The Jews are the one and only true Palestinian nation. Falsely-called “Palestinians” are in fact Arab settlers who are stealing land from the indigenous Palestinian nation, the Jews.

The Arab settlers in Palestine have never been a nation in its own right; their illicit taking of the name “Palestinian” for themselves is a recent design, from after Israel’s birth, a propaganda ruse meant to turn the truth of the Jewish David and Arab Goliath on its head.

“The original plan for the partition of British Palestine was the 1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement,…”

Which was made independently by Faisal, and was not accepted by any other Arab leaders, or the Arab street. As a British official commented, the agreement was not worth the paper it was written on.

“Then Arabs had no problem with an Israeli State.”

Absolutely false. Islamic anti-Zionism started already in c. 1890, before Arab nationalism had reawakened (it would do so only after WWI, in response to Western colonial rule), let alone the faux-Palestinian “nation” invented. Islamic anti-Zionism was and still is rooted in the Islamic doctrine that no land once under Islamic rule could be allowed to return to non-Muslim rule, and that all Jews (and Christians) must live as second-class citizens in the apartheid system of Islam called dhimmitude. Zionism is opposed because it runs counter to both tenets.

“One should not also forget that in 1936 the Arabs weren’t interested in their Occupiers discussing an Israeli State when they had been denied one,…”

The Arab nation in 1936 already had a huge mass of land well beyond what the Arab nation deserves, its indigenous territory of the Arabian Peninsula. Arab opposition to Zionism, if thought of as a nationalistic dispute, is rank chutzpah on the Arabs’ part, who have plenty and in fact too much but wish to rob the Jewish nation of the little it has and is entitled to have.

“…are pushed around, oppressed, and slaughtered.”

They raise their children to be suicide-murderers, they dismantle their sewage pipes to make rockets which they fire deliberately on Jewish civilians, and when Israel finally retaliates they inmix their combatants with their civilians in order to reap propaganda points when Israeli inevitably hurts them. They are cynical, manipulative, barbaric savages who wouldn’t deserve a state even if they were a real nation (which they aren’t).

For the sake of a just and viable peace, all the Arab settlers will have to be expelled from the entire indigenous territory of the indigenous Palestinian nation, the Jewish nation. The injustice of anti-Zionism must be put to an end.

The original plan for the partition of British Palestine was for there to be an Arab and a Jewish state, with the Arab state the larger and the Jewish state not including Jerusalem. This plan did not occur because the Palestinian’s Arab brethren attacked Israel in 1948, just after independence, planning to destroy it in its infancy. Arab armied from several Arab armies attacked the small Jewish state. They thought beating Israel and “throwing the Jews to the sea” was going to be easy, but the Arab armies were utterly and completely defeated.

Even after their defeat, the Arabs still held the West Bank and the Gaza strip, the area now sought for a Palestinian state. They held this from 1948 until the 1967 war. Yet the Arabs refused to make a Palestinian state out of the lands they controlled, and instead continued policies of rehection and aggression against Israel. They continued to insist on a Palstinian state in all of what is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In 1967 the Arabs lost the West Bank and Gaza strip in a war with Israel. Israel offered to trade back these territories for peace. The Arabs again refused. They again continued to insist on a Palestinian state in all of what is now Israel.

In the 1990s, after years of efforts to make peace, Israel granted the Palestinians limited autonomy in certain areas. Again, this was followed not by peace but by repeated aggression and terrorism against israel and its citizens.

This is why the Palestinians “never got a piece of the pie.”

“That’s why they’re fighting. ..And for every Palestinian demanding the Jews be driven into the sea, there’s a Jewish fruitcake hellbent on resurrecting Eretz (biblical) Israel (taking back the whole west bank and Jordan).”

Nonsense, as any truthful look at the realities of the middle east would show. It was the policy of the PLO to wipe out Israel from the map. It was the policy of Israel to make peace with the Arabs, as it has repeatedly tried to do. And, between the two of them, it is the Palestinians that are more imbued with an ideology of war and agression.

C.O., the movie, is pretty graphic. So, use your judgment as to whether to see it. Many have found it quite aborbing in its depiction of psychology as well. The producer was Stanley Kubric, who was behind 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I’ll check out Gates of Vienna. I must admit that I’ve always been intrigues by certain aspects of Islam. For example, reading the Koran in English, I’ve always found it to be rather dry and disjointed, and that it lacked that sense of the cosmic that would make a faith compelling. Yet, I’ve heard that its quite hypnotic in the original Arabic, and it obviously compels people.

I haven’t seen the movie. Perhaps now I should, though I’ve heard it described as something simply awful (not awfully done, just horrifying).

In synchronicity, one of the latest articles on Gates of Vienna, God Does Not Speak Arabic! — Part 1, has this interesting bit:

For Muslims the Koran is truly an enigma, and when read in prayer the rhythm and cadence of its words have a narcotic effect on their senses and mind. A recitation of the Koran rolls off one’s tongue with the rhythmic simplicity of modern a day “rap” song. For millions of Muslims who have no clue about its language and memorize it word for word, this is all they have. Its narcotic affect permeates the believer in much the same way a child is comforted with repetitive and familiar sounds he does not understand.

