Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

[size=]The case for Israel
The truth of the matter is that many in the Arab world want to see all Jews die. Guess what? After the Jews go, Americans are next.
BY DAVID BRUDNOY

[/size][FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]STOP BY ENOUGH Middle East “peace” rallies these days and you’ll feel like Churchill in the late 1930s, who wondered how much longer his countrymen would be swept up in pathetic attempts to rationalize Hitler’s behavior. I go to these things compulsively, wondering how much further into the absurd these delusional people will go. These gatherings, populated with anti-Western, anti-globalization, anti-capitalist zealots, quickly move from espousing annoyingly earnest rhetoric of the “give peace a chance” sort to damning Israel as the sole villain in the Middle East. It’s bad enough that rally-goers unthinkingly equate Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, a dictator, with Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, a democratically elected leader. Even worse, with increasing enthusiasm they liken Sharon to Hitler.
At least here in the United States this inane thinking is expressed with words. In Europe, the rhetoric has devolved into vile acts. There, proponents of “peace,” aided by unruly mobs of Arab thugs, proclaim their peaceful urges in fine Orwellian style by burning synagogues, beating up Jewish kids playing soccer, and harassing old folks ambling along the streets. Meanwhile, pampered aristos casually malign Israel in the course of conversation: just this past December, at a fancy dinner party hosted by Daily Telegraph owner Lord Black, the French ambassador to the Court of Saint James’s described Israel as “that ****ty little country.”
Practitioners of anti-Semitism have recourse to all the antique rationales: the Jews killed Christ; the Jews are clannish; the Jews control the fill-in-the-blanks (media? banks? transportation system? universities?). Over the last century, though, many anti-Semites have devised a fanciful, self-serving escape clause: they are not anti-Jewish, they tell themselves and the world, just anti-Israel. These last are oblivious to Martin Luther King Jr.’s acute, unapologetic observation that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
For their part, Arabs, less sophisticated in the nuances of anti-Semitism, simply call for the murder of Jews, including ultra-Orthodox residents of parts of Jerusalem — Jews who don’t even recognize the existence of Israel. Such murder is advocated in the tightly censored press of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Meanwhile, in the last 19 months, Arabs have launched 60 suicide bombings in Israel. Iraq gives $25,000 to the families of each of these mass murderers. Iran was recently caught shipping 50 tons of high-tech weaponry to the Arafat war machine. (It was intercepted in the Red Sea by Israeli naval commandos.) Iraq gives $25,000 to each of the families of these mass murderers. And who knows how much silent money has been funneled in that direction from the Saudi royals. The ruse of mere political opposition, which sustained some Westerners’ delusion that the Arabs simply (simply!) wanted to undermine Israel, has been abandoned. It is now full steam ahead: “Death to the Jews” has joined “All Palestine for the Palestinians alone” in the rhetorical arsenal. And by Palestine, they mean Israel as well as the territories.
I WORK AT NIGHT as a radio talk-show host. Lately, my callers and I have been engaged in two main topics: the collapse of Cardinal Law’s “moral” authority owing to his failure to deal with priests who molest kids, and the war between Israel and the Palestinians. What I hear about the Middle East is a drumbeat of ignorance masquerading as historical fact, coupled with unashamed calls for, as one man put it a few weeks back, “completing the job Hitler began.” This man moved gingerly from demanding first that Israel remove its troops immediately from “Palestinian territory” — there is, of course, no such thing — to dissolving the whole country and sending its Jewish inhabitants packing “back” to Europe, to finally advocating, with amazing sang-froid, the total annihilation of the Jewish people.
Of course, this one call isn’t representative of what most Americans are thinking. But I do receive a disproportionate number of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish calls to those who take the other side. What this suggests to me, after 26 years in the business, is that Jews and pro-Semitic gentiles simply don’t care to be heard publicly. Perhaps they are too placid (or maybe too stupid) to recognize that while few listeners ever call, lots of people pay attention to those who do, and the average listener absorbs what seemingly informed callers have to say.
One thing has become clear to me as I have listened to the balance of my show’s callers weigh in against Israel. It is that our government’s mixed-signal preachments on terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian horror have contributed to European disdain for Israel, Arab determination to annihilate Jews, the United Nations’ clear tilt against Israel (most recently by calling for an investigation into what happened at the Jenin refugee camp while doing nothing in response to the lethal string of suicide bombings against Israel), and the American "peace’ movement’s insistence that Israel is the sole offender in this war.
It’s understandable, though hardly commendable, that because Europe has thus far been spared the jolting horror experienced in this country on September 11, 2001, Europeans just don’t “get” the nexus between the US war against terrorism and the Israeli version of the same. But then how could they get it when President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell don’t know how to express it?
After all, Bush and Powell have tangled themselves up in conceptual and strategic knots. In 1991, Powell, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, convinced the first president Bush not to pursue the Gulf War to its logical conclusion: the destruction of Saddam Hussein and his terror regime. Now Powell and others have convinced the second president Bush that the only way to prosecute the war on terrorism is to re-establish a “coalition” with “partners” among Arab dictatorships who would rather live in a world in which Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction than see any Arab regime come under attack by infidels. So what we get from alternate sides of the presidential mouth is “You are either with us or against us” and “We will pursue terrorism wherever it is found,” along with “I say it again: Israel must withdraw without delay from Palestinian areas.” Translated from Bushonics, that means: the United States will go full-tilt against forces that proclaim their intent to destroy America, but Israel mustn’t do the same against forces that proclaim their intent to destroy Israel.
Foolish consistency may well be the hobgoblin of little minds, but rational consistency is essential to policymaking. The administration’s statements may possibly be intended as a “fool you” gambit to make the Arab extremists believe that Washington regards Israel’s attempt to root out terrorism as illegitimate. But if so, it’s a “fool us” gambit in that Arab dictators and their howling mobs have taken such statements seriously and stepped up their murderous assaults. In Clintonian terms, Bush has empowered the Arab killers and continues to enable them by causing them to think that they are free to
share
their murderous rage with the world. What most Americans don’t understand, and what my angriest callers don’t “get,” is that allowing Israel to be ravaged will inspire similar tactics against us.
Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently estimated that the percentage of the Israeli population killed by suicide bombers — nearly 500 deaths — translates proportionally in American terms into many tens of thousands of people. No thinking person could say with any seriousness that if we suffered such atrocities in our malls, restaurants, buses, and other public places, we would do anything less than what Israel is doing: exact a horrendous price from the perpetrators.

