The incitement towards a third intifada

John Edwards

It is entirely reasonable for the Palestinians to demand a settlement freeze. The settlements, including those in East Jerusalem are after all illegal under international law.

The Palestinians would not want to repeat the experience following the Oslo accords when settlement buidling accelerated.

Also the "Israeli Arabs" defending the Haram al-Sharif are also Palestinians, not least because East Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories along with the West Bank and Gaza.

Facts are stubborn things as someone once said.

Michael Panikowski

To Jojn Edwards:

1. The so-called settlements are absolutely legal. Claims on their "illegality" is lie and propaganda. There's no international law that renders these villages and towns illegal.

2. There is no such thing as "Palestinians" - there are palestinian Arabs.

3. Gaza isn't occupied since 2005. Israel left the area, having excoriated all Jewish settlements. That didn't help much, all we got in reply were terror and rockets on Israeli South.

Brad Brzezinski

John Edwards: “It is entirely reasonable for the Palestinians to demand a settlement freeze.”

Well John, this is a new precondition that was not previously present and it appears to be simply because El Presidente Obama thought it would be a good idea. As for international law, this is a matter of interpretation. Israel does provide reasons for what it does based on its interpretation. It should be noted that the Arab League in general does not argue the finer points of law other than to condemn Israel. Its contrary positions tend to be voiced by actions. E.g. UNGA Resolution 181 (let there be an Arab and a Jewish State): WAR!

UNSCR Resolution 242 (land for peace) post 1967 war: NO peace, NO recognition, NO negotiation – this came before 242 and adequately reflected the actions after.

In keeping with these attitudes, the Palestinian Authority has not abided by even the most fundamental tenets of any of the peace plans. It has continued to imbue its population with hatred of Israel and supported terrorist actions.

It is has previously been understood that in a real peace deal, larger settlements will remain and Palestinians will be compensated with other land. To demand a building freeze is to strangle the population. It should be noted that both the US and Canada (where I live) are dealing with numerous land claims from a real indigenous population. It is hypocritical in the extreme for Obama to demand a settlement freeze when he would never dare enforce such a freeze for disputed US land.

It is also hypocritical for the anti-Israel lobby in the US and Canada to demand it when they live on occupied Aboriginal land.

Emma Peel

Facts are stubborn things, indeed. For one thing, so-called "East Jerusalem" is not a separate city -- it is the portion of Jerusalem that was illegally seized by Jordan in 1948. (Following which, of course, the Jordanians proceeded to destroy synagogues and use Jewish tombstones for their urinals.)

The "Occupied Palestinian Territories" are neither "occupied" nor "Palestinian." These territories are the heart of the Jewish homeland where Jews lived for centuries, and which were again illegally seized by Jordan in 1948. (After which, all Jews were expelled.) The only "occupiers" were the Jordanians (that is, the citizens of the Arab state comprising 83% of Mandatory Palestine).

It is funny that every Arab state can be Judenrein (Jews cannot buy property in Jordan, or even travel to Saudi Arabia), but Israel is expected to put up with more so-called "Palestinians" who want to "return."

My hope is that Israel sees the light. Nothing that it does will convince the like of John Edwards or other leftists, so stop trying to please them! As far as I am concerned, Israel should have let the buggers run out after 1967 and settled every inch of Judea and Samaria.

C. Gee

John Edwards:
Why should a future Palestinian state be Jew-free?

Mladen Andrijasevic

The role of the Palestinian Authority is best described in this article by Khaled Abu Toameh:

http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1254393079445&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

During the day, the Palestinian Authority acts and speaks as if its leaders had never signed a peace treaty with Israel.

During the day, Israel is the enemy that continues to deny the Palestinians their rights, seize their lands, arrest and kill their innocents, and expand existing settlements.
But during the night, the Palestinian Authority changes its colors and speaks and acts in a completely different manner. During the night, the Israeli enemy becomes a friend and peace partner with whom it's legitimate to conduct security coordination and eat in fancy restaurants.

solemnman

The only international law that matters for the major power law-makers is-" might makes makes right".Israel seeks to ease ,by a few hundred meters, the Arab strangle hold on it's throat and the world holds up the red card and screams foul-while the hypercritical law-makers crush and absorb whole countries with impunity.

Truthtriumphs

John Edwards.
When is a settler not a settler?
Jews are the original indigenous inhabitants of Judea and Samaria. Even you cannot deny that the word Jew is derived from the name Judea.
On the expulsion of the Jews in AD 70, the Romans renamed the area Palestina, to try to blot out the fact that this was the Jewish nation state.
For you, Jews will always be settlers,ie. unwelcome interlopers, wherever they are to be found.
You seem to be remarkably untroubled by the 54 million Muslim settlers currently residing in western Europe, large numbers of whom are illegal immigrants, and who have no connection with the area.
Are you a racist? Why should Jews be excluded from living where they will on account of their ethnicity?
That was the creed of the Nazis.
Further, can you provide evidence of the so-called illegality of the settlements?
You make the same unfounded assertions on every thread--- it's becoming tedious!