I always wondered how converts to Islam just never, ever get into the “moderate” version we’re constantly told about, instead all becoming terror-supporting “extremists.” That might be a piece in that puzzle.

Fascinating description regarding Islam. It really got me thinking. In fact it reminded me of something which I had heard about before, and which I immediately googled.

It reminded me of the phrase “Clockwork Orange.” There is, of course, a book and a movie with that name, but people often fail to grasp the meaning of the phrase “clockwork orange.”

The word “clockwork” as used here is an adjective, modifying the noun “orange.” The picture you should get is that of a seemingly organic object which is really composed of mechanical components. The Wikipedia article on the novel describes the idea as follows:

In his essay, “Clockwork Oranges”, Burgess asserts that “this title would be appropriate for a story about the application of Pavlovian or mechanical laws to an organism which, like a fruit, was capable of colour and sweetness”. This title alludes to the protagonist’s positively conditioned responses to feelings of evil which prevent the exercise of his free will. To reverse this conditioning, the protagonist is subjected to a technique in which his emotional responses to violence are systematically paired with a negative stimulation in the form of nausea caused by an emetic medicine administered just before the presentation of films depicting violent, and “ultra-violent” situations.

Reading this, and comparing it to your posting, got me thinking about this “application of Pavlovian or mechanical laws [by the Koran and Islam] to an organism [Muslims and Islamic societies] which, like a fruit, was capable of colour and sweetness.” And the effect of this “Pavlovian conditioning” on Muslims, who seem to salivate at the opportunity to kill the infidel: “the [Muslim] protagonist’s positively conditioned responses to feelings of evil which prevent the exercise of his free will.”

Anyway, checking out the movie may elucidate this idea better.

The whole system of Islam could be considered, IMO, “living tissue over metal endoskeleton.” Aside from liking those movies (the first two, anyhow), it’s such an apt metaphor.

The living tissue grown for the cyborgs (the T-800 units) looked real and was nearly so. Blood, hair, skin, teeth, bad breath–Kyle Reese said it was all indistinguishable from what a human had. The only difference was that the blood had to be circulated differently, since a machine had no circulatory system. But that couldn’t be seen on the surface, and even when touching the T-800’s face the 10-year-old John Connor could affirm that it was “really real.”

Of course, it was all for infiltration purposes. The living tissue was real, but the pitiless, remorseless, fearless machine underneath was equally real, and if the post-apocalyptic humans didn’t heed the warning of their dogs (who would bark when the machine got near) they paid for that with their lives.

Back to Islam. Some people say it isn’t a religion at all, but merely a political ideology. I say it’s both, in the same way there is real living tissue and a real machine underneath. There is a deity and a way to worship that deity in Islam, as there is in most religions (in fact, it’s more problematic to call Buddhism a religion than Islam). Much of it is ripped off of the Jewish and Christian sources Mohammed got to know in his day, but still, it’s real. Islam is really a religion.

However, it’s also a political ideology. Along with the duty of praying five times a day and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca comes the political duty of jihad, of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule. Islam being a political ideology is as real as its being a religion, and those who fail to pay heed to that fact are destined to pay for it, if not with their lives then with their liberties. They call the dogs that bark in warning of the danger “Islamophobes” and other derogatory names, but that changes nothing in reality. Islam as a religion alone would be just another competitor in the court of truth; but Islam as a political movement, and one that forbids anyone who is inside to get outside, is, as Mark Steyn wrote in America Alone, a threat to the freedom of every non-Muslim on the planet.

It’s out there, it can’t be bargained with, it can’t be reasoned with… and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the whole world is under its tyrannical grip.

I remember once having a conversation with a friend of mine who had been in the military and had travelled to many places, including the middle east. We were both strong supporters of Israel, and were discussing the seemingly disfunctional and belligerent nature of the Arab world. He said that he could explain the root of that disfunction in one word, and proceeded to write it on a piece of paper. I immediately guessed, correctly, what the word was: “Koran.”

When I look at the history of Islam, I must admit that it did something impressive in uniting a group of desert tribed into a conquering empire. But, the belligerent nature of what the Koran prescribes keeps it locked into a 7th century mindset . . . and the 7th century of warring desert tribes no less.

Whenever people attack Christianity, and its precursor Judaism, they do so because it has been so benevolent that they feel free to do so. (Although, admittedly, Christians and Jews havent always acted perfectly either.) This is what makes such an outrage the fact that people bend over backwards to not offend Islam: they do so less out of principle and more due to the fear of what some muslims may do to them. (Ironically, some of the biggest criticisms of Christianity, or of any religion, – – – i.e. being allegedly paternalistic, being dogmatic, etc etc.— apply a hundred times over more to Islam than to any other faith.)