[/size][FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]YOU WANT TO SPEND the rest of your life in a futile debate? Get into a discussion of how the Middle East got to this point, beginning with the ancient Jewish kingdoms, through the Roman occupation, to the centuries during which resident Jews had no real authority in the Holy Land. Move on to the era when Muslim caliphs controlled the region through the dominion of the Ottoman Empire and then to the period of post–World War I British control, following the defeat of the Ottomans. From there go to the United Nations–proposed two-state solution in the mid 1940s through the 1948 war following Israel’s establishment of independence, when the Arabs were bent on pushing the Jews from their new state into the sea. Talk about Jordan’s control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) from 1948 to 1967 and Egyptian control of Gaza during the same period. If you haven’t yet come to blows, go over the Six Day War launched by the Arabs against Israel in 1967, which resulted in Israeli occupation of Judea and Samaria, and then try to talk about our own time, when mass murderers routinely ply their trade to a chorus of praise by Arafat, the Jordanian queen, and the kept intellectuals and sycophants of the Arab world.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]The Allied occupation of Germany and Japan was a legitimate action intended to pacify hostile populations and expunge murderous regimes. Also legitimate was the decision not to end occupation until those former enemies had proven they had abandoned their wretched policies of the 1930s and ’40s and erected democratic structures in their place. Today, the Israeli occupation of Judea and Samaria is also fully justified; it is the outcome of a war prosecuted against Israel. The Israelis must and will remain there until its Arab residents agree to abandon their commitment to destroy Israel. Of course, there’s no indication that the Palestinian Authority dictatorship under Arafat has any such intention. On the contrary, its statements in Arabic (visit www.memri.org for the English translation) reiterate the belief that the whole of what was once the mandate of Palestine, including all of pre–Six Day War Israel, must be a Palestinian-Arab state.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]The simple principle that the victor in a war brought on by an attack against it has the full right and a moral obligation to pacify the enemy, including occupying territory from which the aggression was launched (and continues to be launched), makes scarcely a dent in the minds of folks who call talk shows, mine among them, or who trudge off to “peace” rallies. Nor does it influence those who take their cues from the manifestly anti-Israel news reporting on National Public Radio or the opinion pieces in many liberal newspapers and magazines — all of which view Israeli and Palestinian actions in terms of moral equivalence. With press coverage like this, it’s not surprising that Palestinian sympathizers see the Israeli presence in the territories as “occupation” in the most illegitimate sense of the term.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]Nor is it surprising that they believe the entirety of the so-called West Bank — which is simply the area controlled by Arabs after the ceasefire of 1948 — is Palestinian territory. How quickly they forgot (or perhaps never knew) that the occupants of this land, formerly governed by the Jordanians, were never given the same rights accorded Jordanians and didn’t start referring to themselves as Palestinians until the mid 1960s. To describe this land as “Palestinian territory” betrays an ignorance of history (if knowledge of events occurring in just the last half-century can rightly be called “history”). This land is nobody’s territory, though it is held by Israel for good reason. Its final status and borders were to be determined by negotiation — as recognized by international agreement and reiterated in the Oslo accords. It has become popular over the past year to forget that fact.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]But at this point, negotiation to determine the borders of a state run by Palestinians — before they abandon their irredentist fantasies, before they pledge full acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy, before they abjure violence and commit to living in harmony with Israel — would be absurd. The United States would never have left Japan and Germany had there been hordes of Japanese militarist kamikazes and Nazi “suicide bombers” tossing themselves into American military camps, apartment buildings housing servicemen’s families, and restaurants and shops patronized by Americans. The “occupation” of Judea and Samaria must continue until their residents begin to act like civilized adults instead of rabid juvenile delinquents routinely employed in the slaughter of innocents. Indeed, this occupation must continue until Palestinians stop teaching their children how to turn themselves into projectile human explosives.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]People unfamiliar with, say, the redrawing of the European map from the late 19th century to the present (owing to population shifts and war) believe with a passion usually reserved for revealed religion that the 1948 ceasefire line *is *the result of a settled agreement. They think that “pre-1967 Israel” may try to remain a Jewish state, if those pesky Jews really insist, but the part previously occupied by Egypt and Jordan absolutely must be — and in their minds already *is — *the State of Palestine.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]The predominant goal of the Arab dictatorships — and the only one safely expressed — is the total elimination of Israel. The European attitude is one of hostility to Israel and renewed hatred of the Jews. You don’t need a Mensa-level IQ to get these points clear in your mind. But they elude our “intellectuals” and “peace”-mongers. And, as always, such facts don’t register with those bottom-feeding anti-Semites who need little rationale to scrawl swastika graffiti or leaflet Jewish neighborhoods with pamphlets that propound hatred and hint at oncoming violence.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]In spite of these realities, Israel rightly intends to root out the masterminds of terror, to remove Arafat from his rancid “leadership” of the Palestinians, and to return, if need be — possibly repeatedly — to areas where Arabs live in Judea and Samaria until the violence ceases.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]I BEGAN with Churchill, who nearly alone in late ’30s Britain, warned of what lay ahead. We have no Churchill today, but thanks to the Internet and other means of mass communication, we already know what’s coming: a combined Arab, European, and United Nations drive to delegitimize Israel and submit Jews to a 21st-century Final Solution. If you think I’m exaggerating the threat, listen to the talk-show callers and read the letters to the editor in mainstream newspapers and the essays published by “intellectuals” who embrace the theory of moral equivalence. They have one thing in common: they issue perfunctory statements of “concern” about poor Jews dying as a result of “wicked” Israeli policy, while crying gushers of tears over the sad fate of the Palestinians — who are never viewed as victims of Arab leaders’ half-century of miscalculation and perfidy.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]To change course — to mount a Churchillian reversal before it’s too late — would require concentrating on facts, sifting through anti-Semitic propaganda, and insisting on consistency in American policy. But that’s exactly what we’re not seeing from our opinion-makers, such as James Carroll, who recently wrote that Israeli settlements have created “radical insecurity no matter what Palestinians do”; our religious leaders, such as the three Episcopal bishops who several months ago picketed the Israeli consulate in Boston to protest Israeli military action in the West Bank; or our scholars, such as the 80 MIT and Harvard professors who recently signed a petition calling for their schools’ divestment from companies doing business in Israel.[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=]If Americans truly believe the West has a right to survive and that expunging Arab-Islamic-fascist international terrorism is justified, then surely Israel has the same right. And if they don’t, we don’t. And that leaves us — where?[/size]
[FONT=arial, Helvetica][size=][/size]