GaryO

US will reap what it sow.

Augustus

Why does the United Nations instigate more bad things and conflicts in this world than it ever achieves in good causes? Take, for example, the United Nations Relief and Works Administration (UNRWA). Arabs stagnating in refugee camps, which became the breeding grounds for terror organizations
have simply been left to continue this existence by UNRWA, and to continue the PLO propaganda of hatred towards Israel. They collaborated in Lebanon with Hezbollah, who, armed with thousands of imported rockets from Iran via Syria, wrested control over Lebanon. Instead of trying to find a peaceful solution, UNIFIL
in fact collaborated in Hezbollah's attack on Israel and the 2nd Lebanese war. The UN
strives, under the pretense of peace in fact towards the same genocidal Nazi goal: The destruction of Israel.

Israel should seriously decide to give up it's membership of the UN. What has it got to lose? It won't lose its legitmacy. The UN has
repeatedly questioned Israel's legitimacy by denying its right to defend itself against the PLO terrorists. That is exactly what Goldstone's report is about: Ireal's retribution for taking on Hamas, another terror group, just like the PLO, trying to destroy Israel. And by placing these terror groups on an equal footing with the state of Israel and its self-defense, the UN is guilty of turning morality on its head and destroying the legitimacy of each one of its members. And the list of UN resolutions condemning Israel, while there isn't one condemning Israel's Arab aggressors, is also a disgrace to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Tom Durkin

"This is particularly irresponsible since Jerusalem’s Arabs, along with the rest of the region (as with Muslims in the rest of the world, including Britain), are steadily being radicalised by jihadi influence."
i do see a certain irony here in that your journalism sometimes intentionally stokes the flames. care to provide a source/study?? anything but an anecdote or reminder that some muslims have committed terrorist acts would impress me greatly.

another choice quote is 'helped incite the Arab mobs to further hysteria'.
i am certainly concerned about the language here. i may find no allies on this page, but the imagery of Arabs as irrational, violent, followers (i.e. no thought processes of their own) and hysterical inferring that none of their claims are legitimate is false and something from C19th european imperialism.

Mark Bell

My God! Just listen to yourselves!

Settlements are illegal under international law. The only country that doesn't recognise that - and flouts numerous other of its obligations under international law - is Israel. So is Israel right and the rest of the entire world (leftist and) wrong..?

Mark

Worth mentioning that when I was in Jerusalem a few years ago, our tour guide (a very liberal Israeli) told us that the principal threat to the Temple Moun was form right wing so called Christian Zionists. It was to deter these people - rather than Jews or Muslims - that the Isralei security forces stood guard.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Perhaps Israel should call a moratorium on all Peace Talks until the UN - maybe under the aegis of the "good and the wise"Goldstone and a special committee formed for the purpose- investigates Abbas and the PLO's role in the current "spontaneous rioting". If Abbas et al are found wanting, perhaps, at least, Goldstone might recommend the matter is placed before the Security Council. Let Obama then manage the ensuing debate and recommendations.

Let's be in no doubt that the honourable judge will get to the "truth" of the matter. Inshallah!!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Mark Bell: Yes!!

Carl

Mark and Tom - the zealots that post here are happy to describe Muslims as "savages" and call for Iran to be obliterated. Do you think that they would let a little detail like International Law bother them?

Dalia

Tom Durkin:
The riots started because Raad Salach [ the Arab Israeli version of Hamas] spread rumors that Israel is going to destroy the Mosque and build a Synagogue in its place.

The fact that many of these Arabs honestly [ so they themselves say] believed this lunatic rumor tells you that this is what they were prepared to do if things were different [remember the destruction of the Buddha statue in Afghanistan]
and that therefore they are ready to believe it about Israel.
Is this not the example of mobs in hysteria that you were asking for ?

Truthtriumphs

Mark Bell.
Wrong.
Quote chapter and verse of this supposed international law.
Put up, or shut up.

N

I don't understand why people even care about Palestinians. Ever since the beginning the Palestinians have been at war with Israel and not wanted two states, they've only wanted one state: theirs. Any hand outs from Israel have been thrown back in their face. I say enough is enough, if the Palestinians won't accept peace then neither should Israel.

Martin W

@Truthtriumphs:

"Quote chapter and verse of this supposed international law. Put up, or shut up."

Well, the EU says they're illegal: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/12/22/%7B3FA161D9-6DA6-408F-85CE-20D0EC68DDFF%7D.pdf

So does the International Court of Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

So does the UN Security Council: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/aa73b02d9b0d8fdc852560e50074cc33?OpenDocument

And so does the UN General Assembly: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/501/51/PDF/N0650151.pdf?OpenElement

Your turn.

