The Koran and Israel
The Jerusalem Post reports that “former PA foreign minister Mahmoud A-Zahar of Hamas said Friday that recognizing Israel contradicts the Koran.” In an interview with a Hamas-affiliated Web site, Zahar also said that “Hamas had not given up on the principle that all of Palestine is Muslim land.”
Or to put it more bluntly: the Jews have got to go, according to this man of peace.
Lastly, he claimed that Fatah is “building a new army and training operatives in various Arab countries in a renewed effort to eliminate Hamas.”
Zahar is an important figure within Hamas. It seems to me that when he says things like this, we have to take it very seriously and we have to assume that he is talking for Hamas as a whole. Can there ever be peace between Israel and a Hamas-ruled ‘Palestine’?
I think not.
In other Israeli news, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak stated the obvious when he said that the second war in Lebanon was “a failure.” Nevertheless, he said, Israel is “still the strongest country that lies between Libya and Iran.”
Twice right.
He also said: “Israel’s citizens understand the solution [for the Israel-Palestinian conflict] is the creation of two states. We are here and they are there.”
Three times.
In short: Barak was on a roll yesterday.
I agree with those who say that the Palestinians should have their own country. However, negotiating with Hamas on this point is, as I see it, useless. Hamas does not want a two-state solution, Hamas wants a one-state solution: all Palestine, no JewsIsrael.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “The Koran and Israel”
Michael,
On this subject we agree completely. I am always amazed by those who refuse to take Hamas on their word concerning this issue and therefore still think that there is a way for Hamas (or a Hamas led Palestinian Authority) and Israel to peacefully coexist.
He is misleading people.
Arabs have diplomatic relationship with hindu, Christian and communist states.
India = Hindu State
China = Communist
US = Christian
Britain = Christian
Koran criticized Jews for their misdeeds and disobedience to Gods. All these sins ascribed to Jews are found in present day Muslims.
1 Million people of my community were butchered by Muslims begalis in Bengladesh. International community remained silent spectator and did nothing to stop the genocide in Bangladesh. 200,000 people are still languishing in 66 squalid camps in Bangladesh.
Neither Pakistan and Bangladesh are willing to help them.
Jews did not commit this crime. In Sudan Arab Muslims are killing non-Arab African Muslims.
“The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”….
– Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
Barak was right not only about the Palestinians but about the rest of Israel’s enemies.
The Saudis’ “peace plan” is an example: incremental destruction of Israel. It won’t end matters once and for all if accepted. Israel later will be “asked” to make even more concessions. Arab nations will contlnue to exploit “refugees” (based on the corruption of that term to include descendents and more people than the Democrats add to voter rolls) and support terrorism if the record to date (as opposed to Israel’s seeking of peace and record of nearly 100% one-way concessions to date).
The radical Left will continue to commit its anti-Western, anti-success attacks, lies, and slander of Israel while also continuing its hypocritical leftist exception to its hatred for nationalism and preference for globalism in its support of the creation of a (new) Palestinian state in all of the Territories plus whatever additional lands Israel “must” cede to make the new Palestinian state viable.
There already is a Palestinian state, Jordan. Need or should there be another? No. Will there be another? Possibly, if the Arabs choose peace over war and civilization over more savage behavior. The Bush administration has put the US formally on the record as supporting a (new) Palestinian state. But given the horrible record of the Arabs to date, who has faith in reform? Jordan hasn’t expressed the wish to annex whatever part of the Territories Israel would cede. (Many Israelis are in favor of ceding some of the Territories, and we saw already an evacuation of Gaza — with abominable behavior by those who took over control of it in the aftermath.) That is not surprising at all given what Jordan has suffered in the past, with no guarantee it won’t continue in the future. Does Egypt want the Gaza Strip?
> Three times.