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

I asked a question care to answer it? Once its made obvious the UN did not create Israel, we will work on your other so called "Facts"

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm

Here is a map too…

no please stop asking me such kindergarden questions about Israel and Palestine

Just admit it, you don’t know anything…

And the best thing you can do is cut and paste articles from other websites and hoping that you can gain some sort of credibility with me

best of luck doing that…

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

:rotfl: what a jackass. this is how previous wars were marketed to US population and this is how it will continue as if US is adjacent to Israel and as soon as dam Arabs take over Israel, they’ll head towards US to take over :hehe:

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Is that so??

Then please explain why children in Islamic countries are taught to hate Jews and Jews are untrustworthy, to do Jihad against them. Why Jews are beaten up and killed in France by Arabs???

This is truly sad and pathetic.

I am a Pakistani. I am a proud Muslim and I feel so sad when bunch of uneducated retards have taken over Islam...

What happened to the day on July 7, 1099 when Muslims and Jews fought side by side and defended Jerusalem from the Christian armies in the 1st crusade.

That I suspect gets ommitted from most Islamic text books dealing with the Jews.

I know my history.

I support the existence of Israel, always have and always will.

So far you have failed utterly to counter my argument.

Which is fine. Shows the sorry state of our education system....

If Pakistan can exist as a country for muslims in south asia then Israel can exist as a Jewish country in the middle east.

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Again, you are following your moronic article writers like sheep, how does going for Jews also means going for America?

[quote]
This is truly sad and pathetic.
[/quote]
I agree, it really is pathetic.

[quote]
Which is fine. Shows the sorry state of our education system....
[/quote]

I agree, our education is in a sorry state, but so our some of Pakistani Muslim citizens in sorry state, no difference.

[quote]
If Pakistan can exist as a country for muslims in south asia then Israel can exist as a Jewish country in the middle east.
[/quote]
Lame talk about similarities of Pakistan and Israel continues.

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Yes, thats all you can do...

when you lose the arguments on fact, you resort to name calling...

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Actually incorrect once again. The UN requires a mandate from the member states under which it can take any action. That mandate is provided by a resolution in the General Assembly. The mandate for the partition plan was unique in the case that the special committee had not functioned according to UN rules. There must be concensus on all issues. If you read your own link it says only 11 were in favour of dividing the land. Any special committee must achieve consensus before moving anything to the GA. Check your local GA rule book for that information.

The UN did not have the mandate over Palestine as it a violation of the UN charter for them to take action on colonies. That is why the Trusteeship Council was created. The UN Partition Plan as it is dubbed falsely was approved by only the western countries. Not the 45 member states that established the UN.