Si, N

‘[C]laims that Israel was threatening the al Aqsa mosque’? ‘[A]ll too familiar’?
You bet! Here’s why:

August 1967, Shlomo Goren (Chief Chaplain of the Armed Forces - later Israel’s chief rabbi) leads 50 armed extremists onto Haram al-Sharif - ‘It is a holy commandment’, said Goren. Eti Ronel reported, ‘[m]any rabbis, including members of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate, support…Jewish sovereignty’ over Haram al-Sharif.

21 August 1969, Israeli extremists set fires at Al Aqsa, an important wood and ivory pulpit from Aleppo is destroyed. The United Nations Security Council condemn Israel’s failure to stop terrorist attacks on the shrine.

3 March 1971, Gershon Solomon leads Temple Mount Faithful followers onto Haram al-Sharif with the express intention of causing trouble - Palestinian guards expel them.

3 March 1974, Gershon Solomon and his followers again cause trouble and disturb the peace at the mosque.

14 July 1978, Gershon Solomon (shit stirring again) leads militant Israelis onto the Islamic holy grounds to cause trouble. Palestinians stage protests. Israeli troops hurl tear gas to quell the rioting.

10 August 1980, 300 heavily armed Gush Emunim fanatics (probably ‘hysterical’) overcome Palestinian security officers, storm the grounds and cause trouble.

15 September 1980, armed Gush Emunim settlers aligned with Stanley Goldfoot and the Temple Mount Faithful force their way onto the mosque grounds to cause trouble.

11 April 1982, Alan Goodman enters the Al Aqsa with an M-16 rifle and opens fire on worshippers, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. The Israeli government releases Goodman in 1997 - Goodman boasted; ‘I fulfilled my mission’.

25 July 1982, Yoel Lerner [of the militant Meir Kahane Kach movement] storms the mosque grounds with plans to dynamite and destroy the Dome of the Rock.

10 March 1983, armed Gush Emunim fanatics climb walls onto Haram al-Sharif, attempting to overcome security guards and take the mosque by storm. They have in their possession large quantities of explosives, automatic rifles and pistols. Their clear intention was to cause trouble – 29 are charged and held for trial.

21 September 1983. all 29 terrorists are acquitted.

27 January 1984, Rabbi Moshe Levinger and other terrorists armed with 250 pounds of explosives, dozens of grenades, boxes of dynamite and 12 rounds of mortar, attempt to dynamite and destroy the mosque.

18 October 1998, a tooled-up Gershon Solomon and followers waving Israeli flags and blowing rams’ horns mount a ramp to the mosque grounds seeking trouble - ‘[t]he time has come to rebuild the Jewish Temple’, said Solomon.

28 September 2000, Ariel Sharon exercises his ‘right’ to cause big trouble – his reckless actions ‘spark’ the Intifada and ensures death for Jew and Arab…

...‘all-too familiar’?

Too right.

Peter Burman

To John Edwards. There is not space enough here to respond to all your errors of fact. But "occupied" East Jerusalem was majority Jewish for hundreds, if not thousand of years, and only became "Arab" when Jordan took it by force in 1948. At that time Jordan killed all Jews that remained and began to systematically destroy all the synagogues in the area. As you say, "facts are stubborn things." So quit your Israel bashing tirades.

Peter Burman

Mark Bell: under your definition and application of "international law," France is occupying the Alcase; Poland occupies thousands of miles of Germany, ditto Britain in Norhtern Ireland and the Falklands and Spain in the Basque region. You, Mr. Bell, are wrong. The "majority" of the world you cite is the Arab world that hates Jews and the European world that brought us the Holocaust following a century of Christian crusades, Inquisitions, pogroms and daily anti-Semitism.

wonderer

The legality of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is a controversial issue. For a full discussion see "Preserving a legal inheritance: 'settlement rights in the "Occupied Palestinian Territories"'in /www.journalonline.co.uk/Extras/1007008.aspx> in the Scottish Law Journal, where Prof Gerald M Adler arrives at a different conclusion from John Edwards and others.

I believe the UK FCO's view is that the settlements are illegal. However,Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1950 was a far more extreme step, yet the UK was one of the two countries that recognised it. Presumably UK government lawyers must have considered the question at the time. Do any of you learned folk know how they would have managed to conclude that the annexation was legal?

I know I read somewhere or other that Ernest Bevin wanted the West Bank to be part of Jordan, but that isn't quite a legal justification.

ahad ha'amoratsim

John Edwards, your comments are telling. Nothing you say offers any justification for Arabs attacking worshippers at a holy site, and spreading lies about the reasons for the attack. And by saying they are "defending" the Haram Al Sharif, you seem to be saying the lies are true, despite the lack of any evidence and the presence of much evidence to the contrary. does. How pathetic you must be. I'm sure you would have been among the first to "avenge" the death of Hugh of Lincoln.

