non-Kosher certified hotels, as well as spaces which are not hotels at all (most of the territory of Israel as I understand it), one may celebrate to one's heart's content. The Rabbi made comments relating to the appropriate decoration of the interior of Kosher-certified hotels on the Sabbath, and AP tried to present it as a nation-wide legislative ban (without, you'll note, actually saying as much).

Nice try AP, Green Guy, Raimondo, Herr Zundel. No cigar.

PS: Eric (post before mine). The answer to your question is 'no'.

> As I wrote that, I wondered - how is Islam
> different than the Nazi's? Seriously. Can
> anyone provide some similarities and
> differences?

You'd be better off asking either "How is Islam different than Christianity/Lutheranism/Western Culture" or "How is al-Qaeda different than Nazism?" Otherwise, you are asking for similarities and differences between oranges and apple pies.

Here's an interesting exercise in perspective. Imagine you are a Muslim in Egypt in the 1930s or 1940s. "The West" is a term being bandied around a lot, but nobody seems sure what it is. Is it Marxism, as codified by the German philosopher Karl Marx, an intellectual in the tradition of the great Western philosopher Hegel, and instituted in the Soviet Union? You have heard a few stories of Mr Stalin's interpretation of Western Civilisation. Is it Nazism, as instituted in Germany and spreading (some say irresistably) across Europe? Is it liberalism? Some say the liberals are more tolerant representatives of western civilisation, but that Mr Chamberlain seems to get along just swell with Mr Hitler. When war breaks out, many representatives of this strange ideology, "Western Civilisation", invade and occupy parts of the Middle East. They promise all sorts of things, but after the war it turns out they have made contradictory promises to others, resulting in (for example) the establishment of the state of Israel. They also make a pretense of attempting to establish liberal-democracy in Germany. Huh! Germany has never been and will never be democratic! They tried it with the Weimar Republic and look what happened! A pipe dream.

Most Egyptian Muslims allowed all this to roll over them, and continued life as usual. Some were seduced by the radical alteration of their religion by the Muslim Brotherhood, which tried to turn Islam into a revolutionary ideology to rival both secular models such as Marxism, Ba'ath Socialism and Nasserite Nationalism, and on the other hand traditional Islam. A similar redrafting of Islam had worked for the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance. Al-Qaeda is an heir to the radicalisation of parts of the MB in the 1950s.

Please do not read what I am saying as moral equivalence. I am not saying "we deserve Islamic Radicalism because we are Nazis and Socialists" because that is clearly not true. This is, as I said, an exercise in perspective. The Muslim world is about as diverse as the West. Lumping Turkey, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, the Finsbury Park Mosque, timid, headscarf-wearing Malaysian schoolgirls and al-Qaeda together and placing them alongside Nazism for a comparison is just absurd. It's like placing all of Western Civilisation alongside al-Qaeda for a comparison.

On the other hand, if you want to compare jihadis (such as al-Qaeda) and Nazism, John McKinzey's post is a fairly good start.

Two comments John McKinzey:
(1) There are 130 million people in Pakistan and they have the bomb.
In WWII, Germany, Japan and some bits of Italy faced the Anglo alliance, and after 1941 America and Russia. The Anglo-American societies were almost unanimously behind the war effort, whereas many of those occupied by the Germans sabotaged their war effort. In the unlikely event that the West militarily attacked all of "Islam", rather than working with 'good' mainstream Muslims against 'bad' radicals, we would face internal opposition, obstruction from Russia, France and Germany, and well over one billion Muslims, many of them in our own countries. Suddenly the divisions in Islam would disappear and the cracks in "The West" would open into yawning chasms. We would probably lose.

(2) Rather than the Saudis naively attempting to work with the jihadis for a compromise, what seems to be happening is that reformists such as Prince Abdullah (Foreign Minister) are opposed by radicals* such as Prince Nayef (Interior Minister). Nayef finds common cause with al-Qaeda and its fellow-traveller. For Nayef, international terrorism is an aspect of domestic politics. There is a great article on this in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs:

  • The strict Wahhabis within Saudi Arabia are generally described as 'conservatives' in much the same way that Stalinists in the Soviet Union were called 'conservatives' by some scholars. However, on a wider scale, Wahhabism is a radical departure from traditional Islam and the Bolsheviks were Russian radicals, Marxism being a radical ideology. I personally think the use of the word 'conservative' to describe Wahhabi hardliners leads to incorrect assumptions, given that the Wahhabi hardliners are a subset of radical.