Secondly Palestine was until the day of the creation of the Israel, a British colony. There was no UN mandate for the UN to govern Palestine. Administration, troops and work was covered by the British. This is not East Timor, or Bosnia. Palestine was a British colony. The British pulled out and left Israel to declare independence.

The actions were taken by the colonial power. The british, not by the UN.

Next question. Why hasn't Israel returned land from the 1967 war as per he 4th Geneva Convention and UNSC Resolution 242 et al.?

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Be that as it may, the UN security members voted for the state of Israel to be created and it was done so.

Since Britain had given up its territorial right to Palestine, it was upto the international community to decide what to do with Palestine and the UN voted that it be divided over religious lines.

Would you have been satisfied if the British had created Israel from Palestine?

You would then be raving about Anglo-Saxon evil and the Jews that control England??

Why hasn't Israel returned land from the 1967 war as per he 4th Geneva Convention and UNSC Resolution 242 et al.?

Actually it did. It gave back the Sinai to the Egyptians for peace.

It almost gave back the Golan Heights to Syria for peace, but then Hamas terrorists blew up buses in Israel in 1995 and Israeli priorities shifted.

Israel wants to give up land for peace.

And since many Arabs are sworn to the destruction of Israel. What does Israel gain by giving up these territorities from which Arabs can launch attacks on Israel again.

Gaining these territories gave Israel a strategic depth which it lacked.

But it gave back the Sinai to the Egyptians for peace.

So I am thinking that should negate the typical stereotype of Jews of wanting to create a land from Nile to the Euphrates...

Question for you: Why hasn't the Arabs investigated the 1982 Al -Hama Massacare when Syria killed 20,000 Arabs?

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Do you read the links you provide yourself? If you did. You would realise that the UNSC did not vote on this. This was a GA issue. Thus the GA voted on it. In the GA 24 countries did not vote in favour of the plan. Only the European countries and the US did.

The british did not give up the territorial rights to Palestine. Read your own links. Its all there.

No hey did not. Jersulem, Gaza and the West Bank are all territories captured in 1967. They did not abide by the 4th Geneva Convention on those accounts. Secondly in 1973, Egypt took back the Sinai. 75% of that land was already under Egyptain control.

So again why didn't Israel abide by the 4th Geneva convention?

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

ab aaya oont pahar ke neechay.........:)

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

"Do you read the links you provide yourself? If you did. You would realise that the UNSC did not vote on this. This was a GA issue. Thus the GA voted on it. In the GA 24 countries did not vote in favour of the plan. Only the European countries and the US did.

The british did not give up the territorial rights to Palestine. Read your own links. Its all there.

No hey did not. Jersulem, Gaza and the West Bank are all territories captured in 1967. They did not abide by the 4th Geneva Convention on those accounts. Secondly in 1973, Egypt took back the Sinai. 75% of that land was already under Egyptain control.

So again why didn't Israel abide by the 4th Geneva convention?"

-->LOl. Hahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha. Man. LOL. haahahahahahahahahahahaha. If that is your thinking, then you are going to have serious trouble in life.

Well lets see where to begin.

British were withdrawing from Palestine. And left it up to the Arabs and Jews to fight it out. The Jews petitioned the UN to create their own country. UN said that all areas which have a Jewish majority will be Israel and the rest Palestine. This was given to a vote and it passed. Israel was created in May 1948.

And for 1967 War. Israel captured Sinai, West Bank, Gaza, Golan, East Jerusalem.

In 1973, Egpyt and Syria tried to re-take their territories but failed. Syria was pushed out of the Golan in 2 Days, and Israeli artillery shells were landing on the outskirts of Damascus. As for Sinai. The Israelis even crossed the canal and were less than 100km from Cairo, enciricled the Egyptian 3rd Army and were planning to destroy it. Extreme pressure from USA and USSR averted that. Because they thought that such a dangerous position, Egypt can persuaded to make peace. And it worked. Sadat went to Jerusalem in 1977 and 2 years later they signed the Camp David Peace Accords.

My god, who the hell is teaching you history man. Seriously, now I am concerned.

"So again why didn't Israel abide by the 4th Geneva convention?"
-->Because what does Israel gain from withdrawing from those lands, hard won in that war? If it gets land for peace, thats fine. But when you have Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, all pledging to destroy Israel. Why should Israel give up that territory. If I am not gonna get nothing in return, then Israel should continue to hold onto that territory. As for the Palestinians, they can negotiate with the Isrealis if they can come to some sort of agreement, but the election of the terrorist group Hamas, thats not likely any time soon.

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

following some like sheep is not name calling, atleast in general English literature… let me check if its true in Israeli literature or not :hmmm:

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

ya please do

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

Factually incorrect. Once again the Jews can not petition the UN. A member state is the only entity the UN can recognize. That is the only legal entity that can bring action to the UN and those are the entities that can give the UN the mandate.

You are what I prefer to call a delusional fool. You said openly the UNSC voted on this. Your links - the ones you provided - say otherwise. Yet you continue on with your blathering.

Its extremely ironic that you have been claiming to say the UN did this and the UN did that. When proven wrong you switch lines to say what benefit does Israel get.

