Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Don't think there's an anti-Christian sentiment? | Main | How Harper Will Proceed »

Sunday, January 29, 2006

This is Promising

Hamas is planning to create an army:

Hamas's supreme political leader said from exile in Syria yesterday that when the party officially takes power it will create an army out of Palestinian armed factions to defend itself against Israel and would only honour selective existing agreements with Israel.

And, from this story, more of the same:

The leader of Hamas suggested Saturday that the Islamic group could create a Palestinian army that would include its militant wing - responsible for scores of deadly attacks on Israelis - in the aftermath of its crushing victory in parliamentary elections.

I hope the nutjob means it. And then I hope Hamas takes its army and lines it up along the Israeli border, firing a shot or two along the way, giving the Israelis a chance to respond in a fitting manner. (Even the UN couldn't rule against Israel in that scenario -- a fact which would probably cause them no end of grief.) This might be the best thing to come out of Hamas' election victory -- a real silver lining.

Cross-posted at Wonkitties.

Posted by wonkitties on January 29, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This is Promising:


So, you're hoping for war, in other words? Or am I misunderstanding what it is you are hoping for.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-29 2:13:31 PM

Remember, the Irgun, led by Begin, which was most certainly a terrorist group (King David Hotel, Deir Yassin), eventually dissolved and its members went into the IDF (Israeli Defense). That is, Begin transformed his militia, which was against the British and the Arabs, into a political party. And, the 'Stern' group or Lehi (with Shamir) also integrated with the Haganah, with amnesty to its leaders, to form the IDF. Therefore, what Hamas is proposing, is what Israel did as well.

I think that you have to give the Palestinians time, and Hamas time, to work out their situation. Many Palestinians are shocked by the win - but - remember, the Fatah Party has done zilch for them over the past generation. The Palestinians want a resolution, an end to living in refugee camps, an end to occupation. That's hardly an undesirable desire, is it?

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-29 2:31:14 PM

No one "hopes" for war but that's different than recognizing the eventuality of it esp when the surrounding Arab nations have been preparing for war; Iran conducted two large scale military troops exercises just last week, Egypt's military consumed most of the US aid she received (Egypt receives as much in dollar terms as does Israel from the USA).

Hamas' iSLAMofascist victory is no different than Hitler's national socialist fascist electoral victory and their intentions are no different either.

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-29 2:48:49 PM

Good post ET. The sense I get is that Hamas is as shocked as anyone with their win, and to some extent dismayed. In opposition they could carry on as complete nutbars, but now, as the governing party, they'll have to deliver tangible benefits to the Palestinian people as well as answer for the consequences of their excesses with nobody to blame but themselves (and the Israelis of course . . .blah, blah, blah). As Talleyrand said "You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them". Hamas's more modern version of reality may be positted: you can't feed your children on hand grenades.

Posted by: DrD | 2006-01-29 2:59:45 PM

I disagree that Hamas has the same intentions as Hitler - i.e., the re-emergence of the Reich in Europe.

I think it's a serious situation that can go either way - disastrous or progressive. I think the West is right to affirm to Hamas that it has to stop its terrorist actions; this does not mean that it cannot develop a Palestinian Army, as Israel developed an Israeli army - but- the West has to be careful not to push this new government into a dead-end street.

That is, the West has to be careful not to isolate the Hamas, not to reject it as the duly-elected government of the Palestinians. This would push it right into the waiting hands of the Islamic fundamentalists - who will use the Palestinians, not to help them, but for their own agenda of a ME without democracy and operating in a fundamentalist tribal Islamicism.

I don't think the ME states, such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and even now Iraq, want to be involved in a war for Islamic fundamentalism. I am not equating them with Al Qaeda..and the current gov't (not people) of Iran. But, Al Qaeda and Iran would certainly want to use Palestine - which they have ignored for the past generation - as a catalyst to stop democracy in the ME and set up a fundamentalist caliphate..over all the rest of the ME countries, ie., in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq.