Trevor Stanley.

Final comment:
Kirk's first comment is brilliant!


Euro Green MP Ilka Schroeder does not like the proxy war bing waged by Europe one bit.

Here is something she is quoted as saying:

"The Europeans," explained MP Schroeder, "supported the Palestinian Authority with the aim of becoming its main sponsor, and through this, challenge the U.S. and present themselves as the future global power. Therefore, the Al-Aksa Intifada should be understood as a proxy war between Europe and the United States."

"It is an open secret within the European Parliament that EU aid to the Palestinian Authority has not been spent correctly," MP Schroeder said during a recent address in New York. "The European Parliament does not intend to verify whether European taxpayers' money could have been used to finance anti-Semitic murderous attacks. Unfortunately, this fits well with European policy in this area."

The stupid Europeans are not content with the results of 1945 and wish to revisit the issue. A dangerous game.

I believe that what is happening now is part of a cynical plot on the part of those evil palestinians to destroy Israel.

Stage 1: the intifada, the sole purpose of which was to instigate Israelis to elect a right-wing government which would (1) brutalize palestinians to the point where large numbers of people in in the west would begin to support the Palestinian cause and (2) colonize the west bank to the point where it would become irreversible.

Stage 2: the palestinians would cease the intifada without telling anyone, knowing the right-wing Israeli government would continue its activities (see stage 1) unabated, thus further alienating the west. The passive resistance which would come in its place would attract massive support from the Israeli left.

Stage 3: the Palestinian Authority would dissolve itself and Palestinians would accept the Israeli occupation and demand the vote and equal rights. Israel would panic and try to set up up self-governing "bantustans" in the occupied territories which the Palestinians would refuse to accept.

Stage 4: after a few years opinion in the west would turn against Israel to the extent that rather than economic support there would be sanctions which would force Israel to call open and free elections. With an arab majority the winner of the elections would be someone like Marwan Barghouti, recently released from an Israel jail (shades of Nelson Mandela). The newly elected government would rename Israel to Palestine sometime in the first year of its mandate. Game over.

There's plenty of religious freedom in Israel (not as much as I would like), but you guys will have to explain again very slowly how a secular state has

(1) Two chief rabbis (one Ashkenazic and one Sephardic) as state employees, as well as rabbinical councils as state bodies, and a "national-religious" school system in parallel with the "national" system.

(2) State enforcement of religious laws, including Kashrut inspectors who are state employees (as well as parallel private systems run by Jewish institutions).

(3) Kashrut is at least voluntary for a business, but the laws prohibiting business on Yom Kippur and prohibiting sale of bread during Passover are not.

(4) Official preference for one religion in immigration and the granting of work permits.

(5) Laws restricting proselytizing for any religion other than Judaism. (This law is generally not enforced.)

(6) State support for organizations whose sole purpose is to encourage more orthodox practice by secular Jews or to counter proselytizing by non-Jews.

(7) One that really sticks in the craw of the non-religious: neither civil marriage nor divorce, even as an option.

What Israel is not is a theocracy. It does not live under the Laws of the Torah, or any other Jewish version of Sharia. That hardly makes it secular, as I understand the word. Perhaps if you stated, a priori, what secular means to you, we can compare it to Israel, and to the dictionary.

Turkey is a far more secularized state. Can you imagine if Israel prohibited men in government offices from wearing the kippah?

Incidentally, there are Jewish members of the parliaments in Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, and I believe but am too lazy to check in Morocco.

[Aside to Green Boy: you're on the right track here, but lay off using Zundel, a Nazi, as a source.]

Interesting point, Andrew J Lazarus; there are more options than just 'secular state' and 'theocracy'.

I don't know enough about Israel's legal and political system to say whether I think Israel is a secular state (partially because almost everything I hear about Israel is propaganda, and half of it contradicts the other half).

The Queen of England is both Head of State and the head of the Anglican Church, the established religion. It's an interesting question whether Britain can be technically called a secular state (the Church certainly doesn't, and can't, legislate). In Australia, the Federal Government funds religious schools.

The question is not always black and white, although from what you've said, it sounds like Israel is an 'off-white' or perhaps a 'charcoal grey'!

Trevor Stanley.

The link to the MEMRI document is wrong. Here's the correct link to this EXTREMELY important document which shows without a doubt their feelings for western civilizations:

Not much comment is necessary, it speaks for itself. It should be mandatory reading for every citizen in the western world in my opinion.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display": (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.

Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en