Abdullah Mohammed

It is good that people take the time to respond to those such as "John Edwards", but I sincerely doubt that "he" exists.

Am I really the only one to find it a bit suspicious that, on a great many occasions, the first answer out of the starting gate on this site is pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab?

Clearly, some professional organization is monitoring this site in an attempt at damage control.

We're on to you "John Edwards".

Yehuda

Nothing has overridden the 1922 Determination of The Council of The League of Nations ( a resolution which was inherited by the UN), according to which the entire Land of Israel, certainly that part of it west of the Jordan River, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, was legitimately to be part of the reconstituted State of Israel.
The ICC, the UN, the EU have no locus standi to countermand this Determination.
But , even if they had, it would be a politically motivated act of injustice towards the Jewish People to do so. Since, however, the Jews' political leverage is limited- no oil, small demographic, far less capacity to fill gentile money bags than the Arabs and other Muslims-these pseudo-righteous entities would get away with it.

Of course, international law is only one of the several grounds on which the Jewish People's right to its Land is based.

John

@Peter Burman
Don't have time to respond to all the errors of fact eh? Let's just pick a clear one then. "But "occupied" East Jerusalem was majority Jewish for hundreds, if not thousand of years, and only became "Arab" when Jordan took it by force in 1948." I mean, come on, really. It's not hard to do some basic research is it. Jerusalem as a whole became majority of Jewish again in around 1860. East Jerusalem probably later than that if ever.

C. Gee

Si, N:
For every Jewish rabble roused, there should be 200 Arab rabbles roused, to be fair, n'est ce pas? Send out the call for stones. Alert the media. Its intifada time! (Don't forget to stock up on candy for the martyrs.)

Martin W

@ Yehuda:

"Nothing has overridden the 1922 Determination of The Council of The League of Nations (a resolution which was inherited by the UN), according to which the entire Land of Israel, certainly that part of it west of the Jordan River, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, was legitimately to be part of the reconstituted State of Israel..."

Even assuming that it's possible to agree on those intentions... why has nothing overridden it? What is it about the constitution or form of the UN that makes its decisions less legitimate than those of the League of Nations, which it formally succeeded? You can't simply assert greater legitimacy for the ruling you like best without giving some reasons.

There is a clear international consensus - expressed repeatedly by the bodies that are our only available means of producing agreed-upon international law - that the settlements are illegal. It's wrong to claim that this consensus doesn't exist, and therefore reasonable to say that the settlements are "illegal under international law".

In fact I think the "international law" argument is a dead end on both sides. If there were somehow a document or ruling that suddenly made the legal position on borders and settlements unambiguously clear, it wouldn't change much: neither side would accept its legitimacy if it wasn't politically acceptable, and you anticipate that response in your post.

Israelinurse

Tom Durkin (12:30)
'i am certainly concerned about the language here. i may find no allies on this page, but the imagery of Arabs as irrational, violent, followers (i.e. no thought processes of their own) and hysterical inferring that none of their claims are legitimate is false and something from C19th european imperialism.'

The very idea that even if those claims are legitimate, they justify stone throwing and worse is indicative of your moral poverty.
On the first day of the first Intefada (9/12/87) I was travelling on a country road near Beit Sahur. The route was suddenly blocked by a mob of some 20 youths, their faces hidden behind kefiyas, who then proceeded to throw rocks the size of footballs at my car. I was 8 months pregnant at the time. Only due to my travelling companian's cool headedness and driving skills did we manage to escape what would undoubtedly have been a lynching. Yes - attempting to stone a pregnant woman to death is both violent and irrational; no imagery required if one has actually experienced such things, but I guess that from the comfort of a western armchair, that's a little difficult to grasp.

paul

John Edwards
A] There was no peace before any settlements
B] Barak offered to get rid of virtually all settlements. It was rejected and still no peace.
C] Conclusion: The Palestinians are not interested in peace. They want the total destruction of Israel. The settlements are merely an excuse for terrorism. They really are led by a bunch of backward looking morons.

wonderer

Si,N would you mind sharing the sources of your list of Israeli threats to the al-Aqsa Mosque? Not least the fire on 21 August 1969, which I remember. That particular accusation is completely spurious as the perpetrator was a deranged Australian christian, Michael Dennis Rohan.

btw the al-Aqsa and other mosques have sometimes been treated with surprisingly little respect by Muslims, as when Mustafa Ashu assassinated King Abdullah, a pious Muslim, when he visited it in 1951.

patricia

Any UK incitement of radicalised Islam and support for another intifada is due - at least in part - to the respectability that editors here, in the Telegraph, Sunday Times and on Sky give to the positions of ultra right wing policies by the Israeli government.

Nobody in our mainstream media would ever dream of talking about Zionists, Jews or Israelis, in terms remotely as racially provocative terms as those used to refer to Muslims and Palestinians.