I think the West has to be very cautious. It has to be firm - no terrorism - but- it has to be very careful not to push Hamas into a situation where Al Qaeda and Iran will jump in, and simply take over the whole gov't..and use the Palestinians for their own agenda.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-29 3:06:03 PM

Your sentiments of giving Hamas "time" is noble but naive at best.
You remind me of films I've seen of Neville Chamberlain saying " just give Hitler a little time". Aint gonna happen. These people are bent on the destruction of the state of Israel in general, and the Jewish people in particular. They will even tell you that right out.
Then listen to the president of Iran. He wants them "wiped off the face of the map". The time has come for the world to face the fact that something terrible is on it's way. The lines are being formed now.
I swear I hope I'm wrong but I'm afraid this new century that we have just begun is going to start off with a big bang, just like the last one did, and just about every one before that.
It is two diametrically opposed ways of life clashing head on with only one possible conclusion...only one of them will survive.

Posted by: Steve | 2006-01-29 3:09:48 PM

"No one "hopes" for war but that's different than recognizing the eventuality of it.."

A self fulfilling prophecy, perhaps?

But anyhow, my question was to wonkitties. Winkitties appears to be expressing hope that one group will start shooting so the other group has an excuse to respond. I don't really see that as preparing for it, or recognizing the eventuality of it. I'm wondering if wonkitties is hoping for the destruction of one over the other?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-29 3:10:42 PM

I disagree with Steve and I don't think that comparisons with selective images from other historic periods are valid. You can do such 'cut and paste' historic revisionism with anything and come up with whatever predetermined conclusion you want.

As for Hamas 'saying so' (i.e., the destruction of Israel') - the rhetoric of a militant group fighting an occupation is very different from the rhetoric of a government in power. Or even, as we well know, trying to win power - e.g., remember the Liberals saying that 'if you vote for us over Mulroney, we'll abolish the GST'?

And - I don't see how anyone can support a lifestyle of people living in refugee camps, as the Palestinians endure, nor expect other nations to 'take them all in'. They require a land and territory of their own. What is so wrong with that?

The current president of Iran shocks even Iranians; his agenda is to taunt the west (US and Israel) to attack Iran, so that he can mold Iranians into an emotive lump - against democracy. His basic fear is the loss of tribal power to democracy - and that's what he's fighting. Attacks by the West against Iran would consolidate Iranians against democracy..and would thus, he considers, prevent democracy.

I agree that only one way of life, democracy, rather than tribalism, can survive - given the massive population base of the world. But, this doesn't mean also, the destruction of the world population nor even an all-out war. I think that Bush's doctrine of 'the domino effect' in the ME is the correct one - difficult as it is.

But, my concern is that the West has to be careful not to push Hamas into the arms of Al Qaeda - who will use the Palestinians for their own agenda - against the emerging democracies of the ME - and to promote and insert a repressive and fundamentalist tribalism. That would destroy everything that has been achieved so far in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-29 3:32:03 PM

Well it's pretty damn obvious Hamas hopes to get rid of this silly peace thing and back to killing Israelis as soon a possible but hey...it's Wonkitties with the blood lust eh?

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2006-01-29 4:11:13 PM

"but hey...it's Wonkitties with the blood lust eh?"

Based on Wonkitties' post, that's what I'm trying to clarify.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-29 4:16:31 PM

I wasn't refering to "historic periods" as much as I was refering to Human nature. Your correct, it was different times and different people and circumstances but the basic underlying principle is the same, the destruction of one group by another.
Do you really think the Lepard will change his spots from cold blooded killer, murdering women and children by blowing them up on busses or in the market places with absolutely no remorse, to sophisticated diplomats now entering the political arena?
I never said I support a "life style of living in refugee camps", nor did I say they shouldn't have their own territory or state. On the contrary, I agree that they should.
My point is that these people are born and raised to hate the Jews with a hatred I don't think any sane person can understand, so how are you going to get them to live with each other?
The president of Iran does not stand alone. All the other Arab nations know their days are numbered if democracy is allowed to take root. Even so called "allies" like Saudi Arabia,Egypt,and others don't want democracy any more than the "crazies".
And as far as " pushing Hamas into the arms of Al Qadea",they are both the same Lepard with the same spots.

