First time ever I hear about MPAC-UK.
False quotes and claims should never be used, granted. Even when you're making a true point, you must use real facts, not concoctions.
However, it's not the same when a false quote is used as the centerpiece of an argument than when it's merely used to illustrate it. The myth MPAC seeks to refute is the claim "Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country," which was made by a Zionist and has been fervently adopted for propaganda purposes by Zionists up to this day, with whole books (e.g. Joan Peter's "From time immemorial") devoted to "prove it".
The false Ben Gurion quotes are not even related to the myth. If anything, they would prove that Ben Gurion didn't believe it, for he was well aware of the problem posed by the existing Arab population.
'The myth MPAC seeks to refute is the claim "Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country," which was made by a Zionist and has been fervently adopted for propaganda purposes by Zionists up to this day, with whole books (e.g. Joan Peter's "From time immemorial") devoted to "prove it".
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 06.13.08 - 10:42 am | #'
Can someone find a pre-1967 map that indicates where the independent Arab Muslim State of Palestine is indicated? I can't seem to find one, strangely enough. Nor can I find one from post-1967, either. Hmmmmmmm.
Speaking of false quotes, can someone tell me where Jerusalem is found in the Koran? Maybe someone can explain to me about the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe that lived in Medina in Muhammad's day?
which was made by a Zionist
If you mean Israel Zangwill, see the following:
http://fatmanonakeyboard.blogspo...ut-
context.html
I don't know if Ryley is correct about Zangwill's exact meaning, but I have observed myself that the slogan mainly lives on as the favorite straw-man of anti-Zionists.
it's not the same when a false quote is used as the centerpiece of an argument than when it's merely used to illustrate it.
You aren't quite following their paranoid little thought process. The "land without a people business" is presented not just as a misguided slogan from history, but as a "Zionist lie," a plot to deceive non-Zionists. The fake Ben-Gurion quotes are what the evil Zionists supposedly really thought. The whole series is a travesty. Straw man after straw man is presented as a yet another "Zionst lie" and the purported corrections include not only those fake quotes but other urban legends and historical distortions. Part 4 presents a new variation of the old and false chestnut that Israel has the fourth largest (MPAC: "4th most powerful") military in the world. After they finish Part 5, I may do another post.
the slogan mainly lives on as the favorite straw-man of anti-Zionists
I responded to that in advance. It's not a straw man; on the contrary, check the Zionist "Myth & Facts" lists and you'll see that the claim that the 1948 Palestinians were recent immigrants is very frequently made. Also, whole books have been devoted to confirming the slogan. A good example is Joan Peters' "From time immemorial."
The "land without a people business" is presented not just as a misguided slogan from history, but as a "Zionist lie," a plot to deceive non-Zionists.
Which, of course, it is, although it has been more effective to deceive the Jews themselves.
You aren't quite following their paranoid little thought process.
They're utterly one-sided, mix facts and tell half-truths -- which makes me remember a zillion Zionist sites where it is claimed that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan.
Self-victimizing Jews charging others with paranoia is a very funny thing to read.
"Self-victimizing Jews charging others with paranoia is a very funny thing to read.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 06.14.08 - 10:55 am | #"
Care to explain this phrase, Ibrahim Al-Kalbi? Why don't you explain how someone can be a 'self-victimizing Jew'? Maybe you're just pissed that Jews don't allow themselves to be victimized by Argentine Anti-Semite Atheists? Or their bloodthirsty Phakestinian friends?
If you can't do the above, care to answer any of my questions I raised earlier, or are you just frustrated with yourself, now?
check the Zionist "Myth & Facts" lists and you'll see that the claim that the 1948 Palestinians were recent immigrants is very frequently made.