Firstly Israel had not encircled the Egyptain army. What they had done is created a corridor from the north above where the army was stationed and pushed south from Alexsandria to Cairo. The Arabs are not know to have a backbone when it comes to battles. So they folded. I do not deny that.

But the Egyptain army controled 75% of the Sinai when Israel was near Cairo. Additionally the Egyptain Army was close to Jersulem but was given orders to wait. A stupid move on part of the Egyptain Leadership.

Now back to my original point:

  1. Did the UN create Israel or not? (The answer is obvious but I just want to see how deep your brain-washing and indoctrination goes).

Its pretty obvious now who knows their history and who does not. Now just because Israel does not benefit from the law does that mean they should not implement it? If that is the case then why have International Laws at all?

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

you should’ve better knowledge of it, may be you can point me to correct sources :hoonh:

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

"Factually incorrect. Once again the Jews can not petition the UN. A member state is the only entity the UN can recognize. That is the only legal entity that can bring action to the UN and those are the entities that can give the UN the mandate."

-->Exactly. The Jews petitioned the UN through the USSR who brought their case forward. Haven't you read anything about the history of this time??? I dont bother writing these factual details because I beleive you already know this. But I am sadly mistaken.

"You are what I prefer to call a delusional fool. You said openly the UNSC voted on this. Your links - the ones you provided - say otherwise. Yet you continue on with your blathering."

-->Can you give me exact quotes from those links.

"Its extremely ironic that you have been claiming to say the UN did this and the UN did that. When proven wrong you switch lines to say what benefit does Israel get."

-->UN put the creation of Israel through a Vote, and it got votes in its favour and there we go.

"Firstly Israel had not encircled the Egyptain army. What they had done is created a corridor from the north above where the army was stationed and pushed south from Alexsandria to Cairo. The Arabs are not know to have a backbone when it comes to battles. So they folded. I do not deny that."

-->Israel did encircle the 3rd Army. Breshnev showed Sadat the satellite photos of his encircled 3rd Army. Kissinger told Golda Meir, "The Destruction of the 3rd army is an option that does not exist".

"But the Egyptain army controled 75% of the Sinai when Israel was near Cairo. Additionally the Egyptain Army was close to Jersulem but was given orders to wait. A stupid move on part of the Egyptain Leadership."

-->The hell are you talking about?? Egypt's plan was to drive only 8 miles inside the Sinai and then stop because after that their missiles could not cover after that and because the Israeli air force was stronger. When the Egyptian army stopped, Israel moved most of its forces to the North to fight the syrians. When the Syrians asked why isnt the Egyptian army advancing in the Sinai, Sadat then told his commanders to move forward. And when they did, they got annhiliated, and lost 250 Tanks in 3 hours. The Egyptian army only advanced 8 miles inside the Sinai and then the Israelis counter-attacked and encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army. They were ready to destroy it but USA and USSR pressured Israel to stop and they did.

"Now back to my original point:

  1. Did the UN create Israel or not? (The answer is obvious but I just want to see how deep your brain-washing and indoctrination goes).

Its pretty obvious now who knows their history and who does not. Now just because Israel does not benefit from the law does that mean they should not implement it? If that is the case then why have International Laws at all?"

-->UN put the creation of Israel through a vote, which was brought forward by the USSR on behalf of the Jews living in Israel. The Vote passed and Israel became a country. What part of that don't you no understand???? The difference is that International Laws are abided by when they don't threaten the safety and security of a country. If Israel gives up the West Bank, what does it get in return. Hamas can move its rockets to the Green Line and fire them at downtown Tel Aviv?

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies

[FONT=arial, helvetica,boton-medium][size=5]WHAT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT MUSLIM-JEWISH RELATIONS IN HISTORY

Malka Hillel Shulevitz, ed., The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands. London & New York: Cassell, 2001 (2nd ed.).

reviewed by Eliyahu Green

Some of the most important events and historical processes get the least attention. In the oceans of ink spilled over the Arab-Israeli conflict relatively little attention has been given (in Israel too) to the historical background of the Jewish immigration --or flight-- to Israel from Arab countries. Partisans of the Arab cause tended to either falsify reality or ignore it. This has included Communists and leftists as well as spokesmen for Western interests in the Middle East. This whole subject has been an area where Communist ideology and practice converged with Western moral and political prejudices and interests.

The existence of oppressed Jewish (and other) minorities in Arab lands has long been an embarassment to certain Western journalists and policy-makers, as well as to Communist ideologues. The mainstream of American journalism in the 1940s and 1950s typically portrayed the Arab world as a region where people were kind, where toleration of Jews and other minorities was the rule, and where only Israel's presence spoiled the longing of the naturally anti-Communist Arab Muslims to join the Baghdad Pact. Soviet propaganda likewise advocated Arab unity, although in behalf of "anti-imperialist" and "progressive" goals and under Soviet rather than Western sponsorship.

In this atmosphere, Western and Communist politicians, communications media and educational institutions overlooked or minimized the wrongs committed by Muslim-Arabs against dhimmi (non-Muslim) peoples, or even against fellow Muslims who resisted Arab nationalism. Consider how the mass murder of Iraqi Kurds by Saddam Hussein (by poison gas among other means) and the genocide of southern Sudanese Blacks are usually overlooked by the media, by self-styled "human rights" bodies, by UN agencies, and by politicians generally. Ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Iraq intensified in 2000 and 2001, yet the veil of silence and distortion stayed in place as the media has focussed on alleged wrongs committed by Israel against Arabs in the course of Arab-initiated warfare.