Posted by: Steve | 2006-01-29 4:26:52 PM

Given Iran is a main supporter of Hamas, I cannot see how they could become a nice peace searching group of people. Besides that, there is nothing that unites Palestinians else than their hatred of Israel. They even fight among themselves about the results of that election.

I can see a parallel with Facism which was a prevalent ideology in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Japan, even France and UK.

Now it is Islamofacism. I can see a parallel with Japanese Kamikazes in their suicidal actions.

Islamofacism is being propagated around the world, even in Toronto area. So we can choose either to face it or bury our heads in the sand like those big birds. I think that USA is blessed by a president who chose to fight that ideology.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-01-29 5:05:49 PM

ET, despite all the evidence you really feel that wishful thinking will trump intention.

What you cite as Jewish "terrorism" is the same as what the Electronic Intifada states, that is, the Arab line in order to discredit the Israelis. The King David Hotel was a military target; Dier Yassin was in the context of war AND when Arab muhajadeen dressed as women causing the deaths of too many innocents when they then fired upon their captors.

The "occupation" ENDED with Oslo and officially on January 1, 1997, 98% of all ?alestinians were under the auspices and domain of the PLO/PNA. Any such despair is the legacy of iSLAM. It's the dhimmitude, dude.

There's no practical difference bwt Hamas and al qaeda. You accuse Steve of cutting and pasting from "selective" part of history while rationalizing hatred, keeping the "occupation" canard alive, and projecting what you *want* for the Arabs over what they apparently want for themselves, which is namely, the end of Israel.

When Hamas says they wish to end the "occupation" it is a euphanism for destroying Israel. That's not my opinion but a Hamas factoid.

That you don't accept Hamas' own words describing Hamas' own intent is negligent. Whatevermore could Hamas do to *strongly suggest* their intent than to cite the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in their Declaration, to dispatch mass murdering suicide bombers, to teach the CHILDREN in summer camps how to shoot and die and to display openly, maps of the ME that don't show a geopolitical shape called Israel?

Domestically, are you also waiting for our gun criminals to register their guns, coz now the gun registry exists, you just have to give them enough time, eh. Or should we take our worst offenders and put them in the highest office coz *that* always has a "moderating" influence?

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-29 5:09:47 PM

Well, Steve, I guess we'll have to 'agree to disagree'.

I don't think that the agenda of Al Qaeda and Hamas are similar. I think that Al Qaeda is focused around the insertion and maintenance of tribalism in the ME, a tribalism run within a fundamentalist Islamicism. This is a tribalism that rejects democracy, rejects women as anything other than objects of ownership by men..etc.

Hamas, on the other hand, is geared to the establishment of a Palestinian nation, made up of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem; its government is democratic and not tribal (remember, they are in power now because they involved themselves in the democratic process).

They may separate women - but so what; a lot of us, right now, in the West grew up in schools where the boys and girls were on separate sides of the classroom and even, had separate playgrounds. That can change/or, may not.

As for the rhetoric, the militant Zionist groups of Lehi and Irgon (both defined by the British as terrorist groups..and an early base for Begin, the Likud party) were equally adamant in their rejection of any and all Arab rights to that land base..and now, the Israeli majority accept a two-state solution. So- rhetoric has to be dealt with carefully and understood as such.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-29 5:16:29 PM


The moral equivalence that you draw between the genocidal child-butchering scum of Hamas and the noble fighters of Irgun is absolutely revolting.

As wharold correctly points out, you are simply repeating the thoroughly discredited anti-Irgun canards popularised by Islamist-supporting sites such as Electronic Intifada.