First let's dispose of the notion that Zionists commonly use the phrase "a land without a people" to assert that Palestine was utterly uninhabited at the end of the 19th century. Put the phrase "land without a people" in quotes and put into a Google search window. On the first page of results you'll get the Wikipedia articles on Israel Zangwill, discussion sparked by a recent Diana Muir article (which you should read - http://www.meforum.org/article/1877), and a number of sites which reproach Zionism with using the phrase. As far as I can tell, that first page or results contains no sites in which Zionists assert that the slogan accurately describes the land as totally empty. This may exist somewhere--you can find almost anything on the internet--but "land without a people" mainly functions as an anti-Zionist talking point in these times.
which makes me remember a zillion Zionist sites where it is claimed that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan
Wikipedia still states this. You tried to prove it wasn't true by a close reading of the language of the law in question. I think the results of that attempt were inconclusive at best. Can you point to any Jewish citizens of Jordan?
Also, whole books have been devoted to confirming the slogan. A good example is Joan Peters' "From time immemorial."
Now to the subject of Joan Peters: Her book is quite flawed, but her thesis is more complex than you suggest here. See Daniel Pipes' discussion of the flaws and the thesis: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1110
If you want to see a discussion along similar lines from someone who, unlike Peters, has to deal with peer-review, see the following:
http://www.meforum.org/article/522
Why don't you explain how someone can be a 'self-victimizing Jew'?
A self-victimizing person is a person who's not a victim, but makes himself out to be one. Unfortunately, that's the case with most Jews these days, except for those on the left of the political spectrum.
You tried to prove it wasn't true by a close reading of the language of the law in question. I think the results of that attempt were inconclusive at best.
I'm a bit angry, Yaacov. Honest debate requires we acknowledge properly made points.
Let's imagine a symmetrical situation.
Let's auppose I claim that an Israeli law blocks Canadian citizens of Palestinian descent from becoming Israeli residents if they marry an Israeli Arab.
You would, rightly, retort that the Israeli law only applies to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and you would quote tha law verbatim to prove your point.
What would you say if I then claimed that your "close reading" of the law is inconclusive?
Face it, Yaacov: the Jordanian law does not say that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan. It's a lie. One more Zionist lie.
Wikipedia still states this.
This is what Wikipedia says:
However, a US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report 2006 on Jordan states that: "The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however there are reportedly no Jordanian citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country."
My emphasis.
I take it that you don't claim to know better than the US Department of State?
"A self-victimizing person is a person who's not a victim, but makes himself out to be one. Unfortunately, that's the case with most Jews these days, except for those on the left of the political spectrum.
Ibrahim Ibn Kalbi | Homepage | 06.15.08 - 11:57 am | #"
What a joke! You'd rather have us believe that 1.2 billion Muslims are "victims" of Jews, Copts, Berbers, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Africans, Hindus, Palestinian Christians, etc. defending themselves? I agree, the existence of 14 million Jews certainly does make 1.2 Billion Muslims victims...of the awareness of Muslim inadequacies to defeat them, that is. Be prepared to be "victimized", Ibrahim Ibn-Kalbi, until the day of your destruction. Be prepared to be frustrated to the end of your days...especially by your inability to answer my questions or meet my requests!
Too bad; you could've proved your humanity and we were SO CLOSE to Peace...but I guess you and yours don't want Peace and you surely do not want to acknowledge your shared humanity with Jews, do you?
I'm a bit angry, Yaacov. Honest debate requires we acknowledge properly made points.
I'm Yitzchak, not Yaacov. If you can dig up he original exchange between us, you'll see that I wasn't convinced you were right when you originally made the point and I gave my reasons.
I take it that you don't claim to know better than the US Department of State?
They don't seem to make a definitive statement on the issue of legal impediments to citizenship. It could be that there has been no occasion in recent years for anyone to actually test the practical interpretation of the law. You are reading a lot into the phrasing you bolded.
Tell me, Ibrahim Al-Kalbi, what does this have to do with Phakestine?
***Lahore (AsiaNews) - Last May 25, a group of three Muslims allegedly raped a girl with psychological problems in Lahore. At first the family, who are Christian, did not want to file charges because of the threats and pressure against them; later, thanks in part to support received from two Christian lawyers, they presented themselves to the authorities, and the three suspects were arrested.***
Was this because these "youths" were incensed over fake atrocities and child-killing "work-accidents" in Hamas-controlled areas?