The facts about the age-old suppression of Jews and Christians in Muslim society according to Islamic law could not be emphasized in the simplistic historical presentations of Western exponents of Arab nationalism. Arnold Toynbee, a historian highly placed in the British academic-diplomatic establishment (Studies Director at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, etc.), described Jews and other minorities as "fossils of ancient faiths" that should have vanished long ago. On a less distinguished level, Christina Jones, author of a brief account of Quaker (Society of Friends) missions in the Land of Israel, briefly described traditional Arab treatment of Jews as she saw it, as follows:

Jews in Palestine... lived in excellent relations with their Arab neighbors.

The Arab people are capable of the utmost generosity and to their everlasting credit have a better record of tolerance than their brothers of the West... There is no indication of racial animosity at that time [1917] on the part of the Arabs...1

Jones was not a famous academic like Toynbee, yet her modest work may have had considerable influence due to the heavy representation of Quakers in the American foreign policy establishment dealing with the Middle East, and in particular in agencies caring for the 1948 Arab refugees. Toynbee's words show a certain annoyance with ethnic and religious groups that spoiled the Arab world's uniformity and unity.

The Communist Soviet Union had announced its favoritism for Muslims against non-Muslim minorities shortly after the Bolsheviks took power, when they issued an "Appeal to the Muslim Toilers of Russia and the East" to support revolution, on 3 December 1917. This manifesto, prepared by Stalin's Commissariat of Nationalities, also asserted the right of peoples to self-determination, but gave the national-territorial claims of Muslim peoples pride of place over those of non-Muslims. Consider:

Constantinople must remain in the hands of the Muslims...2

The Ottoman capital probably had a Greek majority at the start of WW I, and if not, other non-Muslims (Bulgars, Jews, Armenians, etc.) probably made up a majority together with the Greeks. Consider next:

We declare that the treaty for the partition of Turkey and the wresting from her of Armenia is null and void. As soon as military operations are brought to an end, the Armenians will be guaranteed the right to decide freely their political destiny.3

Hence, the Armenians had the right of self-determination too. But they should not exercise their rights against Turkish (Muslim) claims of sovereignty. They should wait till the end of "military operations." The treaty promising removal from Ottoman control of Ottoman-ruled parts of Armenia was "null and void." Further, not only did the Bolsheviks leave the areas in question to the Ottoman Empire, but after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918), the Bolsheviks ceded to the Ottoman Empire large areas of historic Armenia and Georgia which the Russian Tsars had conquered in the nineteenth century, thereby exposing Armenian subjects of Russia to a continuation of the mass murder perpetrated by the Muslim Ottoman Empire against its own Armenian population during WW One. Additional massacres naturally ensued.

Some observers saw Brest-Litovsk --with its territorial concessions to Germany and the Ottoman Empire, Germany's ally-- as Bolshevik compensation to the German Empire for helping the Bolsheviks take over the rival Russian Empire. Article IV of the Treaty states:

Russia will do all in its power to ensure the rapid evacuation of the eastern provinces of Anatolia and their restoration to Turkey. Ardahan, Kars, and Batum will be evacuated without delay by Russian troops.

The article does not mention Armenia or Georgia by name. So much for Bolshevik devotion to self-determination. This episode, like the Nazi-Soviet Pact, is one of those that Communists avoid discussing or are unaware of. Instead of bemoaning the lethal results of Brest-Litovsk, the Communists habitually advocated --in practice-- devotion to Muslim militant demands over the rights of dhimmis.

In Israel too, what is called the "left" has found the reality of Arab-Jewish relations in history to be an embarassment. How after all can the Arabs be depicted as oppressed victims of Jews if in the long perspective of history the situation was the opposite? How can Israel be depicted as Nazi if it is widely known that in fact most of the Arab nationalist movement was pro-Nazi? That the main leader of the Palestinian Arabs collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust? This attitude or one with similar results for historiography has long influenced the writing of history textbooks for Israeli schools, long before the "new historans" came on the scene. Indeed, there have been exceptions among the "left." Consider Sami Mikha'el's novel, Sufah beyn haD'qalim, about a Jewish boy in Baghdad who lived through the murderous pogrom of 1941. However, the rule for the Left has been to embellish the history of Arab-Jewish relations in favor of the Arabs.

Swimming against the stream of general reluctance among the communications media and the academic establishment in the West (and Israel too) to put Muslims, particularly Arabs, in a bad light, Malka Hillel Shulevitz has compiled a book of articles, most written freshly for this collection, dealing with the above and related themes. The resulting anthology can serve as a useful introduction to the field for newcomers and can provide useful information and concepts for the specialist. Shulevitz wisely chose Mordecai Nisan to present the political, social, and historical background of Middle Eastern minorities from a theoretical standpoint and a global perspective in today's world. Nisan wrote a book some years ago considering a series of those Middle Eastern minorities that have had political-territorial aspirations opposed to Arab (or Arab-Muslim) nationalism, or that have a distinct identity, supplying a theoretical explanation which contradicted not only Arab nationalism but the Western Arabists.

