Comments

Hamas depends on ignorance and lies — 44 Comments

1. And the West Bank was supposed to be Israel except it was attacked by Jordan immediately after the establishment of Israel in 1948 and held illegally until 1967. Never heard any of the Just and Righteous complain about that.

   Normal people are not to be condemned for not knowing various items of history. But some affect us/them more closely than others and so you’d expect some awareness.
   But the complete zero Neo’s friend showed is, while unfortunate, not surprising. Should be, I suppose.

   What is worthy of condemnation is that, when the facts are presented, they are waved away as if unimportant.

   Makes one wonder if the facts had been encountered earlier and similarly dismissed in pursuit of having the “right” view of things.

2. I find this to be doubly true among the younger generations… Very few realize that the GAZA strip was part of Egypt and Egypt doesn’t want it.

   Very few realize that Muslims, Christens and Jews live in peace in Israel and that nearly 40% of the people in Israel are not Jewish and have all the same rights.

   It really is amazing how different groups have re written and filtered history to fit their narrative. How did the democrat party become the anti KKK party even though they started it. How has the history of Palestine become a country of prior people living there when the Jews have been there since 1250BCE and the Muslim religion was founded in 650AD?

3. since then, there has been revisionist historiography, from benny morris to ilan pappe (hes among the worst) which have diminished israel’s achievement,

4. that nearly 40% of the people in Israel are not Jewish and have all the same rights.
   ==
   About 20% are Arabs and 5% the gentile relatives of Jews.

5. the West Bank was supposed to be Israel
   ==
   Under the 1947 partition plans, what’s the West Bank today was supposed to be part of the territory allocated to an Arab state. Arab parties rejected the partition plans.

6. Yes the “HH”/”jj” sockpuppet troll yesterday evening linked to a Ilan Pappe (IP) YouTube interview. I didn’t know of this IP scum but it took about 2 seconds to figure out his con and to know what “jj” was up to.

   “jj” is NOT our esteemed J.J.

7. RE: U.S. vulnerability to attack from within.

   It is a truism that hundreds of thousands—cumulatively, over these last few Biden Administration years, perhaps a million or two, not of “immigrants”–because these people did not go through the normal immigration process, they just illegally crossed our Southern border, and then disappeared into our general population– but invaders, have entered our country.

   Then, you have the large demonstrations in favor of Hamas in New York city, on campuses, and elsewhere around the Western world, and you can start to see that the nations of Europe, and we here ourselves may have a tremendous problem, if a lot of these Muslims and/or Muslim/Hamas supporters take it into their heads to do some act to participate in the “global Jihad” called for by the leader of Hamas.

8. In looking back, Israel never should have ceded the West Bank, a large chunk of land including Jerusalem. The Palestinians have been anti-Israel for a loooong time. They support the evil, Satanic Hamas in its slaughter. I really do not care what happens to them, the so-called “Innocents”. They have more than earned their present wretchedness.
   The anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian wave washing over the entire Western world scares me. People have lost their senses, at places in the US like Harvard and Massachusetts in general as far as I can see.
   Our secular materialist society is indeed vulnerable to jihadis. We have surrendered our Judeo-Christian morality to the Allah-lovers, the butchers of sleeping children.

9. neo:
   I wonder if any of you have had a similar experience in trying to talk about this to friends and family – what’s their level of knowledge?

   Unfortunately, yes.

   Until the ubiquity of cell phone video, this crap was concealable. That cannot be done now and the world knows Hamas for Hamas.

   Now if your friend (or soon to be non-friend) says those things you can simply link into a video and hold it up for them to see.

   I unfortunately believe that the videos that were shown to the journalists should be broadcast generally.

   “Faces of Death”, which I’ve seen, was not a snuff film. These were snuff films.

10. Yes. It really is simpler than most people believe.

    The UN’s longest involvements around Israel and Nicosia, Cyprus, since the early 70s both involve Muslims.

    And Islam’s primary and proximate rivals — the Jews and Orthodox Christians — are their frontlines.