That you would then cite the perfidious British government as a reputable source for characterising the Irgun as a "terrorist" organization - despite the British Government's knowing complicity in the destruction of European Jewry and deliberate Arabization of the region of Palestine - is evidence not only of your naiveté and historical ignorance but also that you are morally obtuse.

Posted by: Paul Greif | 2006-01-29 6:10:43 PM

I disagree, Paul Greif and wharold. I don't consider the Lehi or Irgun 'noble fighters' and I don't consider the King David or Deir Yassin 'military targets'. I am aware that such accounts are one version - and I'm aware of other versions which deny both as 'military targets'. You choose to accept one version, and I choose to accept another version.

Mr. Greif - don't get into ad hominem name-calling; stick to the issues. I am neither historically ignorant nor morally obtuse. I could, after all, because you don't agree with me - call you the same names. I don't; I respect your opinion, even though I don't agree with it. Therefore - no ad hominem, no name-calling; stick to the issues.

I don't know 'Electronic Intifada'.

I also don't consider that the British were involved, as you assert in 'the destruction of European Jewry' (the British were fighting and dying against the Nazis)and as for your statement of 'deliberate Arabization of Palestine' - the Palestinians were living there for many centuries. What is wrong with that?

Equally, the British government is not and were not 'perfidious'.

The occupation has not ended; the West Bank is not under the control of the Palestinians; the illegal settlements remain. Equally, the occupation is real; it is not in quotation marks ("occupation").
Therefore- we disagree on most issues.

As for Hamas - the Palestinian people voted for them versus Fatah. We cannot reject a democratic vote and therefore, we have to wait and see what Hamas intends to do, as a governing, rather than militant, group.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-29 6:49:57 PM

There is but one reason that peace has not found its way to the Israel-Arab conflict. Peace after WWI came the usual way. The same for WWII. Namely - victory. One side wins and the other side loses and submits.

Thus far, Israel has been far too magnanimous after each of her victories. The next military conflict will require one side to totally vanquish the other. Since Israel is the only true democracy in the area, that's whom I am rooting for. And with this Hamas election, the road is open for TOTAL victory and TOTAL submission. The sooner the better for the average Israeli and average Arab.

Posted by: jacob honig | 2006-01-29 6:55:10 PM

"You choose to accept one version, and I choose to accept another version."

The above is simply a sick abandonment to relativism. There is only one "version" of events that matters - TRUTH.

To what can we mere mortals turn in seeking to uncover objective reality? There is voluminous documentary evidence conclusively demonstrating that:
a) the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was the headquarters of the British Administration of Palestine, and thus, a legitimate miltary target.
b)Deir Yasin was a strategic village overlooking the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road - the only route from the coastal plain to besieged Jerusalem - and was fortified by heavily armed Arab marauders. Thus, a legitimate miltary target.
c)The British Foreign Office knew early on what was going on in Nazi-occupied Europe and actively sought to suppress or obstruct the flow of information. The British Government (with the cooperation of the US State Department) continuously obstructed any schemes put forward for the temporary shelter and/or rescue of any sizable number of refugees. This was a consequence of the widespread antisemitism, anti-anti-alien sentiment that persisted in these countries at that time, as well as the British determination not to allow any proposed rescue legislation to conflict with their long-standing plans for the Arabization of Mandatory Palestine. There is a voluminous and dispiriting history documenting the Allied disinterest and obstructionist efforts vis-a-vis the Jews of Europe. I suggest you read it. It gives the lie to notion that the Allies "were fighting and dying" for the Jews.
d) If you are ignorant to the whole sordid, shameful history of the British vis-a-vis the Jews of Mandatory Palestine than you really have no business commenting on this subject.
e) There is no "occupation". Those lands were CEDED to Israel by the Egyptians (Gaza) and the Jordanians (West Bank). Why israel chose not to officially annex these territories is another question entirely.
f) We certainly can reject a "democratic vote". Fatah and Hamas are all bloodthirsty, knuckle-dragging savages, the whole lot of them. Canada must sever all ties with this deranged death cult and work closely with Israel to find a minds to either contain this malevolent entity or to end this dangerous impasse once and for all. The "Pals" have again demonstrated that they are incapable of belonging to the "community of nations" and constitute a mortal threat to our democratic ally Israel.