If you can dig up he original exchange between us, you'll see that I wasn't convinced you were right when you originally made the point and I gave my reasons.
But your reasons were as follows:
"I think the clause about residents of Mandate Palestine is the clause in which the question of whether a Jew qualifies is likely to come up and we are told that they don't. For the rest of the clauses they did not bother to write "and needless to say, no Jews," but it's understood. "
In rational debate, you don't claim that something "is understood." You have to prove what you're claiming.
In this case, you acknowledge that the Jordanian law does not explicitly bar all Jews from acquiring Jordanian citizenship. The claim that it does is a hoax, canard, urban myth, or whatever you like to call it (I call it a Zionist lie).
If you think otherwise, we need something stronger than your hunches and "understandings."
Sorry for misnaming you -- too many Hebrew names beginning with Y.
"Sorry for misnaming you -- too many Hebrew names beginning with Y.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 06.15.08 - 8:04 pm | #"
You're so right, Ibrahim, like Yusuf!
As in, "Avraham Ben-Yosef"...
In rational debate, you don't claim that something "is understood." You have to prove what you're claiming.
We are dealing with a text that could have been clearer. After explicitly mentioning Judaism as a disqualifier for someone in the Palestinian nationality clause, it doesn't bring up the whole subject again. You interpret that as meaning that Jews are allowed otherwise because you want to see Jordan as unjustly accused of intolerance, but if so, why are they excluding Jews as a category under any circumstances?
We are dealing with a text that could have been clearer.
If the text is not clear, you can't draw any clear-cut conclusions. And when you can't draw conclusions, drawing one is equivalent to lying.
You interpret that as meaning that Jews are allowed otherwise because you want to see Jordan as unjustly accused of intolerance.
No. I interpret that as meaning that Jews are allowed otherwise because the clause in question very clearly and very specifically speaks about a close set of people -- those inhabitting Jordan between 1948 and 1954 -- and there's no reason whatsoever to think that the criteria applied to those people are also valid for other people.
why are they excluding Jews as a category under any circumstances?
As I made it clear formerly, I don't approve of the restriction. That said, the Jews being excluded had been involved in a conflict. The restriction was similar to the denial of residency rights to an Israeli Arab's spouse born in Ramallah. Regrettable, but not irrational, and much less a display of hate.
On the first page of results you'll get the Wikipedia articles on Israel Zangwill, discussion sparked by a recent Diana Muir article (which you should read - http://www.meforum.org/article/1877), and a number of sites which reproach Zionism with using the phrase.
Muir, an obscure scholar specializing in environmental history, has recently discovered the benefits that can be reaped from the dissemination of Hasbara. She'll get invited to speak for a fee, will get free tickets to go to Israel with her Jewish husband, etc. Yes, that's ad hominem, but we all feel from time to time the impulse to expose umholy motives.
Her whole article addresses the technicality that the phrase itself ("a land without a people for a people without a land") has not been widely used by Zionists. That may be true, but what is undeniable is that there have been exhaustive Zionist attempts to prove that Palestine was very thinly populated, and that its inhabitants didn't cultivate the land (with the subtext that they didn't deserve it), in articles with titles as eloquent as Palestine, a land virtually laid waste with little population.
I.e., the semantical content of the Zangwill quote has been adopted and peddled by Zionists, even if they haven't repeated the phrase itself. How many times have we seen Zionists quote Twain's infamous line: "... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse... a desolation... we never saw a human being on the whole route... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country"? Will you deny that Zionists have quoted that over and over again a zillion times?
Muir's revisionism will not erase a very long tradition of Zionist reliance on such distorted views of what Palestine looked like by the turn of the 20th century.
If the text is not clear, you can't draw any clear-cut conclusions. And when you can't draw conclusions, drawing one is equivalent to lying.
I said it could have been clearer. I didn't say it was impervious to interpretation. It could have said "otherwise Jews are permitted," but it didn't. I have been using expressions such as "I think." You are the one claiming certainty in your interpretation, to the point that you think it authorizes you to label the interpretation of Dershowitz et al. as
a "canard."
