. It’s Friday and the BBC as ever is running a series of stories aimed at undermining the image of Israel. First up, at 6.55am on the Today programme we had an item on the “Investment conference” for the West Bank and Gaza. (Judea and Samaria) The key theme here was that these were great places to invest (!!!) but that the fact that those pesky Jews have such strict border restrictions in place does make such financial investment so much more difficult. Not a mention WHY Israel needs to have such strict security arrangements and not a mention of the fact that the savages in Hamas (My apologies to those tender souls who may object to me labelling Hamas as such but there you go, it’s accurate) have given Israel no choice in this matter whatsoever. Throughout it’s coverage of this region, the BBC consistently downplays the atrocious behaviour of the Palestinians who wallow in their own depravity. Then, having shilled for Hamas, the BBC runs a news item entitled “Blair jet faced Israeli warplanes”. My god, isn’t it bad enough that Israel denies Hamas the right to slaughter its citizens without confronting Mr Blair at 35,000 feet? Turns out that the story reduces to the fact that the jet carrying the former great leader failed to identify itself as it crossed Israeli air space. A better headline might have been “Israeli jets confront unidentified aircraft” but then why miss a chance to imply how aggrssive the Israelis are?
THOSE BAD ISRAELIS
Bookmark the permalink.
The little lying troll, with an IQ well below room temperature, is calling me stupid, and claiming that anyone but it has been squirming?
ROFLMAOWMP
You are an idiot, a dumb, ignorant, illiterate, vicious, lying little antisemitic turd.
I do believe the dumb troll does not realise that it was not a hotel but a MILITARY facility.
Even Biodegradable concedes that Israel had some involvement in Hamas’ establishment.
No I did not, ever! Read what I wrote and don’t twist my words.
As the evidence shows, Olmert did indeed claim that the Israeli government “established Hamas”. As far as I am aware, Netanyahu ha snot sued Olmert for libel, which is odd as Biodegradable clearly believes that this is a case of “malevolent libel”.
The (your) evidence shows only that Olmert *accused* Bibi of mismanaging a situation when he was in power. The fact that Bibi hasn’t sued Olmert in no way proves that Olmert’s accusations are valid and true.
Ben-Gurion took a similar view and condemned the attack by the Irgun. Presumably you will tell me he was “anti-Semitic” too. “An IQ well below room temperature??” Yours would freeze water.
For those who haven’t looked at the link I provided on korova’s star witness, Ze’ev Sternhell of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, (a Jew he took pains to tell us!) I think it’s worth posting here. Make you own minds up as to his integrity, credibility and motives for making the (also unsubstantiated) claims he does.
Israel Prize to go to Pro-Terror, Pro-Civil War Prof.
(IsraelNN.com) This year’s Israel Prize in political science will be awarded to Prof. Ze’ev Sternhell of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Education Minister Yuli Tamir announced Thursday. Sternhell has called for use of IDF tanks against Jews living in Judea and Samaria, and encouraged Arab terror attacks on the Jews living outside Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
Sternhell wrote in the Davar newspaper in 1988: “In the end we will have to use force against the settlers in Ofra or Elon Moreh. Only he who is willing to storm Ofra with tanks will be able to block the fascist danger threatening to drown Israeli democracy.”
In the Haaretz newspaper, in 2001, Sternhell said: “There is no doubt about the legitimacy of [Palestinian] armed resistance in the territories themselves. If the Palestinians had a little sense, they would concentrate their struggle against the settlements… and refrain from planting bombs west of the Green Line.”
The judges described Sternhell as “one of the leading scholars in the field of political thought in Israel and the world.”
The (your) evidence shows only that Olmert *accused* Bibi of mismanaging a situation when he was in power. The fact that Bibi hasn’t sued Olmert in no way proves that Olmert’s accusations are valid and true.
Maybe not, but I am curious to know why Netanyahu did not take action given that, in your words, it was “malevolent libel”. And no, he accused Netanyahu of “establishng Hamas”, exactly as I said. Which part of the following quote do you not understand:
“Netanyahu established Hamas”?
Ben-Gurion took a similar view and condemned the attack by the Irgun. Presumably you will tell me he was “anti-Semitic” too.
