‘Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God’.
In a blog post at The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg recalls a meeting he had with Nizar Rayyan, a Hamas leader recently killed during Operation Cast Lead (hat tip: Susan in the comments).
I saw him last in Gaza two years ago, at a mosque in the Jabalya Refugee Camp … He was one of the more Islamically-learned Hamas leaders I’ve met … In particular, Rayyan was interested in the hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, with a special interest in hadith that painted Jews in a negative light.
And what did this learned Hamas leader have to say?
This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: “The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don’t need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.” There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. “Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.”
I asked him if he believed, as some Hamas theologians do (and certainly as many Hezbollah leaders do) that Jews are the “sons of pigs and apes.” He gave me an interesting answer that reflects a myopic reading of the Koran. “Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce. So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people.”
What are our crimes? I asked Rayyan. “You are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah,” he said. “Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.”
And here’s some more on Rayyan from the BBC:
“We will never recognise Israel,” he told Reuters news agency in early 2007. “There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination.”
[...]
When Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007, he said there would be no dialogue with Fatah, the secular Palestinian movement it ousted, “only the sword and the rifle”.
Operation Cast Lead was launched to combat men like Rayyan, someone who drew his inspiration not simply from injustices against Palestinians but from an extreme and vitriolic form of Islamist theology, a man for whom hatred of Jews was a duty to God, and a man who presented not simply Israel itself, but the Jewish people as a whole throughout history as ‘cursed’ enemies.
Nizar Rayyan is a reminder of exactly what Israel is up against in its fight against Hamas, a group that puts out TV shows aimed at indoctrinating children with ideas of anti-Jewish genocide:
And a group whose ideology promotes a hateful and supremacist version of Islam:
Those who delude themselves that Hamas is simply a ‘resistance movement’ would do well to listen to the words of Nizar Rayyan and to take seriously the real message being promoted by Hamas, a message that presents cease-fires as re-arming periods and which proclaims the long-term existence of Israel to be ‘an impossibility’.
Comments
| 3 January 2009, 3:26 pm |
I don’t know what an imposibility is, but something that has almost zero chance to exist is a succesful Islamic state.
| 3 January 2009, 3:36 pm |
Why is the BBC posting an Obituary to an Antisemitic Terrorist Leader as if they were some recognised statesman.
Has the BBC gone completely into the Islamic Broadcast Service?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7807430.stm (the link from above)
| 3 January 2009, 3:44 pm |
Yes, he does not sound like a nice man, and we regularly get diatribes about how nasty Hamas or Hez are at HP when Israel goes to war; these are the nationalists dutifully banging the war drum. However, having dubious views on Jews and religion are not sufficient reasons for killing then – in fact in themselves they are no reasons at all. Its an odd thing, really; the fantasy that Israel has that it can wipe out Hamas and its ideology through this military action, rather than actually having the opposite effect – bolstering it.
| 3 January 2009, 3:46 pm |
Maven
Having an obituary of a political leader does not denote approval. The text does not suggest that at all.
| 3 January 2009, 3:50 pm |
“However, having dubious views on Jews and religion are not sufficient reasons for killing then – in fact in themselves they are no reasons at all.”
Benjamin, how about if that said person also participates in attacks against Israel and in training and encouraging others to commit attacks on Israeli citizens. Would that make him a legitimate target for Israel?
| 3 January 2009, 3:54 pm |
Psoriasis is probably one of the longest known illnesses of humans and simultaneously one of the most misunderstood. Some scholars believe psoriasis to have been included among the skin conditions called tzaraat in the Bible.[2] In more recent times psoriasis was frequently described as a variety of leprosy. The Greeks used the term lepra (λεπρα) for scaly skin conditions. They used the term psora to describe itchy skin conditions. It became known as Willan’s lepra in the late 18th century when English dermatologists Robert Willan and Thomas Bateman differentiated it from other skin diseases. They assigned names to the condition based on the appearance of lesions. Willan identified two categories: leprosa graecorum and psora leprosa.
A nasty irritant i.e. leprosa benjamina
| 3 January 2009, 3:54 pm |
You see Benji, all these people, don’t view their opinions as something theoretical. They act upon them and try to kill as many Israel/Jews as possible. I am sure that for someone rational like you, that probably seems rather strange, but unfortunately, they do.
| 3 January 2009, 4:03 pm |
Benjamin, how about if that said person also participates in attacks against Israel and in training and encouraging others to commit attacks on Israeli citizens.