That said, the Jews being excluded had been involved in a conflict. The restriction was similar to the denial of residency rights to an Israeli Arab's spouse born in Ramallah.
That's their motivation? You're the one presenting his speculations as established facts.
How many times have we seen Zionists quote Twain's infamous line
Benny Morris uses a similar Twain quote as the epigraph for his chapter "Palestine on the Eve," Chapter 1 of Righteous Victims. He goes on to comment that Twain "may have been indulging in hyperbole, but then neither was Palestine in the mid-nineteenth century, the 'land of milk and honey' promised in the Bible."
Tell me, Ibrahim Al-Kalbi, what does this have to do with Phakestine?
***Lahore (AsiaNews) - Last May 25, a group of three Muslims allegedly raped a girl with psychological problems in Lahore.
Yes, but what about the two Jewish teens who entered an Arab village, savagely beat two Arab boys, and then claimed to have been abducted by the Arabs and forced into the village? See:
In related news, the Kfar Saba Magistrate's Court extended the remand by three days on Thursday of two settler teens accused of assaulting Palestinians and damaging property.
The boys, aged 15 and 16, entered Ein Abus near Nablus on Wednesday night, damaged locks, attempted to steal property, and assaulted two Palestinians, causing them grievous bodily harm, police said.
Sources in the IDF Central Command said that the two - from Yitzhar and Elon Moreh - entered the village in the middle of the night in a car filled with tires that they planned to use as fuel to burn down stores and homes.
"This is a very serious offense - two people are in hospital because they were assaulted by the youths," a police spokesman said. "They are not cooperating with the police. We have extended their custody until Sunday."
The two boys were apprehended by local Palestinians who began to beat them. The Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria received a call from Palestinian residents, and the army stormed the area, saving the pair from a possible lynch.
The teens then told the IDF that they had been abducted and forced into the village. They also claimed that a friend was also abducted and was missing.
Large police and military forces were deployed and began searching for the duo's friend. After two hours, adults from Yitzhar succeeded in convincing the youths to confess that they had made up the story.
A police officer said the boys entered the village in a car with Israeli license plates, and then crashed into a pole as they attempted to escape. "The youths claimed they had been the victim of a lynch - they mobilized half of the country with their claim," the officer added.
It seems after living so long among the Arabs they've beginning to learn taqqiya.
The question is: is Israel worth it? A country where Jews engage in mind-boggling savagery? They don't do these things in the Diaspora...
BTW, you owe me 99 examples of Muslim bestiality. And -- don't continue to dare me. For each case of Muslim wrongdoing you cite, all I have to do is type in "settlers" in the Jerusalem Post search box to find a fresh and embarrassing instance of Jews behaving bad.
Hate in the Middle East is a two-way street.
It could have said "otherwise Jews are permitted,"
It could, but it wasn't necessary, just as it isn't necessary that the current Israeli residency laws say "Chilean Palestinians who marry Israelis are allowed to apply for residency."
You haven't responded to my argument: the "Jewish" clause in the Jordanian law applies to a closed set of people. What makes you think it may be extended to other people?
That's their motivation? You're the one presenting his speculations as established facts.
I didn't speak about motivations. I just mentioned an objective fact: there had been a conflict, and the Jews who were denied citizenship had been involved in that conflict. It would be disingenuous and misleading to omit this fact from any analysis of the law.
He goes on to comment that Twain "may have been indulging in hyperbole, but then neither was Palestine in the mid-nineteenth century, the 'land of milk and honey' promised in the Bible."
But we're discussing whether the Zionists claim that Palestine was a barren and uninhabitted land. We're not discussing whether the claim is true.
All the evidence provided, both by you and me, confirms that, in fact, the Zionists have gone to great lengths to "prove" that the Arab population of Palestine was negligible when the Jewish immigrants began to pour in.
"BTW, you owe me 99 examples of Muslim bestiality. And -- don't continue to dare me. For each case of Muslim wrongdoing you cite, all I have to do is type in "settlers" in the Jerusalem Post search box to find a fresh and embarrassing instance of Jews behaving bad."