    The simplest explanation is because Islam is exactly what anyone acquainted with the past and these regions might expect. Namely, that Islam us inherently an Imperialist, and violently expansionist, religion. (Cf, Robert Spencer, Raymond Ibrahim, Ibn Warraq, and David Cook.)

    The more interesting question is why and how Islam and Muslims hide or ignore this fact?

11. I have, somewhat tongue in cheek, been blaming the UK for the mess in the Middle East since I learned about their role in the partitioning after WWII. What many today don’t know is that they redrew the maps of the Middle East without knowing what ethnic and religious groups lived where. Also they promised the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Kurds their own countries. Then, after a bit, left.

12. well the problem with the post world war settlement, lawrence promised the land to the bedouin, primarily the hashemites, balfour to the jews, and sykes picot parcelled it off between the brits and the french, you can’t split the same pie three different ways,

    ibn saud, took advantage of the first to claim the Kingdom for himself, the hashemites were left with what is now Jordan, the Mufti tried a piece of the Mandate three different times,

13. TJ-
    Islam is a self-professed religion, but in fact it is an ideology much like Nazism. That was not a “religion” either.
    Considering Islam a religion just opens the US constitutional door all the wider: C’mon in, you Jihadis, and butcher your way to your “Paradise” with its 72 virgins to each. “Kill the Christian, kill the Jew”, from the Quran This is a religion? With Mohamed the pedophile as its prophet?
    I do not acknowledge or worship Allah.
    Time to stop waffling, you bleeding heart Ecumenicals.

    PS: Add Bernard Lewis to your author list.

14. Recent events illustrate why Israel must not be content with killing a few Hamas leaders. The problem with Gaza is not Hamas. Hamas is a symptom. The problem is that Gaza has the sickest culture on Earth, dedicated entirely to exterminating Jews. Even the Nazis had some additional arrows in their quiver. It is Gaza’s culture that must be destroyed, not a handful of political leaders.

15. As Oligonicella said, “Unfortunately, yes.”
    Here, I’m talking about my own children in their 30s, who although they know there’s been an attack of Hamas on Israel, know none of the details, such as the 1400 killed, beheadings, and the like.
    Like Neo said, “I used to believe them myself long ago when I relied only on the MSM for news”, my children get their news passively via cell phones. And because the news is virtually all depressing, they find it expedient to ignore it as much as possible, believing it is all far away and doesn’t affect them in the Midwest. Furthermore, they believe that the news is almost all lies anyway, from whatever source.

    I’m tempted to rebut with Churchill’s quote about the alligator, but can you blame them for not wanting to feel more miserable? Is there any good strategy for converting a passive refusenik to an active truth-seeker that does not originate from within?

16. T J, was “The more interesting question is why and how Islam and Muslims hide or ignore this fact?” a rhetorical question?

    I suspect you know the answer, taqiya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

17. A bit of hyperbole, but much truth in this statement I received from an old squadron mate. A bit long but I submit it for its directness.

    “They’re not happy in Gaza ..
    They’re not happy in Egypt ..
    They’re not happy in Libya ..
    They’re not happy in Morocco ..
    They’re not happy in Iran ..
    They’re not happy in Iraq ..
    They’re not happy in Yemen …
    They’re not happy in Afghanistan
    They’re not happy in Pakistan ..
    They’re not happy in Syria ..
    They’re not happy in Lebanon ..

    So where are they happy?
    They’re happy in Australia ..
    They’re happy in Canada ..
    They’re happy in England ..
    They’re happy in France ..
    They’re happy in Italy ..
    They’re happy in Germany ..
    They’re happy in Sweden ..
    They’re happy in the USA ..
    They’re happy in Norway ..
    They’re happy in Holland ..
    They’re happy in Denmark ..

    Basically, they’re happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that
    is! And who do they blame?
    Not Islam. Not their leadership.
    Not themselves. They blame the countries they are happy in! And then- they want to change those countries to be like, the country they came from where they were unhappy! Excuse me, but I can’t help wondering how frigging dumb they can get.

    Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim Terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Let’s have a look at the evidence:

    – No Christmas
    – No television
    – No football
    – No pork chops
    – No hot dogs
    – No burgers
    – No beer
    – No bacon
    – Rags for clothes
    – Towels for hats
    – Constant wailing from some bloke in a tower
    – More than one wife
    – More than one mother-in-law
    – You can’t shave
    – Your wife can’t shave
    – You cook over burning camel shit
    – Your wife is picked by someone else for you
    – and your wife smells worse than your donkey

    Then they tell them that “when they die, it all gets better” ???

    Well, No Shit Sherlock! It’s not like it could get much worse!”

    Kinda sums it up.

18. Bill K:

    Fortunately for me, I’ve always been IT, so I was around when Al Gore invented the internet. I cruised BBs and so had exposure to world wide info before the WWW coalesced.

19. @JFM @miguel cervantes

    I have, somewhat tongue in cheek, been blaming the UK for the mess in the Middle East since I learned about their role in the partitioning after WWII. What many today don’t know is that they redrew the maps of the Middle East without knowing what ethnic and religious groups lived where. Also they promised the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Kurds their own countries. Then, after a bit, left.

    History nerd and wargamer here. This is a common myth I see repeated, but it’s a load of bullshit that likes blaming the politically convenient targets of the British and French rather than looking at the matter closely.

    For starters, the Allies were KEENLY aware of ethnic and religious groups at the time and where they lived. And while they did periodically break down or violate the ethnic and religious boundaries, they usually did so for reasons. Often VERY GOOD reasons.

    Moreover, at the time “Palestinians” referred to Jews, not Arabs. Indeed you could get in trouble up through the 1950s calling a Muslim a Palestinian.

    To make a long story short, the Hashemites under the oversight of the Sharif of Mecca had long been worried at Turkish inroads into their fiefdom (often with German support in railway engineering) and so when Britain and Turkey went to war and the Ottoman Caliphate called Jihad the Sharif saw his chance to rebel, starting by basically screwing the Jihad call bg denouncing it, with the Hashemites forming an alliance with the British.

    But then the Sharif’s ambitions grew and he began to posture about being the “rightful” King of all Arabs and demanding a United Arabian Empire. Which put the British and other Allies in an awkward spot given how they were actively recognizing other Arab powers, including the Sharif’s Saudi rivals, but they were tentatively willing to negotiate and were somewhat happy with the help they got (even if the main Sharifian Army spent years standing outside of Medina besieging an Ottoman Army).

    But it soon became very VERY evident the Sharif had lied about his reach. A lot. And most Arabs of the Empire fought for their Caliph the Sultan against the Allies, and even most that didn’t had little reason to be governed by an ambitious old man from the Red Sea Coast. This was made worse by the end of the war leading to a war between the Saud and the Hashemites that saw the former get the upper hand quickly.

    So the British unsurprisingly concluded “You MOFO lied to us, ergo the deal we entered into with you was based on fraudulent misrepresentation, and we revise it.”

    Moreover the British and French had a lot to hash out, such as trying to limit Turkish influence, avoid yet more sectarian genocides, and block the expansion of the proto-IS Ikhwan (allied to the Saud for most of this period but with their own ambitions) and prevent them from razing Damascus again.

    (That’s the reason why you see the Jordan-Iraq Panhandle. So there would be a way to block nomadic tribes associated with the Ikhwan from carrying the Islamic Revolution Northwest to the Levant).

    Oh yeah and also respecting both their interests and what commitments they made such as the Balfour Declaration.

    And frankly it’s amazing they did as well as they did, and the region enjoyed about a decade or two of peace as a result of it. But that doesn’t play well with kneejerk anti-Western bigots or “Third World” glorifiers who do not want to admit the Evul Imperial Colonial Power could do any right or t who at least want to pretend that if the British had turned over the entire region to the Sharif and his brood everything would be peachy keen.

    Also while the Kurds nowerdays are our mostly loyal Allies and temperate for the region, they still are fiercely sectarian and clan based and *at the time* they were infamous pro-Ottoman genocidaires who played leading roles in the massacres of Armenians and Assyrians and who had many warlords like Simko Shihak that would go on to stir the pot for years to come. This tends to get ignored as to why the Allies did not give them a nation-state of their own, in spite of having every reason to believe it would turn out about as well as the Saudi state.