“Where there are two Jews there are three opinions.”
I thought you’d know that.
Here we go again. The British were doing everything they possibly could to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state, which they had been mandated to establish. This included conspiring with and arming the Arabs while disarming the Jews, encouraging Arab immigration while preventing Jewish immigration and even actively planning and agitating for Arab attacks on Jews.
Three warnings were issued before the King David attack – to the Palestine Post, the nearby French Embassy and the British military headquarters at the hotel itself, urging the evacuation of the hotel. The British rejected the warnings, saying, “We do not take orders from Jews.”
The point is chaps, you can witter all you like, but none of my assertions have been disproved. And certainly, the resort to insults by your good selves throughout has only underlined how poorly you have argued your case.
The troll has successfully dragged us all into a sick distraction, and we have lost the real point here:
korova lied, or at the very least greatly exaggerated to the point of untruth, about Israel’s role in the rise of Hamas. He knows what he did, and he knows the result he was trying to get. I think he has unfortunately succeeded this time, because of the sick associations with his claim.
Israel did not found, establish, or really support Hamas in the way in which korova wants us to think. There is nothing unusual or untoward about a government attempting to engage with a different faction from the one with which it is currently struggling. This does lend a sort of temporary credibility to this new faction (Hamas in this case), at least in the eyes of whoever wants them to be successful in dealing with the government. If Fatah is getting nowhere, then maybe Hamas can get something done. The Israelis are talking to Hamas now, so maybe they’re worth something.
This is entirely different from what korova is implying. The rest of it is word games which are no longer connected to what really went on. Now that we have seen the sources of his little claim, we can see that he has been greatly exaggerating the issue in order to start a fight. Just like he did the other day when he kept demanding a definition of “terrorism”.
This is trolling of the first degree. It’s also part and parcel of the typical junior unreconstructed anarchist. The ego gets a real charge out of seeing “the man” get upset. It doesn’t matter what it’s about, because, as far as the junior anarchist is concerned, there is no issue worth getting so upset about other than “fighting the man”. So he looks at us getting angry at his claims, and feels only glee.
In the junior unreconstructed anarchist’s mindset, causing trouble is a goal unto itself. It makes him feel good, and it doesn’t matter if he’s actually wrong about the facts of the argument.
korova, you have succeeded in starting this little fire, but the way in which you demand someone react to your taunts is similar to that of a schoolyard bully. Hillhunt is similar in this regard, but he does not stoop so low as to throw a stink bomb into the room merely to start a fight. If you want to really engage in serious discussion about defending the BBC against accusations of bias, then do so. You won’t accomplish much else the way you’re going now.
Three warnings were issued before the King David attack – to the Palestine Post, the nearby French Embassy and the British military headquarters at the hotel itself, urging the evacuation of the hotel. The British rejected the warnings, saying, “We do not take orders from Jews.”
So it was our fault?? The victims were at fault and not the perpetrators? This is a novel new argument from the right.
I am curious to know why Netanyahu did not take action given that, in your words, it was “malevolent libel”.
My words “malevolent libel” refer directly to you, as if you didn’t know.
What went down between Netanyahu and Olmert is normal cut ‘n’ thrust debate in the thriving democracy that is Israel.
Worse accusations have been made in the British Parliament by people such as George Galloway. In fact now I come to think of it statements made in Parliament are immune from libel proceedings, perhaps the same is true of whatever is said in the Knesset?
Anyhow, go back to the start and you’ll see that Hamas was ‘established’ well before either Netanyahu or Olmert were PM.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/?a=42510#399876
Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada.
Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was Prime Minister from June 1996 to July 1999.
You’ll also find nothing in Wikipedia’s entry on him that even mentions Hamas, let alone attributes its ‘establishment’ to him.
David Preiser (USA) | 24.05.08 – 7:53 pm
Bravo! :+:
No more from me for korova!
(may its name and memory be obliterated)
korova | Homepage | 24.05.08 – 7:30 pm | #
Bombing is not very nice. Innocent people can die.
Half the world’s Jews had been bumped off. Britain treated the survivors appallingly. Repeatedly. Some people argue that the King David bombing was an act of terrorism. Some believe it was a legitimate target as it was a military headquarters, and regard the bombing as an act of war. Civilians were not the target.