Linda Smith

It is the refusal of Jews to live under the rule of Islam as dhimmis that fuels the Islamic hatred of Israel and Zionism.

“The doctrine preached by Muhammad was a simple one. The Koran is a book of divine origin revealed progressively to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. Islam is the only true and eternal religion (Koran:3:17). The prophets of Israel and Jesus had already preached it and foretold the coming of Muhammad, but the Jews and Christians, jealous of the perfection of the new religion, had rejected him and falsified their own sacred Scriptures. The Muslim faith stresses the divine character of the Koran and of Muhammad’s preaching: “Whoever obeys the Messenger obeys God.” Muhammad, being the last of the messengers sent by God to instruct humanity is the seal of the prophets.

…episodes in the life of Muhammad are recalled since they inspired Koranic revelations and thereby gave a definitive form to the main features of future relationships between Muslims and infidels concerning the strategy of warfare (jihad), Muslim rights of conquest, the laws pertaining to the division of booty, and the fate of the vanquished populations whose lands were taken over by the Islamic community, for according to Muslim tradition Muhammad said at the siege of Khaybar: “The land belongs to Allah and his Messenger….

….The jihad is a global conception that divides the peoples of the world into two irreconcilable camps: that of the dar al-Harb, the ’Territory of War’ which covers those regions controlled by the infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the ’Territory of Islam’ the Muslim homeland where Islamic law reigns. The jihad is the normal and permanent state of war between the Muslims and the dar-al-harb, a war that can only end with the final domination over unbelievers and the absolute supremacy of Islam throughout the world.” (Bat Ye’Or, The Dhimmi)

The wresting from the Jews of their Holy City of Jerusalem, the destruction of Jewish religious sites and synagogues and their supplantation by Muslim mosques is part of the global Jihad for the Islamification of the world.

I recall, with satisfaction, that the application to build an enooooormooouuus mosque opposite the British Houses of Parliament, was turned down.

jose garcia

John edwards thinks we are stupid.

he knows perfectly the palestinian propaganda is the same since 1967, no recognizion of israel , no acceptance of jewish right to exist, and NO NEGOTIATION.

we can read for ourselves, the maps of palestine in palestinian schools include the whole of israel,

the settlements are just another weapon for palestinians and people like you to justify terrorism and jew hatred.

save your propaganda , we can read the facts for ourselves.

also regarding 1967, the arabs though they could exterminate israel, they lost, and big.

LIVE WITH IT!

stanley Jerusalem

That's not the Obama who just received the Nobel Peace Prize, is it?

Carl

Linda Smith wrote: "I recall, with satisfaction, that the application to build an enooooormooouuus mosque opposite the British Houses of Parliament, was turned down."

Do you really Linda? Was it going to be a floating mosque as the river is the only place it could have been built on.

Wm. Hazlitt

Bat Ye'or,the doyenne of the lachrymose school of Jewish history, the distinguished scholar of Islam...(shome mishtake surely - ed.), the perfect source for the ahistorical and those frankly interested only in polemics.

Linda Smith

For Carl (or maybe we should call him Doubting Thomas):

“Campaigners presented a 10,000-signature petition opposing the sale of the former site of St Thomas' Hospital Medical School.

The Aga Khan wants to buy the site, known as Block 9, to build a Muslim cultural centre and museum. ….

…The Aga Khan, spiritual leader of 20m Ismaili Muslims, is believed to have offered to buy the land for twice as much as the bid from St Thomas'.

The billionaire wants to build the biggest Islamic museum and cultural centre in the English-speaking world.

Spokesman for the Aga Khan Iain Cheyne told BBC London: "The reason the Aga Khan has made a bid for this site is because we are very anxious to position the Aga Khan development network in a major global city, such as London, in the English-speaking world."

Campaigners say the site, which is in a prime location next to the River Thames and opposite the Palace of Westminster, should be retained for public service use and not sold to the highest bidder.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2305329.stm

Truthtriumphs

Martin W.
You really reveal your ignorance---anyone can go to the internet and pull quotes etc. out of context.
A very brief history is as follows:-
All 51 members of the League of Nations voted for a Jewish sovereign state in 1922, which was to comprise the WB,Gaza, the Golan and what is present day Israel.
This was reduced from the original intent to comprise the whole of historic Palestine, ie.
including the area that is now Jordan.
When the League was disbanded, this document, The Mandate for Palestine, was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN,and that still remains the final internationally legally binding document until now.
That is because all the other initiatives since were rejected by the Arabs, rendering them null and void.
Further, the area that is the WB was illegally annexed by Trans-Jordan in 1950, an act only recognised by GB and Pakistan (and that minus Jerusalem.)
Added to that was Resolution 242,the wording of which, after months of argument at the UN, accepted that Israel would keep some of the territory.
Clearly, the UN (driven by the agenda of 57 Moslem states versus one Jewish one) cannot contradict itself.
Further, the ICJ is an advisory body only, and is the court of the UN, but if you're so impressed with it, read the judgement of Stephen Schwebel who headed the ICJ.
He ruled that "where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self defence, has, against that prior holder, better title.ie. Israel.
There are many other considerations on Israel's side, not least that much of settlement land was legally bought by Jews in the 1920s, from which they were evicted unlawfully by Arab gangs.