    These sources go into some detail about the convenient “Blame Sykes-Pico myth.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248951099_Myth_in_the_desert_or_not_the_Great_Arab_Revolt

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aGgXbwq08Qg

20. Without getting into the Open Thread discussion in re Ukraine, I do want to recommend the post linked by Brian E about Israel and the Palestinians, from 2002.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
    “Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now, for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while secretly plotting the destruction of Israel. Interview by Benny Morris”

    I don’t even want to discuss the content of that post, although I would be interested in knowing if anyone has another take on Barak’s assertions.
    Would have been nice if someone had time-traveled into those rooms with a video camera.

    Here’s the part that caught my attention, referring as it does to a man recently in the news for being a Spy Too Far even for Biden Inc and the Iranian-loving cohort in DC.

    This is an edited version of an article which appears in the current edition of the New York Review of Books. Barak’s interview with Morris was a reply to an article by former US negotiator Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in the New York Review of Books. Malley and Agha also respond to Barak in the current issue.

    I haven’t looked up Malley’s article, but I was not aware he had been up to the same tricks that long ago. Missed that somehow in the recent news reports.

    Wikipedia notes: “As Special Assistant to President Clinton from 1998 to 2001, he was a member of the U.S. peace team and helped organize the 2000 Camp David Summit.”

21. Comments:
    – There are Kurds, and then there are Kurds, and then there are Kurds. Four different groups, basically, at least one of them radical Marxist. The others are, for historical reasons, quite philo-semitic. All want independence.
    (How do you say, “tribal”?)

    – The British DID try to honor their commitments to Sharif Hussein and sons, establishing Abdullah in post-WWI Trans-Jordan and Faisal in Syria.
    When the Syrian population rejected Faisal—who was basically a foreign implant, and who had agreed to the French demand to create a break-away independent, mostly Christian, State of Lebanon, not that Faisal really had much choice in the matter—the Brits installed him in Iraq, where he was, similarly, an implant. He ruled there for about 13 years and tried to unify the country while pushing for de jure, if not de facto, independence from Britain. His successors ruled until 1958—including a rocky regency period during WWII when the country was beset by a pro-German coup, agitation and rioting. The British reestablished order and following WWII, the regency continued, with Faisal’s grandson, Faisal II ultimately ruling until his murder in a 1958 coup.
    The ONLY Hussein who managed to hold on to power was Abdullah, this by virtue of British military and economic assistance plus Trans-Jordan’s small, mostly Bedouin population (at the time) and the artificial nature of the country, it being essentially a back-water created as an afterthought—by Churchill—to assuage Sharif Hussein and promote the conception that Britain DID honor its commitments to the Arabs. To be sure, Abdullah was assassinated in 1951 by an Arab Palestinian nationalist in front of Al Aksah mosque for allegedly trying to come to some kind of accommodation with the Jews, and his successor, grandson Hussein ibn Talal survived several assasination attempts throughout his lengthy tenure as King Hussein.

    And should one mention British perfidy between 1936-39? And then between 1945-49—e.g., its establishment of The Arab League—but especially 47-49?

    Ah, but perfidy towards whom…?

22. I suspect that “A Spy Too Far” describes what is merely a coverup for “Biden”‘s support of Malley and his pro-Iranian policies.

    IOW that Obama/”Biden” specialty—optics.

    Someone had to—PUBLICLY—take the fall for Obama/”Biden”‘s alliance that dare not speak its name…to demonstrate that “Biden” is in no way an ally of the Mullahs—HOW COULD ANYONE EVEN SUGGEST ANYTHING SO PREPOSTEROUS!!!

    The proof for such a contention: Tell me, what has happened to all those millions of dollars “Biden” has freed up for Iran (no, not the most recent 6 Billion that has for the time being been “put on hold”…but which can always be sent later); moreover, has Robert Malley REALLY TRULY become persona non grata…?