Bat Yeor, herself born in Egypt, presents in detail the principles of dhimmi status in the Islamic state, and the history of Muslim-dhimmi relations (particularly with Jews) in what is called in Arabic Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). The concept of dhimma supplies most of the explanation of how Muslims have viewed Jews throughout the ages. Moreover, when the Ottoman Empire gave Jews and Christians a more equal civil status (mid-19th century), Muslims still viewed them from the traditional viewpoint. This attitude embraced modernizers such as the Young Turks --and more recently, their admirer Sadat in Egypt.

Bat Yeor believes that, "For Israel, the study of jihad... is essential." That is, she sees knowledge of jihad in its various aspects and ancillary concepts, such as fay and dhimma, as relevant to understanding our present conflict with the Arabs. The Hamas Charter asserts that land conquered from non-Muslims is fay, that is, collective booty of the Islamic Umma. This applies of course to the Land of Israel. The dhimmi status for Jews is still seen as valid by many --probably most-- Islamic authorities. Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra of Al-Azhar University declared (1968) that Jews living in Islamic lands were dhimmis who had "betrayed the covenant" of dhimma which granted them protection, by harboring sympathy for Israel. Therefore Muslims and the Muslim state no longer had an obligation to protect them.

Very relevant to the present situation of constant murders, shootings, suicide bombings, etc., is the historical core of dhimmi status. The Quran (IX:29) states that Muslims must, "Fight against [unbelievers]... until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." The tribute in early Islam included a head tax called the jizya, which in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century (under European pressure), though remaining in effect in other Islamic lands into the twentieth. The receipt for the jizya was a license to live another year. Therefore, Bat Yeor points out, "life" was "not considered a natural right" but a right which a dhimmi must purchase annually. The murders on the roads of Samaria and at the Tel Aviv discotheque are most reasonably understood in the context of dhimma and jihad, rather than as reactions to "occupation." Bat Yeor adds that Christian Judeophobia too --both Western and Middle Eastern-- is a factor in hostility to Israel.

Ya'akov Meron contributes a substantial piece arguing that the Arab League planned an expulsion of Jews from Arab lands before the UN Partition Resolution (Nov 29, 1947). Indeed, Arab delegates to the UN, in particular those of Egypt and Iraq, had hinted at their intentions in speeches at the UN before the vote on Partition, warning that Partition might endanger Jews in Arab lands, intensify antisemitism and lead to massacre of Jews. These veiled threats must have made a chilling impact on Jews in Arab lands where memories of the pro-Nazi stance of the local Arab governments and nationalists must have been fresh, especially in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, as well as in Libya where Arab mobs had accepted the occupying Germans' invitation to plunder the Jews; likewise the calls to murder Jews issued over Radio Berlin during WW2 by Amin el-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem. Meron's documentation flies in the face of some "new history" writings, and vitiates claims made about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands by assorted anti-Zionists --Western and Communist alike-- that the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands was a reaction to alleged expulsion of Palestinian Arabs by Israel, and/or that Zionist agents had terrorized the Jews into leaving (perhaps Jews would have felt safe in Baghdad despite the 1941 massacre?). Meron argues on the grounds of documents that the Arab leaders wanted the Jews out so that they could take over their property.

Perhaps because of the various upheavals that Egypt underwent after 1948 --defeat in war, overthrow of the monarchy, etc.-- this policy was not implemented there until Nasser amended the Egyptian Nationality Law in 1956. This new law led to mass imprisonment of Egyptian Jews and confiscation of their property under various pretexts and subsequent decrees.

The policy had been implemented earlier in Iraq (1950-51), where Nuri Said, the pro-British prime minister, worked intensely on the expulsion project, which was blamed after the war on the displacement of Palestinian Arabs but in fact had been decided by the Arab League before the UN vote. Said advocated his plan to British and American diplomats, using the arguments of an exchange of populations or retaliation for the displacement of Palestinian Arabs. However, speaking to the Palestinian Arab intellectual, Aref al-Aref, he explained:

The Jews have always been a source of evil and harm to Iraq...

Malka Shulewitz and Raphael Israeli contribute a joint article on twentieth century population displacements, as a comparison with that of Palestinian Arabs. This article is essential for considering the Palestinian Arab refugee situation in its global and historical context. The fact that at least 25 million Germans and Indians (including Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs) became refugees about the same time as the Palestinian Arabs is commonly forgotten or unknown today, even to well informed people, particularly the young. The article shows how the Palestinian Arab refugees were treated differently than other, much larger groups of refugees. Whereas the Germans and Indians were resettled the Arabs were kept in camps. Yet, the principle of population exchange and thereby of resettlement had been accepted in international law, as in the Convention of Adrianople (1913), the Treaty of Neuilly (1919) and the Lausanne Convention (1923).

However, resettlement for the 1948 Arab refugees for Israel has not been accepted by the international community. Instead, the Western powers perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and status through the UN agency called UNWRA. The United States has historically been the most generous donor to the UNWRA and much of the staff has been American, particularly members of the Quaker sect. We may add, if it is not obvious, that perpetuation of the refugee problem has been a major factor embittering and exacerbating the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, especially considering the terrorist role of Arab youth raised in the refugee camps and educated in UNWRA schools. The perpetuation of the camps has also endowed the Arab cause with a certain humanitarian veneer that has been necessary to disguise its character as a jihad embodying religious hatred and contempt, and a sense of Muslim and Arab superiority in race and in rights.