Linda Smith

Sheik Haz/sidg/verity evidently hasn't read Bat Ye'Or's book "The Dhimmi". Pages 161-405 comprise historical documents.

Is he now going to allege Bat Y'Or publishes fraudulent material? (Any typing errors are mine in copying from my copy of the book)

Interesting that as the Sheik is unable to contest the facts, he resorts repeatedly to trying to assassinate the messenger. He must be a devotee of "Yes Minister".

C. Gee

Patricia:

What racially provocative terms are you referring to? I have obviously been looking at a different Telegraph, Sunday Times and Sky from yours.

C. Gee

Hi Wm.

Are you not frankly interested in polemic? Frankly, I am. Did you cry when you read Bat Ye'Or? I wouldn't blame you, to be quite frank. Dhimmitude is frankly a sad story.

Carl

To Linda: What I said then. Oh, and that Aga Khan, he is a well known fanatic isn't he? Sheesh, you zealots aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Linda Smith

And to all those Muslims and their apologists who say Israel is an apartheid country - Islam is an apartheid religion - dhimmitude is apartheid

Verity (etc etc)

Linda Smith, "It is the refusal of Jews to live under the rule of Islam as dhimmis..."

There you go again!

(Why do I bother? COZ I was amazed, really - you were shown up being less than straightforward given the chance to explain yourself said you didn't feel like it flounced off - only to reappear hawking the same old wares the same tricks and trinkets to distract us from Israel and the Palestinians by conjuring up mythical blood-thirsty monsters and world-wide conspiracies - to stop serious talk about solutions - you know - making an effort to work out what compromises might just possibly stick, understandings, truces and the like, the real world where the important thing is to stop anyone else getting killed - this isn't about an exchange of views for you is it? It's about stifling debate.)

Dalia

Linda Smith
ALSO IN THE QURANl SURAS 7 AND 5:
God Gives the Holy Land to Israel
SEE REFERENCE:

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura7.html

[7:137] We let the oppressed people inherit the land, east and west, and we blessed it. The blessed commands of your Lord were thus fulfilled for the Children of Israel, to reward them for their steadfastness, and we annihilated the works of Pharaoh and his people and everything they harvested.

God Gives the Holy Land to Israel
[5:21] "O my people, enter the holy land that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers."

Linda Smith

Verity (etc etc) For you, this is all about stifling facts.

Linda Smith

Verity (etc)you seem to have missed my comment on an earlier thread:

You are the one who came here discussing the Gaza conflict and asking questions. You have not answered mine - why do you omit all consideration of Islam in the motives of the people you call "Palestinians" when you post up your scenarios. It is that glaring omission which points up your duplicity.

Tony Gee

I read about the co-operation between Israel,Jordan and Palestine to refill the Dead Sea and thought why has this broader solution never been floated. A United States of ?????? with these three countries very much on the American model. Jordan is one of, if not the best ally of peace in the region. Why not engage their good offices? One thing is for sure no peace will come from present and historical thinking. New and lateral ideas are essential.

Verity

Linda Smith, As before.

kate b

Remove the WAQF's responsibility and give it to someone else, after all, ALL nations are meant to stream to Jerusalem to worship from the unchanging scriptures that is.

This coming intifada is being promoted even in Turkey, how biblical, that's the last one to come in on the act scripturally out of all Israel's neighbours.

As for international law, the Arab Palestinian state has been made already: Jordan, but Gaza given as an extra to promote peace (hmmm), the only state left to make now is a Jewish state per the Balfour declaration 1917ish to give the Jews their HISTORIC homeland (as the scriptures explain) - note this is well before the 2nd world war, the State of Israel has nothing to do with the events of the 2nd world war. Facts are stubborn things as someone once said. Anyway, back to Israel where all the Biblical archeology is found and archaeology from those who occupied Israel, from Assyria, Babylon, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans and Brits...still waiting for one Arab Palestinian archaeological/Quranic or other scriputral evidence to the land. Israel (which allows all people because it's not racist), yes, we're still waiting for it.

Lnda Smith

Verity/Hazlitt/Sidgwick: as before

fivish

Dear John.
In 1919 Weizmann and King Feisal made what is known as the Paris agreement. It defined two states, one Arab and another Jewish in Palestine. The 1922 Mandate gave Britain the job of facilitating it. The Kingdom of Jordan was created to the east of the river Jordan and Israel should have been created to the west. But thanks to OIL being found in Arabia and the British navy wanting it for its ships, the British reneged on its obligations towards the Jews. The UN under its charter (article 80) should have insisted that the Mandate be enacted in full. But in breach of its own charter it created resolutions which further limited the size of the state of Israel. In other words, resolutions made by the UN are illegitimate and void in connection with Israel!