“Any man that celebrates the murder of British citizens should be roundly condemned.”
Why? what is so special about British citizens that exempts them from any retribution for their savagery?
I don’t condone bombings. I don’t like war. I don’t like terrorists. I don’t like Gazans handing out sweets to celebrate the murder of Jewish students.
Mr. Netanyahu is a hard liner. He wants to defend his country against annihilation, a real and imminent threat. He is prepared to fight for that.
He can place as many plaques as he likes, as you can celebrate remembrance day and buy a poppy. Or probably not, in your case.
As I said before. Twist and shout.
So it was our fault?? The victims were at fault and not the perpetrators? This is a novel new argument from the right.
korova | Homepage | 24.05.08 – 7:55 pm
Funny idea the troll has of who the victims were here while the British were facilitating Arab attacks on Jews and sending Jews desperate to get into the Holy Land back into the embers of the Holocaust.
But you are right, David Preiser. The troll has successfully derailed an entire thread. I’m getting back to concentrating on BBC bias.
Israel did not found, establish, or really support Hamas in the way in which korova wants us to think.
And what do I want you to think? By implication you accept that Hamas was supported by Israel, just not in the way I want you to think. Actually, they supported Hamas in exactly the way I wanted you to think. They initially gave financial support to Hamas (as biodegradable has noted), even though the leader of the organisation had previously been sentenced to 13 years for “incitement against the state of Israel”. Hamas was established in 1987, Yassin was convicted in 1983. As Biodegradable himself pointed out:
Yassin, a quadraplegic cleric, set up the Gaza chapter in the early 70s, and Israel backed it in the 80s. During the period they backed it, it was a service organzation attached to mosques and universities. They were completeley non-violent and almost completley non-political.
I have never suggested Israel intended the consequences of their early support. I merely claimed they helped establish it. Inadvertant it may have been, but it is true nonetheless.
Bryan | 24.05.08 – 8:08 pm
Funny how irresistible a troll can be. But then they know that. I’m off too, after this.
“korova:
Thanks guys, it has been hilarious. Watching you squirm and twist and turn (Biodegrable particularly, I lost count of the unfounded accusations – possibly libellous) has been a joy.” he sobbed bravely, through bitter tears of defeat.
Deep Joy! Kaloo Kalay! Korova has shown us.
How do you snot sue, BTW. I am called sue and I’d like to do it.
They initially gave financial support to Hamas (as biodegradable has noted)
Will you please stop misrepresenting and misquoting me!
I accept this version of events:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/?dt=1211673788#399923
What Israel in fact backed was Sheik Yassin’s Gaza chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that goes back to the 30s. Yassin, a quadraplegic cleric, set up the Gaza chapter in the early 70s, and Israel backed it in the 80s. During the period they backed it, it was a service organzation attached to mosques and universities. They were completeley non-violent and almost completley non-political. Sheik Yassin’s conversion to the use of violent means was extremely abrupt. The first intifada traumatized him, and within 3 months he had set up a military organization to resist it.
That ‘military organization’ mentioned at the end is what was called HAMAS.
The organization that Israel gave some support to was The Muslim Brotherhood, not Hamas.
Your insistence on ignoring that only demonstrates your bad faith.
To say that I admit that Israel funded , or in any way ‘established’ Hamas is a lie. Stop lying about what I have said!
You accept this version of events (the bits in bold which seem to lead the reader to believe that you agree with – plus the last two sentences):
..Israel backed it in the 80s. During the period they backed it, it was a service organzation attached to mosques and universities. They were completeley non-violent and almost completley non-political. Sheik Yassin’s conversion to the use of violent means was extremely abrupt. The first intifada traumatized him, and within 3 months he had set up a military organization to resist it.
The First Intifada was 1987-1993. Yassin was arrested and charged in 1983 of “incitement against the state of Israel”, FOUR YEARS before the first intifada. Yassin had already displayed his hatred of the state of Israel before the “military organization” was set-up. So, between 1983 when Yassin was charged with incitement against Israel and the first intifada when he set-up the military organisation (the period in which you accept Israel funded his “service organization” – that’s the bit you highlighted in bold to show your acceptance), what do you think Yassin was doing? Did he suddenly see the light between 1983 and 1987 before slipping back into his old ways? If so, how naive were the Israeli government to believe that he had? And why did they fund his “service organization” in this period (as you accept)?? Strange, no?