Posted by: Paul Greif | 2006-01-29 8:23:05 PM

Mr. Greif - I am not a relativist and must point out that since neither you nor I were in that area at that time, then, both of us must rely on documentary evidence - which is massive, on both sides - and includes intensive work done by scholars in Israel and elsewhere. I accept one set of documents and conclusions; you accept another set of documents and conclusions. That is not relativism; that's a rational choice that both of us have made.

As for your point 'e' - again, we disagree. I consider the Israeli administration an occupation; you do not. If they are not 'occupied', then, why are the settlements considered illegal, and why did Israel withdraw from Gaza?

Your last point is an insult to the Palestinians, who are, I must point out, as human as you or I; I won't comment beyond that.

Posted by: ET | 2006-01-29 8:36:25 PM

Poor, ET, what *you* believe hardly matters when Hamas, the PLO/PNA et al. put out a steady flow of messages that contradict what you Believe. Moral rationalization cannot stand up to a question of right vs. wrong.

That you consider Hamas "militant" reveals that you either don't fully comprehend the threat or dismiss it entirely coz *you* don't think that way and reject any thinking along those lines. How uselessly quaint.

The so-called "west bank" *was* under the ?alestinians control until they decided to flex their "peace" operations and slaughter hundreds of diners, shoppers and busriders. There is no "occupation" unless you count the pre-occupation with "annihilating the Zionist entity," certainly another direct quote from the PLO/PNA (the "moderates") for you to shrug your shoulders at.

I wasn't clear what side of the conflict you were on but now I am. You're on the most dangerous of possible sides: the side of profound and open negligence.

To wit:
"Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel..."
-- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977

Are you aware that in Arabic, there is no 'P' sound? Meaning, the ?alestinians cannot even speak the word that identifies who they claim to be using their native tongue; without borrowing from another language. Imagine Canadians unable to say the hard "c" sound so when we say "Canada" we speak another nation's word! Tell me, how can a nation be the indigenous peoples of an area for centuries and not be able to pronounce their own name in their own language?

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-29 8:38:16 PM

And ET is worried about insulting the ?alestinians even as he would never dress as an Orthodox Jew and walk through Ramalah lest he find himself hanging upside down from a lamppost, post disemboweling, of course, for "peace."

www.shoebat.com. Enlighten yourself and read up on this courageous former ?al child terrorist who did a very, very rare and dangerous thing: he woke up and join civilization. I want witness ET dismiss Walid Shoebat as "just a guy" with a point of view, an opinion that is certainly no more valid than his. I want to hear your western arrogance tell the Arabs they don't mean it but of course are justified if they do.

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-29 8:46:41 PM

When I see on TV the streets full of huge crowds of people, all young, 20 something men, some with machine guns, some with belaclavas covering their faces, chanting together "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" I just can't help but think that some leader, like the dude that leads Hamas, is rubbing his hands with glee at all of the great cannon fodder. I don't think that any amount of politicization of that situation would ever in a gazillion years bring about anything remotely resembling rapprochement between the Palestinians, and the Israelis.

Posted by: DCM | 2006-01-29 9:04:43 PM

Why don't we get right down to basic premises here.

What right does Israel have to exist as a nation in the Middle East, that say... the Iroquois nation of North America does not have a right to exist?

Is it because Israel is "democratic?" I'd really love to know folks' basic premise as to why they expect that folks in North America (both Canadian and American) should feel some obligation towards Israel, as a nation?