    ‘Nuff said.
    (Essentially, it’s a coverup of a coverup…but then, what else is new…?)

    Yes, “Biden” (that “man behind the curtain”) is spinning—and pedaling–furiously so that he can keep his Liberal (read Jewish, or mostly so) ON-BOARD, which point was also raised in a previous comment…

23. Should be “…so that he can keep his Liberal (read, Jewish, or mostly so) CONSISTUENCY ON-BOARD…”

24. Casting blame for creating our current brouhaha in the Middle East is like attempting to untangle a ball of fishing line that has become unspoooled and knotted up, which is to say, it is an utterly pointless and impossible task. It may provide some initial, temporary satisfaction, but the longer one stays at the task, the more frustrating and difficult it becomes until there is no alternative but to throw up one’s hands in despair and quit. The next step is to chuck the knotted, twisted mess into the waste bin. One wishes this were possible with the Israeli-Arab mess. As an American citizen, my sympathies lie with the Israelis, but I recommend we stay as far as possible from the dispute and let the participants sort things out. And don’t get me started on that Russo-Ukraine blood feud!

25. Related (from Carol Glick):
    “Biden’s Hamas conundrum;
    “The president’s continued reliance on his anti-Israel, pro-Iran officials is not merely a policy disaster. It is a political problem…”—
    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/379325
    Key grafs:
    “…U.S. President Joe Biden has a problem. He staffed his administration at all levels and across departments with hardened ideologues, many of whom have records of hostility towards Jews and support for Hamas, Iran, and other terror groups and regimes. Under Biden, these officials have advanced his Middle East policies that until Oct. 7 were largely aligned with the interests of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.
    “Now that those policies have been shown to be counterproductive, and at least partly responsible for the threats America now faces to its core Middle Eastern interests, the same officials remain in their positions and continue to direct the Biden administration’s policies….”

    Not sure that I agree with Glick that “Biden” has a problem per se.
    (For example, her remark, “Now that those policies have been shown to be counterproductive, and at least partly responsible for the threats no faces to its core Middle Eastern interests [Emphasis mine; Barry M.] demonstrates a surprising—for Glick—lack of awareness regarding how, for “Biden”, America’s “core Middle Eastern interests” are no longer recognizable, no longer the same as they were; no longer what they SHOULD BE.)
    “His” policies will—at their ROOT—remain unchanged.
    “His” “problem” is how to disguise/conceal/obfuscate/hide/LIE about that…such that “his” policies may APPEAR TO CHANGE in direct proportion to the dire need for “him” to cover up, but if so, such a CHANGE will—CAN—only be temporary.

    As such, the ONLY PROBLEM is, how long must “temporary” be…

26. @Barry Meislin

    Well said on the whole. Though Kurdish philosemitism was largely a recent development since WWI, due to being beaten up by Arab and Muslim powers.

    And I agree the British by and large tried to do well by the Hashemites (in some ways I’d argue better than they deserved), but they did so after categorically rejecting the Patriarch’s pretensions to being in essence King of All Arabs and a United state. The British had some inklings that this was overblown even beforehand (after all they also had longstanding connections with the Kuwaitis and Yemenis, let alone in Egypt and with the Saud) but it was the exposure of the Levant and Mesopotamia afterwards that really revealed how shockingly parochial and overblown Sharifan pretensions were.

    But yes, there’s plenty to criticize the British and French for, and not just for Arab Muslim supremacists but also for Jews, as you point out correctly. But of course that tends to be forgotten in favor of blaming Sykes-Picot as a talisman for all that is wrong by people who have no conception of what this region was like before WWI.

27. Some unpleasant truths.
    (Which means—obviously—that they must be denied and contested….)

    “Kenneth Levin on How the Oslo Syndrome Led to the Gaza War”—
    https://www.meforum.org/65107/kenneth-levin-on-how-the-oslo-syndrome-led-to
    H/T Powerline blog.

    The problem here is that the Oct. 7 butchery did not have to happen.
    Except, of course, that it did.

