No “metaphor� is needed. The Histroy, as related by a decent Muslim, tells it all.

Haj Amin Al Huseini, the uncle of Yassir Arafat, the role model for Saddam, the instigator of murderous pogroms against Jews in Hebron in 1929 based on lies, the then Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler who urged him to exterminate the Jews. He also helped Hitler organize 2 Nazi battalions of Bosnian Muslims (thats why the Serbs justifiably hate them so much, btw).

No “metaphor” is needed. The Histroy, as told by a decent Muslim, tells it all.

Regarding our characters as they were and are, . . .

So, what will they be like in the future?

Don’t expect any improvement, especially not by rewarding them for their savage behavior.

additional info:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011781.php

the al dura lie, exposed and some

4 year old sings ode to murder/suicide

But at least they are grateful to the USA and the West for all they help they’ve given them, right?

Surely, these people deserve self-detona… uh, sorry, I mean self-extermi…, no, wait, don’t tell me, I’ll get it, . . . . . When will Condi? . . . . . When will YOU?

2. — I tried posting something a few days ago on just how evil these people were, but it seems to have gotten lost. Perhaps it was too much information? Well, I’ll try to pull my punches a bit this time, hopefully without loosing the impact.

Come on Shaun. Get to know the “Palestinians” as they would prefer you didn’t. It is NOT a pretty picture.

And don’t forget 9/11 (which they celebrated), and that by pioneering airplane hijacking and suicide bombing as terror tactics, they helped make it possible.

1. — They are pretending to want a state in order to gain territory to continue their war, which they won’t stop until Israel is eliminated. It is merely a tactical maneuver. They say so themselves.

“Arafat: No. In 1974, at the Palestinian National Council meeting in Cairo, we passed the decision to establish national Palestinian rule over any part of the land of Palestine which is liberated.

[Note: The decision referred to by Arafat was adopted by the Palestinian National Council at its 12th meeting on June 8, 1974. The decision, consisting of a ten point program, is known as the "Phased Plan" for Israel's destruction. It contains two key elements: first, to create a Palestinian state on any territory vacated by Israel (paragraph 2 of the decision); and second, to use that state as a base for mobilizing a general Arab assault on Israel (paragraph 8 of the decision).]“

“Condi is bucking the tide and is willing to piss off the Jerusalem government in trying to broker the creation of a viable Palestinian state, which is a requisite if the conflict between Israel and Palestine is ever going to be settled.” — Shaun Mullen

Sorry, Shaun, but Condi is being “played” by the Arabs masquarading as “Palestinians.” There is no such people, and there never has been.

They mock her to her face, and she doesn’t have a clue.
(I call that photo “two demons and a piano player, btw”)

When the league of natios decided to reneqe on giving us of “palestine,” as promised under binding international treaty, the British mandate was broken up and the Arabs got Jordan. We Jews were supposed to get the rest, but then the UN decided that would also be too much, and tried to further reduce us to an easily defeatable shoebox. But, thank G-d, the Arabs were thwarted in their numersous attempts to destroy us.

> So now criticizing the Israeli government (or applauding
> the Bush administration for criticizing the Israeli government)
> earns one of the distinction of being compared to people
> who supported Hitler. [...]

> Yet, even daring to criticize the Israeli government draws
> comparisons to the Nazis or Hilter accusations of anti-
> semitism.

Was I really expecting too much of people here when using the Munich metaphor?

I shouldn’t have been.

*sigh*

> My point is not to attack Israel,

You didn’t.

> but not to give them a pass for
> everything they do.

You shouldn’t, and I realize you don’t.

> Many in Israel are critical of their own
> country’s policies towards Palestine-
> (the way we are here when we don’t like
> what Bush does) does that make them
> antisemitic?

No. Don’t fall into the ignorance-trap of assuming that referring to the Nazis in the context of the Munich accord in 1938 is an accusation of anti-Semitism. It helps to know history! Israel, a dwarf country under attack, continues to suffer far excess of its due share of criticism and in fact often is attacked by the Left for being better — better behaved, more advanced, more modern, much more free — than its neighbors that are also its evil enemies. The lefties would claim “those Czechs” are the ones being stubborn, unreasonable, unwilling to be more accomodating…again, it helps to know the history. (In the case of others, not you, on this thread it also involves other peoples’ behavioral or even mental shortcomings.)

> This ignores the fact that taking enough territory
> laid out in such a way as to make a viable Palestinian
> state an impossibility does absolutely nothing to help
> create a secure Israel with no fears of terrorist attack.

Actually, that’s not so. However, the issue of viability is sound. So are things that are hot buttons to the Israelis such as whether or not any new neighboring state can have an army. Of course it can if it is a real, separate, soverign state.