Personally, I don't recognize any sovereignty over my own self except my own sovereignty over myself. So my question is trying to understand exactly what it is that motivates some folks, politically speaking, to "support" Israel as a nation.

Is it "historical" reasons? And if it is, are you willing to apply those historical reasons to ALL groups of people who claim something from history?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-29 9:34:21 PM

Reading the comments of ET, I have to wonder if it is a case of willful ignorance of truth. Frankly it gets tiresome hearing the anti-zionist mantra that the lack of peace is due to the "occupation". The attacks against Jewish civilians long predate 1967. Interestingly when these same territories were under the control of Jordan (Arab state carved out of "Palestine") and Egypt, one never heard a word about "Palestinians" much less oppressed "Palestinians". But there was the same anti-zionist hatred calling for the elimination of Israel.

Peace can only exist when both parties sincerely desire it. For that to be possible, all the on-going anti-Zionism being taught and promoted throughout the Arab/Islamic world must cease. However it seems that some still refuse to take the terrorists at their own word when they continue to state clearly their goal of the complete destruction of Israel.

Unfortunately there are many today throughout even the Western world who cannot recognize evil. They go so far as to take darkness for light and evil for good. Not a wise thing.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-01-29 10:06:29 PM

"The attacks against Jewish civilians long predate 1967."

Sure. I agree completely. But let's not forget the "attacks" or whatever you want to call them, by the British, against the inhabitants of the middle east long before Israel, as a nation in the 20th century, existed.

Or do you deny that "attacks" took place on individuals in this territory before 1947?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-29 10:12:29 PM

Let's wrangle with this chronological krinkle:

Muhammed dies six years before iSLAM ever reaches Jerusalem and 70 years prior to the construction of the "farthest mosque" he is purported to have ascended to heaven on his noble steed from.

So, other than by imperialistic conquest, the iSLAMic claim to Jerusalem *is*...the same as the ?alestinians of today, er, that no history book published prior to 1967 has a record of, unless by "Palestinian" you meant "Jew."

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-29 11:25:03 PM

To be honest with you, I don't really give a shit about mosques, Mohammed, or history books.

I'm more interested in discovering what exactly, that will be consistent universally, in figuring out what "group" is entitled to any land that they claim, regardless of the history of two thousand years or more.

I'm trying to understand ANYONE's premises as to why Jews have any more claim to what we now know as Israal, and if for consistency sake, they will use the same logic in determining the right of ANY group of people that make land claims.

I don't know if the Palestinians are correct in their assertions. I have no clue. I also have no clue if the Jews are correct either.

I've seen very little from either side that would promote my support and money for their claims.

What "right" do people who call themselves Jews. have to some land that their ancestors may have had, and how is this any different from any indigenous group of people?

I mean, why support Jewish claims and thier statehood, while ignoring any other claims made by any other indigineoius group, including North American natives?

And truly, how far back in time are you willing to go, to support this "right" and why stop at two hundred years ago as far as Native Indians in North America, but go back more than two thousand years for Jews in Israel?

I mean, using the Jewish right to the lands now known as Israel, I have just as much right to claim the lands that border Scotland and England for my own, and my people. Amd as much right to demand that the US government, through it's taxation policies, support my right and my family's right to rule.

Although not 6 million in numbers, my own family went through a holcaust of sorts as well. which also included those that mioght associate with family.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-30 12:04:54 AM

"So my question is trying to understand exactly what it is that motivates some folks, politically speaking, to "support" Israel as a nation."

We who support Israel do not do so out of some false notion of it being an ideal "democracy". The brutal expulsion of 8,000 of its citizens from Gaza last summer and the corrupt and undemocratic practices of the Sharon administration are evidence of an underlying bolshevism in the Israeli body politic.