Avi Beker's piece focusses in more detail on how the UN has perpetuated the Arab refugee situation, refusing the solution of resettlement, in contrast to its acceptance in other cases, as mentioned above. In other words, the UN has been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Beker's informative article points out that the PLO takeover of the UNWRA-sponsored refugee camps in Lebanon, which was apparently accepted or approved by UNWRA, and in any case did not lead to a cessation of UNWRA support for the camps, became a threat to internal peace in Lebanon. This phenomenon led to a protest by Lebanese ambassador to the UN, Edmond Ghorra, in 1976, against the PLO's violations of Lebanese sovereignty from its bases in the camps formally under UNWRA supervision, where weapons and explosives were stockpiled and military training provided.

A central role in current Arab claims is played by General Assembly resolution 194 (December 1948) which recommends that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so" (paragraph 11). Beker points out that the Arabs originally rejected this resolution but later focussed on Paragraph 11, reinterpreting it to mean an unconditional right to return. Beker should have added that General Assembly resolutions are in any case considered only recommendations, not law, by the UN Charter itself.

He gives attention to the history and function of the UNWRA agency, correctly concluding that its "primary purpose is in reality to perpetuate and intensify the Palestinian refugee problem while ensuring that the refugees remain in the camps." Beker also discusses the growth in numbers of the refugees, the failure of resettlement and rehabilitation schemes (customarily rejected by Arab states and the Arab League), and the UN attitude toward the various agreements between Israel and Arab states (and PLO).

Walid Phares's survey of Christian minorities in Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Syria and Iraq and the Land of Israel covers their history, their aspirations, their current plight, and the attitude of Western powers towards their sufferings. Hence, this article furnishes us with a comparative view on the situation of the Jews (and Israel) in Arab Islam. Consider some of the arguments often made to justify Arab terrorism against Israel: Israelis are colonialists, intruders, "Europeans," culturally alien, etc. If so, and if being "intruders" justifies violence against Israelis, then why the massacres against Christians in Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, etc.? Most Middle Eastern Christians are descended from non-Arabs (speakers of Coptic, Aramaic, etc.) whose ancestors lived in the Fertile Crescent lands before the Arab conquest. This is true of the Jews too but unlike the European Jews, their ancestors did not leave the Middle East in the Middle Ages. Rather, they have been in place all along. So why are they massacred?

Phares discusses the recurrent episodes of Christian resistance to Arab rule and colonization, notably in Lebanon and Egypt in the Middle Ages, and in Lebanon and Sudan in recent years. Western support for the freedom fighters has not been forthcoming.

In Egypt, both Islamic extremists and the government have oppressed the Copts. The Copts have suffered increased physical persecution since the late 1970s, whereas they had long been discriminated against by the state. After the Camp David Accords with Israel, Sadat jailed the Coptic patriarch, Shenouda III, for sedition, while failing to seriously punish the Copts' persecutors. Since the early 1990s, the Copts have been subject to frequent murders, massacres and other persecution (especially since Oslo), while Mubarak's government failed to protect them (or harassed Coptic victims!), pretending to the outside world that nothing was happening. The genocide and enslavement in Sudan have long proceeded with little outside attention, though the outside attention has somewhat increased in recent years. The Western media typically boycott spokesmen of Christian movements, not only the Southern Sudanese.

Phares focusses on the Western role. An actual policy on the part of the West to stop or prevent crimes against Middle Eastern Christians does not exist. Instead, Phares concludes, "The Western abandonment of the Christian nationalities was general, systematic, and clearly political."

Other articles include Harold Troper on the life of Syrian Jews after 1948, oppressed and forbidden to leave by various dictators, as well as the campaign in the West championing their right to leave. Yehuda Dominitz and Penina Morag-Talmon contribute separate articles on the absorption of Jews from Arab countries in Israel (Morag-Talmon also discussing other Oriental communities Jews). The book also includes useful and relevant appendices. These are: 1) the findings of the Tribunal relating to the claims of Jews from Arab Lands, chaired by Arthur Goldberg, former US Supreme Court Justice; 2) testimony of four witnesses before the Tribunal; 3) statements by Shimon Peres and Benyamin Netanyahu on the issue of Jews from Arab lands.

The book is now on its second edition. The first edition has already aroused discussion and been quoted in various later writings.

  1. Christina H Jones, Friends in Palestine (Richmond, Indiana: American Friends Board of Missions, 1944), pp 69, 76, 84.

  2. See J.C. Hurewitz, Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East: 1914-1956, vol. II (New York 1956), p 28. Other translations, complete or partial, have been published. See J. Bunyan and H.H. Fisher, The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1918 (Stanford 1934). The date of the appeal varies according to the publication.[/size]

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies


Kindly provide a link and some highlights from the article which you blv are important enough to discuss and not the FULL article . Posting lengthy articles without your opinion/ideas are waste of space/bandwidth.[/size]

Re: Israel and Pakistan: Natural Allies


As if Israel would be sitting in Haifa/DC twiddling its thumbs in return?