No, not really, Ibrahim Al-Kalbi, as I have my disavowal of such supposed activity very much on record, while you have failed to disavow, disagree, or condemn neither words nor actions on your side. (And yes, it is YOUR side, your taqquiya regarding your purported Argentinian citzenship or Atheistic belief-system notwithstanding) Will you finally do so now? Will you now fulfill my requests stated earlier? I especially wish to see the public statement of your disavowal of words and actions hateful, harmful, and fatal to Jews on your blogsite ASAP.
Come on already, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef, affirm your common humanity with Jews, drop the Taqquiya that clearly eats at your soul, and embrace PEACE!
"Hate in the Middle East is a two-way street.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 06.16.08 - 4:28 pm | #"
Get back to me when Muslims are adult enough to block up their end of that street, won't you?
We're not discussing whether the claim is true.
If you say so.
What makes you think it may be extended to other people?
It seems like an obvious possibility if Jewishness is mentioned as a disqualifying factor at all. It could be limited to that clause, as you argue, or as I said before, that could merely be where the subject comes up.
Y...itzchak, it looks like you're not aware of how positive law works.
In positivie law, what is not written does not exist. What is expressly provided for a closed set of people does not automatically extend to other people.
A Jew can apply for Jordanian nationality under article 12 ("Any person other than a Jordanian who is not incapable by law may apply to the Council of Ministers for grant of a certificate of Jordanian naturalization if: (1)He has been regularly resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for a period of four years preceding the date of his application; (2)He intends to reside in the Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan"; no restriction on Jews).
Unless you don't know the meaning of the word "any," I don't see how you can find it "obvious" that he can't.
In positivie law, what is not written does not exist.
That at least introduces something new into the discussion. Does "positive law" govern every legal code in the world?
Unless you don't know the meaning of the word "any"
"Any person" in practice could mean "any person within reason." I don't think the Jordanians were trying to open citizenship up to lesbian Muslim apostates who plan to kill King Hussein.
Does "positive law" govern every legal code in the world?
Straw man. It governs Jordanian nationality, which is what matters here.
The Jordan law does not explicitly say that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan. That leaves you with interpretation: you speculate that, because Palestinian Mandate Jews are automatically denied citizenship, the disquilifying factor is their Jewishness (rather than their being involved in a conflict with Jordan), and it is therefore plausible that other Jewish apllicants would also be turned down just because they're Jewish.
Is the law subject to interpretation? Absolutely. You can make yours, I can make mine, king Abdullah can make his. But then, which interpretation is valid?
The answer is very obvious and straightforward: the valid interpretation is the one explicitly made by a Jordanian judge.
So you can make as many interpretations as you wish, but so long as they're not set forth in writing by a Jordanian judge they're not part of the Jordanian legal system.
Therefore, you can't claim that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan. That's just one of many possible interpretations of a Jordanian law --and a contorted one, at that--, but it has never been upheld by a judge in Jordan.
Concede?
but it has never been upheld by a judge in Jordan.
How do you know?
Because it would have been reported by CAMERA, MEMRI, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and their ilk.
In any event I'm not the one claiming that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan. The ones who claim so have no explicit law to base their assertions on. As for interpretations of the existing law, the have as yet presented not a single ruling from a Jordanian judge to support their claims, but if you know of one, please point to it, by all means.
Who'd want to live in TransJordan, anyways? It's majority Phakestinian, and, as Ibrahim Ibn Yousef Al-Kalbi has admitted earlier, this association with these kinds of people over a long time has a destructive effect on a society. Look at Dearborn, Michigan, as another example of this.
Maybe someone should do a study as to this negative impact of this populace. It would certainly strenghten arguments for returning these people to their acncient homeland of Arabia...
As for interpretations of the existing law, the have as yet presented not a single ruling from a Jordanian judge to support their claims
You have reviewed everything written on this topic?
You have reviewed everything written on this topic?
Actually I haven't. I only followed your method:
Put the phrase "land without a people" in quotes and put into a Google search window.