Israel merits our support for many reasons, the most primary of which are the following:

a) Generations of Jews have fought and died and suffered to give birth to and then to perpetuate the Jewish National Home. While it may be the current fashion to bestow a state upon a people, however deserving, the Jewish people have risen to the challenge by organizing, purchasing, labouring and fighting for this small plot of land. The achievement of Israelis over the past century in building up their country is truly awe-inspiring and worthy of the utmost respect.
b) The Jewish people have had a continuous attachment to this land for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Though driven into exile and prevented from returning in large numbers by successive conquerers, be it Roman, Arab, Ottoman or Brit, there has ALWAYS been a Jewish presence in these lands.
c) The Jewish people have always punched way above their weight class. Despite their tiny numbers, Jews have arguably contributed more to the betterment of humanity than virtually any ethnic group on the face of the planet.
d) Despite this, the Jewish people has been the most reviled and persecuted minority in history.
e) Even if one could care less about the millenia-old persecution of European Jewry that culminated in the Holocaust, MORE THAN HALF of Israel's five or so million Jewish population is endemic to the Middle East. The Jews from Moslem-dominated countries have been persecuted and subjagated (and occasionally slaughtered) by their Moslem betters for centuries. With the proclamation of Israeli independence and the humilation of the Arab armies' failure to smash the nascent state, these Jews from Arab countries - Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, as well as Iran - were expelled to the tune of roughly 800,000-900,000. A majority of these refugees were accepted by their Jewish brethren into Israel (which begs the question, why have the TWENTY-TWO Arab countries not resettled the Arabs who fled Israel proper during the 1948 war? The answer, of course, is obvious.
f) The British illegally and arbitrarily lopped off about 80% of the original Palestine Mandate -slated by the League of Nations for the Jewish National Home - and created Transjordan in 1922. This fictional Arab Emirate was declared "off-limits" to Jewish settlement.
g) The Arab claim to what remained of Palestine, i.e. Israel and the territories, is completely spurious. While there was certainly long-standing Arab-Moslem connection to the region, it was never to the extent propagandised by largely fictional and erroneous accounts. There is overwhelming and substantive documentary evidence amid the archives of Ottoman and British authories to conclusively demonstrate that there was a MAJOR migration of Arabs and other groups into the region following the establishment of the first Jewish agricultural settlements in the late nineteenth century. Today's so-called "Palestinians" are largely, if not overwhelmingly, the descendants of those who arrived in this region between the late 1800s and 1948.
h) Arab Moslem societies are and have historically been supremicist and intolerant of minorities. To wit, the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron, the destruction of Jewish holy places dduring the Jordanian occupation of the "West bank". etc. etc. etc.
i) Israeli Jews are tolerant and accepting of minorities to an almost masochistic degree.
j) Israeli culture is vibrant and innovative and has contributed immeasurably to betterment of all mankind.
k) Despite the serious drawbacks mentioned earlier re: the Israeli body politic, Israel is a free and open society that places enormous value on the sanctity of life, i.e. ZAKA and is at the forefront of donor nations (despite being consistently pissed on by much of the world). In this respect, as in so many others, Canadians share similar values with Israelis.
l) tiny Israel is surrounded by hostile, repressive regimes that represent the antithesis of the shared values that define us as Canadians, i.e. equality, openess, tolerence, respect, rule of law. Any thinking Canadian who is not corrupted by moral relativism must behorrified and disgusted by the parade of gun-wielding savages crying out for Jewish blood in the PA terrortories. These creatures are our enemies, they are the very antithesis of everything which we as a society hold dear.

There are many more reasons why I and other Canadians support Israel and earnestly desire our country to stand shoulder to shoulder with this beleagured nation.

Posted by: Paul Greif - Calgary, AB | 2006-01-30 12:44:30 AM

So, you'd agree then that any other people who identified themselves with soe name, and who could claim all of your points above for themselves, would also merit our support for their own homeland?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-01-30 12:48:21 AM

Israelis are surrounded by babarism...They will NEVER get peace in that region. The only solution once and for all is for a UN/US cooperation to evacuate all jews out of Israel and relocate them in civilized countries that would offer them refuge.