28. I was reading the Review of Books back then, the Brits empower Haj Amin over his brother, who was relatively moderate Circassian, and he led the intifadas in 1920, 29, and 36, the military arm of Hamas, is named after Izzadat Quadim who struck Jewish settlers in the last interval for three years,

29. “…and 36…”

    1936-39, actually.

    Should be noted that while the 36-39 “Arab Revolt” (AKA “Disturbances”) counted many Jewish victims, Haj Amin-inspired Arabs killed many more of their fellow Arabs, i.e., those aligned politically against Amin and those who it was believed were in favor of co-existence with the Jews.
    (The more things change….)

    Most importantly the 36-39 Revolt (there were others, as you mentioned in 1920-21 and 1929) resulted in the British Peel Commission’s efforts to “understand” the reasons for the violence and try to find a solution—partition—to the Palestine problem, the whole idea of which was rejected out of hand by the Arab parties; however, the whole exercise led to the British issuing their infamous (as far as the Jews were concerned) White Paper of 1939, limiting Jewish immigration to a trickle among other restrictions at the onset of WWII, which, along with other decisions made by various governments around the world helped doom European—and certain communities of North African—Jewry.
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission
    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-british-white-papers

30. yes they are not that particular about who they kill, that moron at New Yawk (which one you ask, its a confederacy of fools) took the example of what happened in 44, in Hungary, with Eichmann, as if the Jews would know to trust a man, who learned yiddish in order to better liquidate his enemy, he visited the Holy Land in 37, a detail I noted in Bernie Gunther novel,

31. Echoing Nasser’s pathetic excuse for Israel’s victory in 67…
    (Which sounds like another Iranian effort—those bas***ds really study their history…first 73 and now 67…)
    “Hamas didn’t expect large US involvement amid war with Israel – report;
    “Senior Hamas political leadership member Ali Barakeh claimed they “didn’t expect this much of a response” from the US following the attack on Israel on October 7.”—
    https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/gaza-news/article-770681

    To be sure, that headline should have had the words “large US involvement” placed within quotation marks….

32. @ Barry — the Hamas reliance on a predicted lack of US involvement was almost certainly due to Biden Inc’s coddling and bribing of Iran. It may echo Nasser, but seems closer in time to Putin’s reliance on Biden’s implicit invitation to take a bite out of Ukraine as being a sign the US would not intervene if he did so.

    Both Russia and Iran (via the Palestinians) could have been correct IF they hadn’t pushed ahead and taken more than they were invited to. Biden Inc probably figured the main-line Democrats would just shrug at one more minor fracas, in both areas, but the major invasions were not acceptable and forced a US response (although that’s vastly oversimplified, of course).

    And, given how much encouragement Biden has given Xi to keep up China’s nibbling around the world, will Xi take note that there IS an analogous red-line that the American people won’t let Biden cross?
    Although the location of that line that may be debatable, given how many people in the US are on China’s payroll, compared to Russia and Iran.

33. These are my opinions, so I don’t claim that all of my comment is correct:

    Trying to be friends [to both Israel, + to The nation of Palestine], in the War in Israel, is an action that is doomed to fail.

    The Biden White House, and other people, are trying to [soothe both sides, or to be friends with both sides], in this war, and these actions are going to fail.

    I believe [The Israeli government people, in Israel], and most of [the Palestinian people, in the nation of Palestine], BOTH want the lands of [the nation of Israel, and the lands of the nation of Palestine], and they both will not accept anything less.

    Some Israeli people in the Middle East, + some Palestinian people in the Middle East, have been fighting…in a deadly fight, over these lands, for over one thousand and 300 years.

    In my view- no actions by the Biden White House, or by anyone else who is not in those two groups, will make them [stop] this war in the next 1 to 5 years.

    I believe they will have to decide to stop this war themselves, and they will not be swayed by anyone else’s actions or statements.

    Both groups think that [only THEIR group], should own these lands.

    This is a deadly rivalry that they have been fighting for over 1000 years.

    Most likely, only these two groups can find a way to end this war. Most likely, they will not listen to anyone else, while-these two groups try to end this war in Israel.

34. TR:

    You beliefs are unsupported by history or by facts.