I agree ruling out reasonable debate is no way to approach an attempt to find a regional solution, as difficult as that may be. Its sort of shocking to see how many people are this thin-skinned about even minor criticisms directed at Israel. Over blown rhetoric is the refuge of the desperate. If you don’t believe me, look at the last election.

So now criticizing the Israeli government (or applauding the Bush administration for criticizing the Israeli government) earns one of the distinction of being compared to people who supported Hitler.

This is getting SO old. I can’t think of any other country in the world which, when criticized, evoke so much anger. People in this country have vilified the French and questioned their alterior motives for daring to oppose the Iraq War, called France, Germany, and Belgium “Old Europe” for refusing to walk in lockstep with our government, and branded everyone in the world who opposes our foreign policy as a bunch of “America-haters.” This type of hatred is not only tolerated here in the United States–whole prime time news segments on cable news networks have been dedicated to spewing hatred towards France and members of the “Axis of Weasels.”

Yet, even daring to criticize the Israeli government draws comparisons to the Nazis or Hilter accusations of anti-semitism.

This is beneath the standards of rational debate that I’ve come to expect from TMV.

You know, I don’t agree with people who are adamantly anti-illegal immigration who want to build a wall across the southern border and deport people back to Mexico and Central America. But I don’t go calling those people racists or bigots or comparing them to earlier American politicians who had a–shall we say–less than favorable attitude toward Hispanic people. Sure, there are some anti-Hispanic bigots in this country, but they represent a small proportion of the population, and I certainly don’t use them to tar the entire group of people who complain about illegal immigration.

People have good reason to be concerned about Israel’s long term survival, to be worried of the resident lunatics in the area (i.e. Ahmadinejad), and to be distrustful of the Palestinian government. But that’s no reason to be intolerant of any criticism of the Israeli government (which does not represent the view of all Israelis any more than the American government represents the views of all Americans).

- nicrivera

The main problem is that both sides are factionalized. Israel still has right-wing zionists who are slowly absorbing former Palestinian territory. The Palestinians are even worse with faction that actually fight eachother. Neither side has a leader with the stature to unite the factions and negotiate a peace that one side or the other won’t torpedo. Meanwhile, Israel’s neighbors purposely and cynically keep Palestinians as refuges and use them as pawns against Israel while supporting terrorist attacks against it.

And so there’s not much hope for peace at this point. Calls for the US to “pressure” Israel to make peace or make concessions are meaningless – the US can’t force a deal. Bill Clinton tried and came close, but Arafat backed out at the last minute – probably because he realized that he wouldn’t be able to sell it to Hamas supporters.

Many in Israel are critical of their own country’s policies towards Palestine-(the way we are here when we don’t like what Bush does) does that make them antisemitic?

Hamas has chosen to become part of the internal Palestinian process, not any international process that might lead to peace with Israel. They are two very different things. Your arguments are just as one-sided as you accuse your opponents of being.

This ignores the fact that taking enough territory laid out in such a way as to make a viable Palestinian state an impossibility does absolutely nothing to help create a secure Israel with no fears of terrorist attack.

[out of order]

> DLS- If you’re thinking of calling me a Nazi-
> think again. I have a relative that lived in a
> hole in Poland hiding from the Nazis, am
> half-Jewish and married into a Jewish family.

Too many people on the Left attack Israel, for predictable and sickening reasons. It mirrors the attitude many had toward the Czechs when they sought to pacify Hitler, though in fact the modern Left is actually more vicious toward Israel than the Nazis were toward the Czechs (as opposed to eastern Europeans and Jews). You strike me as someone more intelligent and mature than others on this site, and can understand this. It is my guess that I am correct and you are and you can.

> Israel is surrounded by enemies and is extremely
> insecure with the Iranians helping Hezbollah and
> Hamas.

As they should be, as well as seeing Syria improve its armament, not to mention Iran, and what the Saudis might do next, and what if Egypt falls to extremists, and so on.

> But they also continue to build new settlements deep into Palestinian territory.

Not all that territory may be considered not Israel’s. There is no legal requirement for Israel to evacuate all the Territories. The drafters of UN 242 have even said so, though they did likely envision Israel evacuating some or much of the Territories. Given the history of one-way concessions by Israel and almost always one-way aggression directed against Israel, the history of dishonesty and deceit by the other side, and other misconduct by the other side, Israel hardly must make any more concessions (though it continues to do this).

Israel’s construction of the Wall obviously introduces the risk, being an accomplished fact, of setting the boundaries with less territory than makes sense with respect to military and existential security. Israel is risking much by conceding so much.

> While the media focusses on the fact that
> they ceded back Gaza,

(which the other side promptly destroyed and made into a terrorist hellhole)

> there is still this dirty little secret.