Actually, no; you merely agree. That is not the only solution. That, one day, is what most people believe is the solution, including many Israelis. The Wall may become the new territorial boundary if Israel remains the only sane party involved in the dispute, and it, along with evacuation of Gaza, constitutes an obvious retreat from any Israeli future control over all the Territories. (In retreating to the Wall, in fact, Israel is exposing itself to great military threat.) Most people believe the Territories will be partitioned (Israel never has been required to leave all the Territories, anyway).
DLS,
You have totally lost it.
How about we turn that around and ask why there needs to be a Jewish state, I mean come on, they already have New York City…
It’s a ridiculous comment for you to make and really exposes your deeply seated bias. It’s your type of thinking, on both sides, that has kept peace from becoming a reality in the Middle East.
Learn some geography and forego the nutty stuff yourself, Chris.
As to peace’s opponents, that’s what Israel’s enemies are all about and have been since Israel has existed.
Well, I’m an American not an Israeli or a Palestinian. The interests of my country come first, naturally. As for these two stuborn jackass peoples, who gives a damn? We should wash our hands of them both.
> The interests of my country
> come first, naturally.
Our interests in the region are #1, oil; #2, Israel.
Unfortunately we do have interests abroad, and some degree of “foreign entanglements” are inevitable. 100% isolationism (non-interventionism or merely avoiding any ties whatsoever with foreigners) is impossible.
> As for these two stuborn
> jackass peoples, who gives
> a damn? We should wash
> our hands of them both.
Many on the Right say that, including both libertarians and paleocons (remember the “agents of a foreign country” accusation directed toward friends of Israel in the past).
But you have company, just so you know.
Giving back the Palestinian land is likely the best move to make. Israeli military can more than protect its reduced borders in case of another invasion, which would seem unlikely after 34 years. It would give them alot to bargain with and frankly there is no way the violence is going to stop until that happens. What do they really get out of it aside from its strategic value which is more than made up for by the possesion of nuclear weapons? Its been nothing but a source of concern and violence since they got it.
Its just a matter of both sides wanting peace instead of face. Concessions are going to have to be made.
Sam wrote:
> Israeli military can more than
> protect its reduced borders
> in case of another invasion,
> which would seem unlikely
> after 34 years.
It’s more likely if Israel retreats.
http://www.iris.org.il/borders.htm
> What do they really get
> out of it aside from its
> strategic value
Oh, other claims to the land, all the rest of that stuff; as a foreign observer I’m mainly concerned about its security given that the “peace plan” is an attempt to regress to the former status quo and constitutes incremental (and partial) destruction of Israel if it were implemented.
> which is more than made up
> for by the possesion of nuclear
> weapons?
Once the monopoly in the region is ended, it’s another story. In an exchange, Israel is likely to lose, to cease to exist, even if it inflicts many times more casualties on its enemies.
In addition, the nukes won’t be used against terrorists and there would be more terrorism, not less, if Israel ceded all the territories. 1967 would be revisited with modern weapons. Even older weapons would be a problem.
http://www.iris.org.il/katyusha.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hizrocketcapabilities.html
> Its been nothing but a source
> of concern and violence since
> they got it.
Well, that’s largely due to terrorism, but you have a point and that’s probably why the Gaza Strip was evacuated,
http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_disengagement_map_2005.htm
and incidentally, that’s why I see the Wall (the security fence) as an effective retreat to a de facto new boundary.
Additional maps here illustrate the problem. (Retreating from the ridgeline is risky business.) The last link is to a Web page featuring maps of the Wall (the security fence).
I have left out maps of Arab and Jewish towns and settlements because the physical problems are more important to me than the population distribution, especially given that settlement areas beyond a new boundary could and would be evaulated in the West Bank.
Notes to readers: Do not engage in ad hominem regarding the sources of these maps; the Left tends to ignore these facts. Also, the last link (about the Wall) is, if anything, a lefty site (as you will see if you view it). Some of these maps are duplicates, of varying quality of reproduction. Some are unique.