35. neo:

    That is quite an understatement to TR.

36. Fox News, Caroline Glick interviewed (5:14), listen at the end (4:32 on) for a q.e.d. on fuel: https://youtu.be/tgHT27OckGE?si=2BYljBM3r0qPE65y

37. no TR, the adminstration gave hamas 45 billion, they gave the so called authority 75 billion, we pass cash to the lebanese army, which is supposed to keep hezbollah in check (small joke), this regimes is soaked in the blood and the sinews of those murdered in those kibbutz,

    people pretend as if there wasn’t a small war just two years ago, when the regime unfroze funds to those two criminal entities,

38. and this is a small sample of their blood price,

    https://twitter.com/StoryFanatics1/status/1718878518363197543

39. Neo,
    To answer your question, I’ve had similar experiences, but with much more favorable outcomes.

    One day it occurred to me that basic knowledge of the history of the modern state of Israel might not be extant for my non-Jewish friends. I began sharing some rudimentary facts, eg. the Balfour Declaration, the UN partition, accepted by Israel, rejected by the Arabs, the multiple two state proposals offered by Israel rejected by the Arabs, that the PLO was formed years before Israel occupied the West Band and Gaza, and that, in the 19 years Arab countries controlled these territories, there was no move to create a Palestinian state.

    This was all news to them. I’m happy to say my closest friends had already come down on Israel’s side based on what they did know, but it was eye opening to me how much they didn’t know. Here are some summaries of that history, in order of length:

    Ben Shapiro
    https://youtu.be/pefEIwoTEnE?feature=shared

    Yaron Brook
    https://youtu.be/SQ-xRdpAass?feature=shared

    Haviv Rettig Gur (Time of Israel)
    https://open.spotify.com/episode/2eEqLiese3hX35pVtDA9AT?si=cjYJiYD7RImFTC4JxDJgnA

    Ironically, one of those newly educated friends had lunch with a couple of liberal Jewish colleagues. She shared some of these facts. It was news to them.

40. RockMeAle:

    I’m glad to hear yours had good results. I think it may have been because they were already predisposed towards Israel. I tried it with people who were not.

41. Hi neo,

    As I have read in history books, and in the news:

    as I understand it: [most of] the Jewish people in the nation of Israel see [the land of the nation of Israel, and the land of the nation of Palestine]- as their [Holy Land], and believe that only [they] should own those lands, as in, “this land was given to them by their God”, and so only they should own it.

    And as I understand it- [most of] the Muslim people in the nation of Palestine see [the land nation of Israel and the land of the nation of Palestine, and Jerusalem] as THEIR [Holy Land], possibly because: 1) the Prophet Mohammad, [whom I have heard is seen by the Muslim people, as one of the most respected, and most Holy of Muslim people,] because went to visit Jerusalem…which to many Muslim people [is part of the reason that Jerusalem, and [the land that is now the nation of Israel], + [the land that is now the nation of Palestine] as their Holy Land.

    I have heard- Another reason that most Muslim people see Jerusalem…part of The Muslim’s Holy Land, as a Holy place, because most Muslims believe that- the Prophet Mohammad went to Jerusalem, and according to The Muslim’s religion- Jerusalem is the place where the Prophet Mohammad ascended into Heaven, and talked to God.

    Here is a link that talks about that belief by many Muslim people:

    https://www.globalministries.org/resource/background_definitions_islam/ S

    So, in that religion’s tradition, if a Holy event happened in Jerusalem and also “Israel’s land”, and also “Palestine’s land”, then this event makes these lands into a Holy Land, to many people.

    As I understand it- Many Jewish/Israeli people in the Middle East see their Holy Land as a land that was given to only them, and they are the only ones who should have it + protect it.
    But that land is also partly claimed by many Muslim/Palestinian at the same time.

    And at the same time, many Muslim/Palestinian people in the Middle East see their Holy Land as as a land that was given to only them, and they are the only ones who should have it + protect it.
    But that land is also partly claimed by many Jewish/Israeli people at the same time.