So I typed in Jew "citizen of Jordan" and Jew "Jordanian citizen" and found many referenceswto the law we've been discussing, but none to any judge's ruling based on that law.
In any event, the burden of proof falls on the one making an assertion. All Zionist sources that we know of who claim that no Jew can be a citizen of Jordan cite the Jordanian Nationality Law, which does not state that.
So what's the big deal when the ignote MPAC-UK lies about Ben Gurion, if the well-known Alan Dershowitz lies about the Jordanian Nationality Act. A tu quoque argument? Maybe, but not an uncalled-for one, because when you cite an Arab lie your implicit assertion is that the Zionists don't lie similarly.
So what's the big deal when the ignote MPAC-UK lies about Ben Gurion, if the well-known Alan Dershowitz lies about the Jordanian Nationality Act.
You have been arguing that it only discriminates against Jews in one set of circumstances, but those are probably the circumstances in which the question would come up to begin with. I can say that without closing off the possibility that you are technically correct about the rest of the law. So I think that, at best, we have a situation in which error requires correction. Some errors become common errors. In the case of MPAC-UK I don't see any evidence that they ever think about where their information comes up and it seems that they will use anything which comes to hand. See this, for instance, from today:
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/vi.../view/4726/102/
Their source is the "American Free Press" site and MPAC provides a link. The main page of the site is selling a book which promotes Willis Carto. Check out the site yourself. Look at what the link "Revisionist History" on the left side-bar points to. And the American Free Press guys are awfully obsessed with Bilderbergers, aren't they?
I'm not exactly a fan of MPAC-UK. They're crude, unsophisticated and incredibly stupid fellows. I won't defend each and every of their statements.
But one question I ask myself is why would an intelligent blogger -- and you do seem to have an above-average intelligence -- engage in the easy task of trouncing mentally disabled people, instead of taking on more stimulating challenges -- for instance, responding to WESTERN people making the case for Arabs and Muslims. A good example is Lawrence of Cyberia.
why would an intelligent blogger . . . engage in the easy task of trouncing mentally disabled people, instead of taking on more stimulating challenges
I am trying to cover MPAC-UK as a phenomenon. When the BBC wanted a spokesman for Muslims who oppose the program of Hizb Ut-Tahrir, MPAC-UK provided one. The fact that their animus against Israel leads them into frequent stupidity is interesting and revealing, I think. And I also think I take on "more stimulating challenges." Juan Cole, Robert Fisk, Joseph Massad, and New York Times authors come to mind.
I believe the problem with MPAC-UK, as with all Arab and Muslim institutions, is that they fail to understand that they have to hire Western writers to make their case before the West.
Only one Arab leader had that wisdom -- king Abdullah, back in 1948. He had a piece penned for him under the title As the Arabs see the Jews, which was a magnificent display of sound argumentation without the faintest hint of fanaticism.
Unfortunately, today's Arab and Muslim leaders think they can do the trick by themselves. Silly, silly, silly.
It must be said, though, that they've got prejudice and double standards against them. For some reason, the proposal to kill innocents sounds less horrible when put forward by a Jew than by an Arab.
The author of "As the Arabs see the Jews" writes as follows:
"With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours."
Garbage.
The author of "As the Arabs see the Jews" writes as follows:
"With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours."
Garbage.
Now you can understand what I feel when I read "Barak offered 97% at Camp David."
"Now you can understand what I feel when I read "Barak offered 97% at Camp David."
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 06.23.08 - 3:21 pm | #"
Face it, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi, it's so sad you have to go back to 1948 to find something said by Muslim Arabs that is remotely friendly to Jews. You really have a penchant of sticking with some teensy, weensy item of barely factual content, much to the detriment of the Truth in front of you. Don't you have anything more current? Like, perhaps, the links I provided that say what your side really truly thinks of Jews? Please recall that you've never, ever said you disagreed with those views, nor have you disavowed the actions incited by these words. Will you now do so?
BTW Your boys broke the Truce; will you now condemn their cowardly and purposeful attacks on innocent Israeli children?