C. Gee

Dalia:

Do please remind Hamas of these Suras. Their Islamist charter omits them and finds other Koranic authority for ridding the land of Jews.

In general, I think the
Israelis are wise not to look to the Koran for survival guidance. A strong military is a better defense of their land and people than planting Garkad trees.

C. Gee

Verity (etc. etc.) Oct 9th at 10.19:

Are you Miss South Carolina? coz you sound like her and suchlike with your idea you know about understandings and truces and the like in the real world and such as.

Truthtriumphs

SiN.
Just a brief lesson in history:-just because Islam has appropriated Judaism's holiest shrine, namely The Temple Mount,
and calls it their third holiest place, that does not change the truth that it is Judaism's holiest site, upon which stood two temples,the first having been built by King Solomon, a Jewish king,almost two thousand years before Islam was even thought of.
Islam has a tradition of conquering other people's holy places, and building mosques thereon.
Or just trashing other people's holy places, such as the Bhuddas in Bamayan, which had stood for some two thousand years.
But then might is right, and it is a philosophy that you and other anti-semites willingly subscribe to, for it suits your agenda.
The Israelis were too decent (and too stupid) in 1967, for after their stunning victory in the Six Day War, they gave over The Temple Mount to the control of the Arab Waqf.
The upshot is that it continues to re-write history in the Islamic denial of the Jewish connection to the Holy Land, and continues to act with impunity.
It recently built a huge underground mosque below the Temple Mount without permission, deliberately destroying valuable archeological artifacts from Temple times.
The Israeli government kept quiet in the interest of "peace",and in so doing was complicit in the betrayal of Israel's unique Jewish heritage.
How stupid!
Can you imagine the Muslims countenancing the takeover of the Kaaba in Mecca by another faith, which would then disallow the Islamic faithful from praying there?

David Ben-Ariel

The proper Jewish response to such incitement would be to strengthen plans to remove the threat, expel Israel's sworn enemies, and prepare to build the Third Temple. Israel is responsible if it permits wild animals to roam free in the Jewish homeland.

mostly harmless

C. Gee
October 8th, 2009 5:42am

John Edwards:
Why should a future Palestinian state be Jew-free?

No Reason at all, in fact some settlers in the West Bank are already lobbying to this effect and I think the PA has not ruled it out.

mostly harmless

Linda Smith
October 9th, 2009 8:13pm

And to all those Muslims and their apologists who say Israel is an apartheid country - Islam is an apartheid religion - dhimmitude is apartheid

Both can be argued to be apartheid systems. The difference is that there is only 1 which is alive and kicking in the 21st century.

Linda Smith

Mostly harmless: any comments on Saudi Arabia and apartheid?

By the way, not many people may be aware that according to Wikipedia, the Koran is Saudi's constitution.

Any comments on "apartheid" and the fact that the Palestinian Authority has passed a law criminilising sale of land to JEWS. Any comments on the fact that JEWS are barred by Jordanian law from Jordanina citizenship.

phil

Abdullah Mohammed you mirror my own thoughts about edwards ,"he" is invariably the first here and always sings the same song -what I do wonder is why so many bother to respond to the nonsense from him ,Sin and others like them ,they have no interest in progression ,but lies and accusations without proof abound from their "pens"

They are fond of quoting the deeds of extremists such as gush emunim and gershon solomon as if they represent the views of Israelis when in fact these people are controlled by the Israeli police as well as is possible including being banned from the Islamic holy places. I am sure most Jews find their behaviour abhorrent but having said that, they are not child killers nor suicide bombers -do I see edwards or Sin finding fault with the aforesaid -of course not-I have no wish to try to persuade edwards and co to see my point of view and as I said earlier I wonder why anybody here does -They seek division and dare I say hatred -I prefer the path of resolution and peace .

Truthtriumphs

Phil.
The reason it is important to answer the anti-semites such as SiN, Edwards et al.,is not to change their minds (impossible because their hatred is too entrenched), but because this blog has global reach. Therefore, it is essential to nail the lie, for if the lie is allowed to stand, in a very short time it is perceived to be the truth.
It is essential that the gullible and ignorant have the facts before them.
As to language, you used the word "extremist" to describe Gush Emunim.
Why?
It was a movement founded in 1974 to re-settle Jews in their national homeland, some of which had been legally bought by Jews in the early 1920s, and from which they had been subsequently evicted by marauding Arab gangs. Re-settlement was the policy of successive Israeli governments, and rightly so, not least because, as I have posted so many times, these lands were designated by the League of Nations and by the UN, for the Jewish state, and that remains the position until the present day.
Gush is a non-violent, settler movement, and so the word "extremist" is wholly inappropriate to describe it. Don't take on, unthinkingly, the language of the Israel-haters.
It is also untrue to say that the majority of Israelis disapprove of settlement policy.

mostly harmless

Linda Smith
mostly harmless: any comments on Saudi Arabia and apartheid?