    As I see it, a large problem with these two peoples, both who are claiming some Middle Eastern land as [land that must be owned, just by our people alone], is that [many of the Muslim people in the nation of Palestine], and [many people of the nation of Israel], claim that [this land is land that must be owned by our people alone], and they will not compromise in their views on who may own these lands.

    From what I’ve seen in the Middle East, over decades of seeing this dispute, is [that these two peoples see this land as land made Holy or special by [their own] religion’s Heaven, and so their religion’s Heavens say that [only their group] should keep the Holy Land, and not the other.

    A friend of mine who is, [full disclosure…now [was], since he has passed on], is a Professor of Middle Eastern studies, and he has heard my opinions of the Middle Eastern struggle over [Israel, and Palestine], as Holy Lands…and who should own them, and he agrees/has agreed with those opinions.

    He also has said, which I think is accurate, that- many Jewish/Israeli people in the Middle East, and many Muslim/Palestinian in the Middle East, have fought a bitter…social struggle, and many determined armed struggles, over who owns the Holy Lands in the Middle East, that these two groups are in a fight to the death over who will get to own these Holy Lands.

    This is why I believe strongly, that- only these two groups hold the solution to this struggle, which will likely be one or both groups deciding to stop this deadly fight over the Holy Land or Holy Lands that make up the lands that are now the nation of Israel, and the nation of Palestine.

    It it not that I don’t want other nations to help these two peoples to find a peaceful solution to [this problem, over who should own these lands], but I don’t see that either of these two groups are willing to hear from other nations…what other nations see as possible solutions to these lands.

    As a summing up idea: seeing these two peoples fight over these lands is maybe like- a group of people seeing two mountain lions fighting to the death…as much as anyone, or any group, would like to stop this fight from happening, most likely- only these two can stop this fight, and anyone trying to interfere will only draw the anger or opposition of these two fighters, if others try to interfere.

    It is a sad thing to say, but- it appears that-
    the two peoples in this conflict are bound and determined to fight over this land, even if this fight means their two nations’ destruction, while they carry out this fight.

    It’s possible that any assistance, or pressure, put on these two peoples, while they do this fight, will only be met with resentment or opposition from these peoples.

    It’s likely that- we and/or outsiders cannot get peoples involved in this struggle, to 1) find compromises about these lands, or to 2) end this conflict, with outside help.

    Most likely- we cannot get a people or groups of people to stop a conflict, when they have set it in their minds that they will never do so.

    I do not mean any slight to you or anyone, neo, but if you think that is comment is not supported by facts or history, then please reply, with your points, how my comment is not supported by facts or history.

    I am always open to hearing, polite, differing opinions, from other people on the web.

    Cheers,

    Your [hopefully] humble friend or acquaintance on the internet,

    TR

42. TR,

    That you repeatedly use the phrase the “nation of Palestine” makes me think you are intentionally flaunting your ignorance.

43. Hi RockMeAle,

    That’s not quite what I have in mind.

    I’m using the phrase, “Nation of Palestine”, so as not to say just, “the Palestinians”, because some readers of this site might read the words, “the Palestinians”, and be confused about whether I mean one of three things:

    Palestinian people…as in people who are ethically or partly-ethnically Palestinian, or the land that has historically been called Palestine, or the nation that has been diplomatically recognized [as the nation named Palestine].

    When I talk about, “the nation of Palestine”, I mean: the nation that has been diplomatically recognized as, [the nation of Palestine].

    Also, just to clarify: I am not taking sides in the fight of: should the Israeli nation own “the Holy Lands”, or should the Palestinian nation own “the Holy Lands”.
    I think that this is a fight or a decision that I should not enter into, since I am not any of the Middle Eastern people described in my comments, who are concerned about who should own, or does own, “the Holy Lands”.

    Also: no, I have no ignorance in my possession. Thank you for your concern that I might have some in my possession. Your concern has been noted and recorded.

    Cheers,

    TR

44. since I first heard of fatah and his chief abu ammar, who is circassian in ancestry, they were a plague on israel, they had the original ‘from the river to the sea’ platform, in 1970, hamas is the next level,

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>