BTW Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-kalbi, I'd settle now for the following statement in English, and not in Arabic or Spanish, on this blog:
"I believe that Jews have the right to live in their ancient homeland of Israel and Judea, and that all Arabs have the Right of Return to their ancient homeland of Arabia."
Just think, Ibrahim, we could have PEACE right now. I'll even give up the historic Jewish areas of Mecca and Medina, if you like...
What will you and your side give up for PEACE, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi? Do you want PEACE?
According to the UN, Israel has violated the truce seven times.
If you really want peace, you won't support disproportionate responses.
" According to the UN, Israel has violated the truce seven times.
Ibrahim al-kalbi 06.28.08 - 11:14 am"
Yeah, unnamed 'UN sources' are sooo trustworthy. I am not surprised you've pulled this laugher as substantive proof, considering the UN hosts events as the Durban Anti-Racism conferences, only the biggest gathering of Anti-Jew folks and Argentine Atheists on the planet! The UN also focuses exclusively on Israel and the faux cause of the Phakestinians, to the detriment of Tibetans, Darfurians, Egyptian Copts, North African Berbers, etc.
Tell you what, piglet, if you and yours don't want 'disproportionate responses', tell them not to fire missiles and rockets at Jewish children. Your Phakestinian friends should return to their ancient homeland of Arabia already, if they know what's best for them...and if they don't like the return-fire...what a bunch of whiners!
Phakestinians and their zombie-like supporters don't want PEACE, and thus they shall never have it. Why else would they continue to attack and break truces since at least 1929 CE?
I fervently wish them and their sycophants the Peace of the Grave...
MPAC-UK could have also written that one of the big lies of Zionism is that the modern Jews have any right in Israel at all. Talmudic Jews reject the Second Covenant so have no spiritual claim to the Holyland. The Ashkenazim have no biological claim to be descended from the Jews of Judea/Canaan. The Askenazim are not Semites and their presence on Semitic land is blaspemous. They are, as the Messiah said, the Synagogue of Satan.
MPAC-UK could have also written
You're right. Your kind of blather goes well with fake Ben Gurion quotes. I don't know about any "Second Covenant"--I can't find it anywhere in the Only Testament. There is zero evidence that Ashkenazim have a less "Semitic" lineage than Sephardic Jews. The vast majority of Israelis were born in Israel. Nobody's going to tell them they don't have a right to live in their native land so you better get used to it. Get a life and get a library card.
The vast majority of muslims in Europe were born here. Does that make these wannabe terrorists Europeans and Europe their homeland? I don't think so.
The Jews of the Caucasus should be returned to their true homeland and all muslims returned to Asia/North Africa.
As the saying goes 'if a cat gives birth in a stable, is its offspring a foal or a kitten?' The Ashkenazim will never be natives of Palestine.
The Ashkenazim should be proud to have no genetic connection with the indigenous population of Palestine who are so obviously mentally retarded that they believe the whole Islum nonsense.
Why not leave the festering middle east to the rodents of Gaza and return to the oil-rich land of their ancestors?
The Ashkenazim should be proud to have no genetic connection
Where do you get this claim from? Arthur Koestler? How many Israelis are pure Ahskenazi these days? And "native" means born in a certain place.
Mr teddy Bear (your obvious need to have use a name like that really does say a lot about you).
Do you even think about the things you post?
FOr all your outrage over innocent yid children. How many exactly have been killed? Can you please tell me?
And how many have your brave yid soldiers slaughtered in cold blood never mind maimed?
"George1983 | 03.25.09 - 8:50 pm | #"
Poor Georgie-Porgie, who lives in the past....he obviously has read too much of JewWatch.com and the Koran to know Truth. 'Sokay, Georgie, enjoy your impotent and flaccid outrage for the rest of your life, because Israel will be here long, long after you graduate from high-school and you leave Mommie's basement. But, since you feel so strongly about "Yids", and Hamas uses children for fighting, will you be going to fight "in the front-lines" against the IDF? Or are you just tough on the Internet?
ROFL @ Georgie!
Commenting by HaloScan