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/publications/maps/map2.jpg
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/publications/maps/map3.jpg
http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map7.jpg
http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map6.jpg
http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map5.jpg
http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map4.jpg
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/golan_security_map.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/vulnerablemap.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kassammap.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/missiles.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/qassammap.html
http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Maps/22.+cross+section.htm
http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Maps/19.+cross+section.htm
http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm
DLS I agree with your assessment that it does leave Israel more vulnerable and its not without peril. However I think but with their own considerable forces and the backing of the US I think a tactical invasion is an obviously bad idea for any arab nation. And some of the concessions Israel would get would be official acknowledgement of existence from its neighbors, which would be a huge change the region politically in the direction of lasting peace.
If necessary(very likely in fact) I think the US could broker a bribe in the form of financial aid for all sides agreeing to the deal like they did with Camp David. I know it hurts to give money to the hard headed idiots that kept this going for 60 years, but bribes are always cheaper than wars. Plus as the leading economic and politcal force in the world its the way to do things.
As far as what happens when the arabs get nuclear capability, that equation doesn’t change at all with the new borders. Either way Israel and its neighbors are facing mutual annihilation if they don’t find a way to deal with eachother. I’m a big believer in MAD theory, and think that even the leaders like Amadinajehad would cool their jets faced with utter destruction of their nation.
You caught me before I sign off, Sam.
> but with their own considerable
> forces and the backing of the US,
(More trustworthy than a permanent UN presence!)
> I think a tactical invasion is an
> obviously bad idea for any arab
> nation.
What concerns me is that any capable invasion could probably succeed at conquest. (That ignores whatever destruction Israel would wreak on the forces before they could reach the border.) The invasion would be strategic in motivation, while the problems would largely be at a tactical level because Israel is so small and has no strategic depth.
(Neither would a nation of “Palestine,” but Israel wouldn’t be planning to invade Palestine en masse and conquer or annex everything.)
The idea behind the sound-bite phrase “defensible borders” is to secure the minimum of the terrain as it is, that makes sense. I agree with this and would vote for the ridgeline in the following map as the real minimum, retreating back from the Jordan River and giving that river’s watershed all to Jordan. The ridgeline commands the height of land that is similar to Golan and is a barrier to conventional forces; the ridgeline permits maximum surveillance capability.
http://www.defensibleborders.org/images/map7.jpg
I’ve also see descriptions of a barrier that work anywhere, a radioactive barrier triggered by an invader (so it’s the invader’s choice to commit suicide), but I doubt we’ll see that or something like that anywhere.
> And some of the concessions
> Israel would get would be official
> acknowledgement of existence
> from its neighbors
Yes, and we could hope for more open behavior toward Israel by government officials who now only meet with it in secret. On the other hand, recognition may be seen by hardcore enemies as merely temporary, part of a hudna.
> I think the US could broker
> a bribe in the form of financial
> aid for all sides
Oh, yes. Developmental aid for Palestine, compensation and relocation expenses for the settlers.
> bribes are always cheaper than wars
Sir, some of us were only partially joking that we should have offered Hussein a bribe to step down and leave Iraq. “You may retire in luxury wherever you wish outside Iraq.” Just BRIBE the guy!
> I’m a big believer in MAD
> theory, and think that even
> the leaders like Amadinajehad
> would cool their jets faced
> with utter destruction of their
> nation.
I fear that Israel’s enemies may believe they could prevail, or that it’s okay to be destroyed so long as Israel is destroyed. Related Exhibit A is the Pakistani miltary official who was ready and eager to start a nuclear war with India: “Why not?”
Well Israel has shown itself capbable of defending its borders even though strategically they are at a disadvantage. I’m not sure the words capable and invasion belong in the same sentence when it comes to the militaries of the Middle East. They fight eachother to stalemates and lose rapidly to anyone else. The ony military activity they excel in is insurgent fighting which is hardly going to help when no one is standing on their land anymore.