Watching you squirm and twist and turn (Biodegrable particularly…)
All the squirming, and twisting and turning, has been carried out by you, in your own inimicable snakelike fashion.
For my part I have insisted only, and consistently, on facts that I can present proof of, and I have insisted unfalteringly in my demands that you likewise prove your accusations. You haven’t disappointed, your contents are exactly as described on the can; “100% free of nourishment value”.
Your only ‘proof’ that Israel ‘established’ Hamas are words spoken in anger by one politician to another in a heated parliamentary debate – as anticlimactic as watching paint dry. After all the suspense I was expecting something really earth shattering – something akin to indisputable evidence of who really killed JFK.
Then you have the gall to say that it was all a plan anyway, just to wind us up.
Sorry korova, no cigar on any count.
On yer bike!
I have never suggested Israel intended the consequences of their early support.
korova | Homepage | 24.05.08 – 8:12 pm
There’s korova lying again. It doesn’t appear to have any integrity at all:
Whether [Israel/Hamas] intended the development of Hamas into it’s current form or not is possibly debatable, but it is not my central point.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400035
Wonderful thing, the internet. Liars can be immdiately identified and exposed.
Problem with the trolls, of course, is that they know very well that if nobody challenges their lies, it is not evident that they are lies to those who haven’t been following the debate closely.
Still, I’m outta here. I’ll leave the troll to its own devices.
Bryan – You are a tit.
-Ben-Gurion took a similar view and condemned the attack by the Irgun. Presumably you will tell me he was “anti-Semitic” too.
-This was due to a power-struggle between two organisations, ignorant tosser.
Interesting that your fellow antisemitic asshole, John Bull, blames BG for the attack …
Biodegradable – No answer to my earlier comment:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400191
“The point is chaps, you can witter all you like, but none of my assertions have been disproved”
LOL. Every single one of your assertions has been disproved – that is, where your different assertions don’t contradict themselves in the first place.
“And certainly, the resort to insults by your good selves throughout has only underlined how poorly you have argued your case”
We have blown your case to smithereens. Maybe you really are too stupid to realise this. I didn’t think this was physically possible, but apparently it is. You learn something new every day.
“So it was our fault?? The victims were at fault and not the perpetrators? This is a novel new argument from the right”
A liberation movement fighting an empire illegally occupying its land is now ‘the right’? Korova is a bigger and dumber tosser than I realised.
“In fact now I come to think of it statements made in Parliament are immune from libel proceedings, perhaps the same is true of whatever is said in the Knesset?”
Yep. Parliamentary immunity.
“And certainly, the resort to insults by your good selves throughout has only underlined how poorly you have argued your case”
“Bryan, you are a tit”.
Korova, you are a pitiful slug.
Get off that stupid message board. Right now.
Keith just called from work. He says there are groceries waiting to be bagged.
Trolls, trolls, trolls. What do you do with a troll?
Has anyone ever read “Nekama’s troll hammer”?
If you haven’t then you should.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nekama's+Troll+Hammer
Look chaps, let’s make it clear. Biodegradable has accepted that Israel funded the immediate predecessor to Hamas:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400190
The organisation was fronted by the man who then set-up the “military organization” known as Hamas. Biodegradable has said he accepts “this version of events”. As I said in my earlier post, Yassin was arrested and charged with incitement against the existence of Israel. Furthermore, during this period (before what we now know as Hamas), it was involved in terrorist activity:
Long before the invention of the name Hamas, Yassin’s organization was plotting terrorist attacks. As Khaled Mishal recounts: “In 1983, we carried out our first military experience under the leadership of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin; the 1983 organization that sought to gather weapons to prepare groups for military training and launch the jihad project.” Mishal concedes that even back then Iran was funding Yassin’s activities, noting that “It is no secret that the 1983 arms deal was funded from abroad; Hamas was still forming.” Palestinian author Khaled Hroub also notes that various attacks against Israeli interests from 1985 to 1987 were conducted by Yassin’s group; the several “military cells organized by the Muslim Brotherhood” included the Yahya al-Ghuoul’s Mujahideen of Mifraqa Group, Salah Shehadah’s Group Number 44, and Muhammad Sharathah’s Group Number 101.