Islam/Hamas is like the drug cartels, they will only grow bigger and more powerful until you cut their business at their root: By ending prohibition.
In this case, putting these bastards out of business: Move the source of their existance out of reach. Then cut all direct monetary aid to them...Like Paul Martin said: "Let them fend for themselves"
Instead of having their testosterone pumped up with an AK-47, let them find jobs for substannance instead.
Who feeds these religious ignorant fouls anyway?

Posted by: metalguru | 2006-01-30 6:17:39 AM

"The only solution once and for all is for a UN/US cooperation to evacuate all jews out of Israel and relocate them in civilized countries that would offer them refuge."

That's ridiculous. The above statement is entirely cowardly and immoral. Not what I'd expect from a fellow Marc Bolan fan.

The only solution once and for all is to assist Israel in killing or removing all terror gangs and their supporters from the territories.

Gaza and the West Bank should be annexed.

Those Arabs who are civilised and not hostile to Israel should be allowed to remain as citizens of an enlarged (but still relatively tiny) Israel. If innumerable opinion polls are to be believed, these would constitute a small minority.

The "civilised countries" should exert pressure on the twenty-two Arab nations to do what that they should have done fifty-eight years ago, and that is to absorb the remainder of their displaced Arab brethren.

None of this will happen in the near term, if at all. But with the Islamic world becoming more radicalised and inflamed against the world's only Jewish state, it is obvious that the siuation is going to get much worse.

Israel will have to take some drastic measures if it is to survive.

Posted by: Paul Greif | 2006-01-30 4:33:53 PM

"The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, in a rare judgment of U.S. programing airing on Canadian airwaves, said Friday that the veteran U.S. broadcaster had uttered abusive comments that breached Specialty Services Regulations introduced in 1990.

"The commission is of the view that comments made during the November 12, 2004, broadcast of 'Imus in the Morning' that Palestinian people are 'brainwashed,' 'stupid to begin with' and 'stinking animals' and that a bomb should be dropped on them and that they should be 'killed right now' were clearly disparaging, insulting and abusive."

Yes, it is obvious to any sentient that they are "brainwashed", "stupid" and that the majority are "stinking animals'. Whenever I see one of those obscene Hamas rallies on TV I also wish that the Israelis would kill as many of those Hamas, Fatah and other Islamist cockroaches as they can.

But I certainly do not advocate indiscriminately killing every last "Palestinian".

I did not see the Imus clip (whoever he is), but I suspect that he was refering strictly to the terror gangs and their supporters when he said that they should be "killed right now".

As I have seen images of the grizzly handiwork of these savages, I agree with Imus 100%.


I am glad to know that there is someone in the media willing to tell it like it is.

Canada needs to abolish the anachronistic CRTC.


Posted by: Paul Greif | 2006-01-30 5:04:37 PM

From MEMRI: Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al Presents Hamas Plan on Al-Jazeera TV: "We are Committed to... the Resistance and Adhere to its Weapons... As for Recognizing [Israel] and Amending Our Charter - Hamas is Not the Kind of Movement That Succumbs to Pressure... We Will Not Recognize it, No Matter how Much Time Passes... We Believe in Acting According to Stages..."

Ian Scott, it is a crime against the future to lie about the past. That you admit you have no clue yet insist your opinion is as valid as those who do is, I guess, what makes Westerners appear so absurd, and Canadians it seems, lead the way.

The Jews have never given up their claim to the land they were expelled from, by an invading force. There have always been Jews there, known as Palestinians after the Romans renamed Israel in an effort to create the exact confusion you have over the Jewish nation, and no other national entity or marauding gang have ever claimed Jerusalem as their capital, except the Jews and in terms of world history (which you seem joyfully ignorant of) only a blink ago did the ?alestinians make such an outlandish, ahistorical, antisemitic claim.

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-30 5:12:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.