And yea there are guys who talk a big game about going to nuclear war, but neither India or Pakistan have been crazy enough to actually do it. I think the point is that the guys actually crazy enough to do so aren’t capable of getting into the position where they have their fingers on the Big Red Button(tm). Hell Krushchev banged his banged his shoe on the podium at the UN but when push came to shove over Cuba he saw the light. I think the important difference in nuclear wars is that the guys who start them are very likely to die in them as well, not just some kids they get to order off into battle. It would appear that has a calming effect.
Missed in all this is Olhmert groveling for his job. People there want his head and he is pandering to the left to keep his job. Israels Left.
Secondly as to another thread. No one wants the Palestinians. They were driven from their lands and went to Lebanon where they immediately created a civil war. Most were driven out of Lebanon and forced to go back to where they are now.
The refugee committee in meeting in Syria in 1957 announced that it is the right of Palestinians to return to Israel and annihilate Israel.
There are remaining Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan but these countrys refuse to accept any more of the Palestinians into their country because they have basically proven themselves to be trouble makers.
None of the other Middle eastern countries will accept Palestinian refugees into their countries because of this dubious record of stirring up trouble where ever they go. If the Arab countries did like the Palestinians they would all be sending them money and the Palestinians would not be living in filth and squalor while they try to figure out ways to blow up Israel.
Hamas is a last gasp effort to keep the hate Israel movement alive in the Middle east. The USA invasion of Iraq has put a serious hamper on that effort with the absolute and total cut off of funds by anyone including Arabs.
Even the Moderate Arabs in the Middle East Want peace. If they did not the funds to Hamas would not have dried up. The moderate Elements in the middle east are slowly beginning to realize that a confrontation with Jihadists is inevitable. This confrontation must move slowly and deliberately in time frames that favor the Moderates.
Sam said:
> I’m not sure the words
> capable and invasion
> belong in the same
> sentence when it comes
> to the militaries of the
> Middle East.
Israel’s enemies probably couldn’t accomplish air strikes, either, and come back to brag about them. (One of the pre-Iraq-war rumors was that Hussein had suicide one-way air missions in the works.)
What changes things are missiles and with Israel, mere artillery depending on where the boundaries are and the terrain. (The Golan was used for ages by Syria to shell Israelis.) One of the problems Israel faces is having someone hostile right next door; it has overreached in some negotiations by demanding any new Palestinian nation not have a military. (This, of course, means the new nation would not be a real nation, truly soverign, deciding for itself to have a military and of what kind.)
> And yea there are guys
> who talk a big game
> about going to nuclear
> war, but neither India
> or Pakistan have been
> crazy enough to actually
> do it.
Do you remember just a few years ago when another war was imminent? I would love to know what Colin Powell, sent to the Subcontinent, told the Pakistani and Indian governments, as I’m sure it included casualties and consequences of a nuclear exchange.
Things there have been so tense I’ve actually dreamed about an exchange there, being broadcast here in the US, with a graven voice announcing and tracking successive missile launches, and (also gravenly) announcing one strike after another and estimated yields as they became available. Yeech.
Nobody said:
> Missed in all this is Olhmert
> groveling for his job. People
> there want his head and he
> is pandering to the left to
> keep his job. Israels Left.
I don’t take him and his government seriously. You should hear (actually, read) what so many have to say about him and his government on Ynet, which provides lots of news stories. (View the reader remarks. “Olmert = living proof that Israelis are masochists” is one of the kinder remarks. There are many worse remarks.)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=site:www.ynetnews.com+olmert&ie=UTF-8
For readers who don’t know what Nobody’s writing about, the Olmert government is weaker and is being scorned right now more than the Bush administration, including after the Gonzales hearing.
> Secondly as to another thread.
> No one wants the Palestinians.
They’re exploited for labor but otherwise kept miserable in order to put more pressure on Israel.
> The moderate Elements in the
> middle east are slowly beginning
> to realize that a confrontation
> with Jihadists is inevitable.
They don’t want to create a worse monster than they already have made.