Source:
http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=470
May I remind you of Biodegradable’s comment:
I accept this version of events:
What Israel in fact backed was Sheik Yassin’s Gaza chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that goes back to the 30s. Yassin, a quadraplegic cleric, set up the Gaza chapter in the early 70s, and Israel backed it in the 80s. During the period they backed it, it was a service organzation attached to mosques and universities. They were completeley non-violent and almost completley non-political. Sheik Yassin’s conversion to the use of violent means was extremely abrupt. The first intifada traumatized him, and within 3 months he had set up a military organization to resist it.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400190
According to the Washington Institute, it was not just a “social organization”, it was actively engaged in plotting terrorist attacks. During the 1980s. When Biodegradable accepts that “Israel backed it”. Which begs the question, why did Israel back it? Did they not know the nature of his organisation (odd given his previous conviction)? Were the intelligence agencies incompetent? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why Israel backed it in the 1980s (a version of events that you accept).
More from the version of events you accept:
During the period they backed it, it was a service organzation attached to mosques and universities. They were completeley non-violent and almost completley non-political.
Do you really think so??
When Yassin and several colleagues officially founded Hamas in December 1987, the group had been active since the 1960s as the Yassin-led Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, Egyptian authorities briefly detained Yassin for his radical activity with the Brotherhood in 1965, when Egypt still controlled Gaza. Under Yassin’s leadership, longtime Muslim Brotherhood activists were simply redirected from promoting Islamic observance to engaging in violent anti-Israel activities.
Yes, I am sure that Yassin’s Gaza chapter was “completeley non-violent and almost completely non-political”.
Source:
http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=470
Should there be any doubt about your views, here is more proof:
The organization that Israel gave some support to was The Muslim Brotherhood, not Hamas.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400190
I’ll say it again; Israel did back Yassin’s organization when it was non-violent and actually doing something that helped the “Palestinians”, and when it wasn’t called Hamas nor had the aims that Hamas subsequently declared.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400155
So, you believe that Israel backed Yassin’s organisation, yes?
korova:
Look chaps, let’s make it clear. Biodegradable has accepted that…
I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again for the last time.
Stop misrepresenting what I’ve written.
People here are smart enough to see that your arguments and your misquoting of my posts are squalid and dishonest.
Stop it or I’ll leap out of your computer screen and wring your scrawny little fucking neck.
Stop misrepresenting what I’ve written.
It’s perfectly clear what you have written. It’s here:
The organization that Israel gave some support to was The Muslim Brotherhood, not Hamas.
and here:
“I’ll say it again; Israel did back Yassin’s organization when it was non-violent and actually doing something that helped the “Palestinians”, and when it wasn’t called Hamas nor had the aims that Hamas subsequently declared.”
So, do you still believe that Israel did back Yassin’s organisation?
Do you still believe that you are not a troll?
Good come back. So, anyway, Yassin and this “non-violent” organisation of his…….
Israel has always accepted any ‘Palestinian’ organization as long as it was peaceful. This is exactly right. When an organization stops being peaceful, it’s a different matter.
Though established in 1982, Hamas is just a local offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, established in Egypt in the 1920s. Sorting out the Muslim Brotherhood is not Israel’s problem, except when they attack her.
This is common sense, which Korova does his best to avoid.
.
Oh, I see, finally it’s all become clear – the troll doesn’t understand the difference between ‘founded’ and ‘funded’:
‘Look chaps, let’s make it clear. Biodegradable has accepted that Israel funded the immediate predecessor to Hamas’
Unbelieveable.
Israel has always accepted any ‘Palestinian’ organization as long as it was peaceful. This is exactly right. When an organization stops being peaceful, it’s a different matter.
Though established in 1982, Hamas is just a local offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, established in Egypt in the 1920s. Sorting out the Muslim Brotherhood is not Israel’s problem, except when they attack her.