OK you got me, let's start a list, please feel free to add to it.

Apartheid Regimes
Israel
Saudi Arabia

Linda Smith

Israel is not an "apartheid" state. All citizens are equal before the law.

Jordan and the Palestinian Authority have apartheid laws. Jordan bans Jews from citizenship. Sharia law is intrinsically apartheid - Sharia is the basis of the PA's law. Ergo any state that includes Sharia law is an apartheid state.

Truthtriumphs

mostly harmless (but pretty stupid).
Apartheid Israel?
Really? So would that be why the (Muslim) Darfurian refugees trek 1000 miles of hazardous terrain to seek sanctuary in the only Jewish state, as opposed to any of the 57 other human-rights loving Muslim states on offer?
Or don't they read the Guardian in Sudan?

phil

Mark Bell -maybe a little late ,but assuming you want to find the truth? google EUGENE ROSTROW who helped draft res 242-you will find how wrong your quote is ,but please satisfy yourself ,perhaps just one soul will change his mind .

phil

Truth Triumphs -I think you are aware that I always treat your thoughts with respect ,but as far as the RIGHT wing of the settlers is concerned ,personally I see them as a liability to the essential qualities of being a Jew ,that does not mean I disagree with the desire of Jewish people to settle in the land of Israel which in itself is the definition of Zionism that I grew up with .My father ,who I was able to speak to always taught me to respect others of different religions and races and that the only thing that we did have rights to was to keep the ten commandments and what flowed from them -nowhere was there a land claim .

I do object to --"Gush Emunim supporters believe that the coming of the messiah can be hastened through Jewish settlement on land they believe God has allotted to the Jewish people as outlined in the Hebrew Bible." Where did they ever hear this and what is their telephone line to the almighty ? I am no expert in gush emunim in fact my knowledge is from wikipedia ,,but I am aware of who baruch goldstein(,no doubt way right of gush emunim ), is and his kind can never represent me nor the lunatics that assassinated Rabin ,nor can any Rabbi who thinks his decisions are more important than my own .

Your quote"It is also untrue to say that the majority of Israelis disapprove of settlement policy." - I cannot quote any figures ,so if you can I would be obliged -In spite of all that I have said you will know that I am a firm supporter of Israel and its people and that I will have no truck with hamas ,hesbollah and the crazies who desire our extinction ,but I also believe strongly that we must try our best to resolve our problems with understanding and fairness together with the intrinsic morality of the religion that we grew up with -I am not orthodox but I am aware of who and what I am and that is a Jew .King Solomon was a wise man and a little of his wisdom would not go amiss now .

I take your point about edwards and co ,but you will have noted that I believe we give them fuel by answering them and arguing about the stupidity that they write -Sidgewick in fact reminds me of a character in a great Victor Mollo bridge book -a spotty and supercilious Oxbridge youth whose future is already in his past as shown by his silly remarks and never ending mistakes .

TT we may disagree on some points but we will never be divided -my respects to you and shalom chaver .

Truthtriumphs

Dear Phil,
Your heart is in the right place, but you are a little too naive.
The Land of Israel is intrinsic to Judaism. It isn't an add-on extra, so don't be fooled by those who would have you believe otherwise.
G-d's promises to the Israelites as to the Land, run right through the Pentateuch in the clearest of terms, starting with Genesis.

As to people like Boruch Goldstein---- all decent minded people will abhor what he did, but unlike the "moderate" PA, not to mention Hamas etc. whose creed is terrorism and jihad, Golstein was an aberration who only represented himself.
You cannot blame the Israelis for a one-off lunatic.
As for settlement, until the end of the 19th.C. the whole of the Holy Land, with the exception of a few nomads and Jews, the region was barren and deserted.
Populations have always been moving and settling in different places since the beginning of time.

Best wishes, TT.

mostly harmless

Truthtriumphs
'So would that be why the (Muslim) Darfurian refugees trek 1000 miles of hazardous terrain to seek sanctuary in the only Jewish state'

you mean these poor souls?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900391.html

mostly harmless

Linda Smith & TT
I guess for people who deny that Israel occupies Gaza & the West Bank, there is no way they are going to accept Israel is an apartheid state.

Linda Smith

Mostly harmless: a state (Israel) that grants all its citizens, Jew and Arab alike, equal rights under the law cannot be said to be an apartheid state.

The Palestinian Authority is definitely an apartheid organisation and plans to set up an apartheid Islamic state under its Basic Law.