Ah, finally a bit of relevance (as in relevance to this military attack, rather than just saying Rayyan has dubious views on religion and Jews, which does not in itself justify killing).
Well, in the sense that Rayyan was in military or terrorist operations against Israel, that brings him closer to being a legitimate target in war, although it still leaves open the question whether the overall military operation is justifiable or likely to result in success, and you have my views on that.
| 3 January 2009, 4:10 pm |
Anyone who thinks the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about land is fundamentally mistaken. If it was about land that could be solved rationally and would have been decades ago.
The real roots of the problem are theological. They rest in Muslim anti-Semitism, because the Jews of Arabia were stubborn against Muhammed’s message. Thus they are cursed in the Quran. Thus Jews returning to ‘Muslim’ lands are an intolerable offense against god.
Until people grasp this there will be no peace and no solution.
It is, and always was, a jihad.
| 3 January 2009, 4:15 pm |
However, having dubious views on Jews and religion are not sufficient reasons for killing then – in fact in themselves they are no reasons at all
I happen to think that someone who advocates killing any other group of people as a policy based on some religious prejudice should be killed by assassination for urging the killing of that group and also carrying it out and directing peopole to carry it out.
What you have tried to suggest is that killing Jews is an acceptable thing to say. Specifically “killing Jews”.
So, if in the UK some BNP members went really bad and said they were going to kill “Pakis” and indeed Asians in Bradford started to get killed and this group said “We did it”, you wouldn’t arrest them I suppose? Israel arrest Hamas leaders but sometimes you don’t risk your own life to get someone who admits to being a killer.
You would be against the assasination of Hitler.
| 3 January 2009, 4:18 pm |
This is hard-core Islamism that has an extermination fantasy about killing Jews. Anyone supporting Hamas supports this view. Yet, there are people who go on marches and say they support Hamas.
When will the Govt crack down on pro-Hamas support?> What’s the problem? Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation and support for Hamas is a support and encouragement to terrorism under UK Law.
| 3 January 2009, 4:20 pm |
…Jews tried to kill the Prophet…
I wouldn’t trust him with Islamic history any more than I ‘d have trusted him to create a just, tolerant and open society.
According to historians of Islam, Zaynab bint ul-Harith, a Jewess, served poisoned lamb to Muhammad after the conquest of Khaybar, which eventually resulted in his death:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: ‘A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah’s Apostle.’(Bukhari 3:786)
Narrated Abu Huraira: ‘When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophet as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, “Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me.” The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), “I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?” They said, “Yes.” The Prophet asked, “Who is your father?” They replied, “So-and-so.” He said, “You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so.” They said, “You are right.” He said, “Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?” They replied, “Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father.” On that he asked, “Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?” They said, “We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us.” The Prophet said, “You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.” Then he asked, “Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?” They said, “Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim.” He asked, “Have you poisoned this sheep?” They said, “Yes.” He asked, “What made you do so?” They said, “We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.”‘(Bukhari 4:394)
‘Verily a Jewish woman presented poisoned (meat of) a she goat to the apostle of Allah. He took a piece form it, put it into his mouth, chewed it and threw it away. Then he said to the Companions: “Halt! Verily, its leg tells me that it is poisoned.” Then he sent for the Jewish woman and asked her; “What induced you to do what you have done?” She replied, “I wanted to know if you are true; in that case Allah will surely inform you, and if you are a liar I shall relieve the people of you.”‘(Tarikh Ibn Sa’ad)
‘The apostle of Allah and his companions ate from it. It (goat) said: “I am poisoned.” He [Muhammad] said to his Companions, “Hold you hands! because it has informed me that it is poisoned!” They withdrew their hands, but Bishr Ibn al-Bara expired. The apostle of Allah sent for her (Jewess) and asked her, “What induced you to do what you have done?” She replied, “I wanted to know if you are a prophet, in that case it will not harm you and if you are a king, I shall relieve the people of you.” He gave orders and she was put to death.’(Tarikh Ibn Sa’ad)