Settlement expansion? Construction of the Wall? They aren’t secrets.

> Neither side has lived up to past agreements

It’s nearly 100% Arab violations and 100% Israeli concessions! The two parties have never been morally equivalent. We see this same implication, which is the opposite of the truth, in media references to “the cycle of violence,” that at best, Israel, if not the villain, is as bad as the other side.

> Palestine’s strengths– just like the IRA
> they never give up, have most of the world’s
> opinion

Largely of the uninformed or of those with dark motives, aided by a critical media…

> on their side and are surrounded by allies.

Allied in hatred (against “al-adu,” *** THE *** enemy), when not attacking and killing each other (“adu,” an enemy) instead.

> [Lasting peace:] It may be too much to hope for.

Most Arabs want Israel destroyed and removed. Iran’s government does, too.

1967 boundaries, “right of return” are just turns of the ratchet, incremental destruction (through weakening) and removal (reclamation of disputed territory).

DLS- If you’re thinking of calling me a Nazi-think again. I have a relative that lived in a hole in Poland hiding from the Nazis, am half-Jewish and married into a Jewish family.

> Despite the maximalist demands of groups
> like Hamas, the Saudis are trying to create
> running room to fend off the likes of the Iranians.

True, they’re afraid of the Iranians, and that was probably on the agenda when Cheney made that quiet, tense, hurried trip to visit the Saudis a few weeks ago. The Saudi plan is largely a sop to Arabs and no sane person would advocate a return by Israel to its 1967 boundaries, or include “right of return” involving descendents as well as the real refugees (1940s, 1967). Israel is not obliged to relinquish all the Territories — this has never been any legal or moral requirement — and is also not obliged to admit not only real refugees, but descendents into the country. The worst that can be said about the Saudi plan is that it is typical — retreat to the 1967 boundaries and population manipulation as a phased rather than immediate-and-complete destruction of Israel. Any true moral position would demand no more Israeli concessions (which are “rewarded” by dishonesty and more crime directed against Israel), unconditional recognition of Israel (though not necessary its boundaries at the same time), and not only renouncement but an end to terrorism.

I don’t think this is going to happen given the mindset of Israel’s enemies. And any agreement that involves more Israeli concessions or withdrawals from the Territories will simply be seen as a “partial” victory (elimination of Israel), to be completed later.

What will be interesting will be the successor to Bush (probably Hillary Clinton) and if the new administration is more Arabist and less relatively friendly toward Israel due to modern liberalism rather than oil industry ties, or if the new administration becomes tougher on terrorism and terrorists.

Back in January, even the mighty Economist had pronounced Condoleezza Rice a falling star (sorry kids, Lexington’s leader article is now premium content). She had been beaten up in Senate hearings and David Petraeus’ effort to channel Chreighton Abrams and John Paul Vann was just getting underway. What was necessary for her to succeed were for several things to start happening at once.

First, the Iranians had to overreach. Six months ago, Ahmadhi-Nejad came to New York all full of piss and vinegar and in a very triumphalist mood. Now, not so much. The Iranian assumption that Hezbollah would roll to power in the Levant and that the Americans would flee Baghdad has come a cropper.

Secondly, Cheney has come a cropper, for reasons too numerous to mention here. Rice understood that she had to know how to wait. For all of her closeness to the President, Cheney represented far more powerful forces within the Republican Party and the Country that weren’t willing to deal with the Iranians. Now, it appears that instead of initiating a catastrophic war, Rice has outmaneuvered her own hawkish faction while at the same time convincing Russia and China that it would be in their own interest to force Iran to stand down. In return, she has signaled increased American flexibility both in the Iranian question and has signaled a return to a more of an “honest broker” position in the Palestinian issue.

Thirdly, the North Korean boil appears to have been lanced. Again, timing appears to have been critical. Knowing how and when to wait are the hallmarks of a damn good diplomat. Those of us who have admired Rice for some time recognized that she had what it took to be a producer. We appear to be on our way to finally putting that issue to bed.

That she was willing to stick with it despite the torrent of criticism from the Left (most of it mind-numbingly predictable) and the right (much of that hideously stupid, based on assertions of anti-Semitism) speaks well for her. She’s a damn good soldier as diplomats go, and this problem is the most intractable of all. I suspect she’ll follow Kissinger’s path of paralell track negotiating.

The Palestinians get to play their double game of talk/talk-fight/fight so long as the Izzies are squatters on their land. On the other hand, the reality of the Arab mind set is that the Isrealis don’t have a right to exist. Despite the maximalist demands of groups like Hamas, the Saudis are trying to create running room to fend off the likes of the Iranians. Hopefully, it should work for her. I for one wish Condi luck.