That may be the case, but given that Yassin was already known for anti-Israeli activitity before he set up his “non-violent organization” in Gaza, do you not think it odd that Israel funded his organization? They funded a known anti-Isaeli cleric who was attached to mosques and universities. Bit odd, no?
Oh, I see, finally it’s all become clear – the troll doesn’t understand the difference between ‘founded’ and ‘funded’:
‘Look chaps, let’s make it clear. Biodegradable has accepted that Israel funded the immediate predecessor to Hamas’
Unbelieveable.
So even you accept it now? Israel funded the organisation that was the predecessor to Hamas. This organisation was, according to the Washington Institute, already engaged in terrorist activity and was, essentially, Hamas by a different name. Yassin was promoting “violent anti-Israeli activities” as far back as the 60’s (again, according to the Washington Institute. Source: http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=470).
Clearly, Israeli funding helped the “non-violent organisation” to establish itself in Gaza, only we know that it was not a “non-violent” organisation. So, again, given that certain elements helped to establish this organisation (an organisation led by a known hater of Israel), and given that the members of this organisation are “nazi-emulating morally bereft savages”, what does it makes those that helped to establish it in Gaza? In my book, they are morally bereft (or plain ignorant if they weren’t aware of Yassin’s activities). And in your opinion?
Apologies, source should be:
http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=470
Korova:
Keith has been on the phone again – you know Keith from work.
He says there are a lot of trolleys to get now from the back of the car park.
Can you switch that PC off now, and come downstairs.
Korova’s Mum:
Coming in a minute mummy. I just want to see how these funny internet people explain why Israel funded a “non-violent organisation” fronted by a known Israel hater. Tell Keith I’ll stay extra. Love you mummy xxx.
“They funded a known anti-Isaeli cleric who was attached to mosques and universities. Bit odd, no?
korova 25.05.08 – 10:38 am
Back to square one, Korova.
Away and read Nekama’s troll hammer. Or something. Please, please don’t come back.
Sue – I take it you do not find that odd?
Korova;
You’re fired.
Keith:
Damn it.
Away and read Nekama’s troll hammer. Or something. Please, please don’t come back.
Sue | 25.05.08 – 11:27 am
Here’s something I found somewhere on the internet. It’s a bit long so I’m not sure korova will manage to read it all.
A brief overview of the Middle East situation is always valuable, so as a service to all those who still don’t get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need.
Here we go: The Palestinians want their own country. There’s just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It’s a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like “Wiccan,” “Palestinian” sounds ancient but is really a modern invention
Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no “Palestinians.” As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the “Palestinians,” weeping for their deep bond with their lost “land” and “nation.”
So for the sake of honesty, let’s not use the word “Palestinian” anymore to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths, until someone points out they’re being taped. Instead, let’s call them what they are: “Other Arabs Who Can’t Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death.”
I know that’s a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: “Adjacent Jew-Haters.” Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don’t. They could’ve had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David but if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That’s no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course — that’s where the real fun is — but mostly they want Israel. Why?
For one thing, trying to destroy Israel – or “The Zionist Entity” as their textbooks call it — for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they’re the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God’s Earth, and if you’ve ever been around God’s Earth . . . you know that’s really saying something.
It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Midleast. Unless I’m missing something, the Arabs haven’t given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.
Chew this around & spit it out: 500 million Arabs; 5 million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that, if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals.. Really? Wow, what neat news.
Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.
My friend made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine 500 million Jews and 5 million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it . Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.
Very interesting. Although I am not sure what this has to do with your claim that Israel funded Yassin’s “non-violent organization”. I take it you do not find this odd? Me? I find it very strange indeed.
Oh, in case you feel I have misrepresented you, here are those quotes (with all important links):
The organization that Israel gave some support to was The Muslim Brotherhood, not Hamas.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400190
Israel, much less Mossad, didn’t really “establish” Hamas, which was already in existence, all it did was provide some backing to an organisation which, at the time, provided social services to “Palestinians” – bad bad Jews!
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#399923
I’ll say it again; Israel did back Yassin’s organization when it was non-violent and actually doing something that helped the “Palestinians”, and when it wasn’t called Hamas nor had the aims that Hamas subsequently declared.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6980329790174376469/#400155