‘Verily a woman of the Jews of Khaibar presented poisoned (meat of) goat to the apostle of Allah. The he recognized that it was poisoned, so he sent for her and asked her, “What induced you to do what you have done?” She replied, “I thought if you are a prophet, Allah will inform you, and if you are a pretender, I shall relieve people of you.” When the apostle of Allah felt sick, he got himself cupped.’(Tarikh Ibn Sa’ad)
‘When the apostle of Allah conquered Khaibar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired, “Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad?” They said, “The foreleg.” Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail. …. The apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the apostle of Allah said, “Hold back your hands! because this foreleg; …informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said, “By Him who has made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong.’(Tarikh Ibn Sa’ad)
‘Bishr did not rise form his seat but his color changed to that of “taylsan” (a green cloth)…The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, “What induced you to do what you have done?” She replied, “You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, “If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, “If you are a king we will get rid of you.”‘
The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say, “I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaibar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein.”‘(Tarikh Ibn Sa’ad)
‘When the messenger of God rested from his labor, Zaynab bt. al-Harith, the wife of Sallam b. Mishkam, served him a roast sheep. She had asked what part of the sheep the messenger of God liked best and was told that it was the foreleg. So she loaded that part with poison, and she poisoned the rest of the sheep too. Then she brought it. When she set it before the messenger of God, he took the foreleg and chewed a bit of it, but he did not swallow it. With him was Bishr b. al-Bara b. Marur, who, like the messenger of God, took some of it; Bishr, however, swallowed it, while the messenger of God spat it out saying, “This bone informs me that it has been poisoned.” He asked, “What led you to do this?” She said: “How you have afflicted my people is not hidden from you. So I said, “If he is a prophet, he will be informed; but if he is a king, I shall be rid of him”. The prophet forgave her. Bishr died of the food he had eaten.’(Tarikh ut-Tabari)
This must be a major factor in the ‘Jew-hatred trope’, but notice that one of the most authentic biography’s of Muhammad, at-Tabari’s Tarikh ul Rasool wa’l-Malook, cited him forgiving Zaynab bint ul-Harith.
| 3 January 2009, 4:28 pm |
…who drew his inspiration not simply from injustices against Palestinians but from an extreme and vitriolic form of Islamist theology…
I appreciate that saying ‘it’ would leave you open to certain charges, but frankly sincerity behoves us to declare openly that most of Islamic history recorded by mainstream, authentic historians of Islam was ‘extreme’. Whether you decide to use it as a model for your own life is another matter.
| 3 January 2009, 4:32 pm |
“This bone informs me that it has been poisoned
If ONLY they could turn that skill into something the doctors could use.
| 3 January 2009, 4:33 pm |
“…it still leaves open the question whether the overall military operation is justifiable or likely to result in success, and you have my views on that.”
“Likeley to result in success” depends, of course, on the criteria.
It seems, your criterion means, that Israel must be accepted by
the Islamic world in order to be a success. But that acceptance
seems hard to obtain. So perhaps “success” could mean something
else. Like surviving without the acceptance of the Islamic world.
Keeping violent Islamism (and aggressive arab nationalism)
at bay.
| 3 January 2009, 4:36 pm |
Fabian is absolutely right: there is no way a ’succesful Islamic state’ is ever going to exist. Full stop.
There’s a good bit in Houllebecq’s Platforme where the main character is seized with hate against an Islamist mass murder: the fith had killed and it gripped him terribly.
When he has time to reflect he realises that the Isalmists have nothing to offer. Whatsoever.
BTW: Tendance Coatesy has now its own line following such reflections on Why I Shall not be Demonstrating Today – one a small minority of leftists, links with similar German point of view.
| 3 January 2009, 4:38 pm |
What you have tried to suggest is that killing Jews is an acceptable thing to say.
Absolutely not. I just don’t think it should be punishable by death.
I happen to think that someone who advocates killing any other group of people as a policy based on some religious prejudice should be killed by assassination for urging the killing of that group and also carrying it out and directing peopole to carry it out.
Yes, carrying it out is murder, or (in an organised fashion) terrorism or war.
However, simply stating those views is not (and should not be) punishable by death. That is why there is distinction to be made between saying Rayyan is a nasty man with horrible views on Jews on religion, and stating that he has done something that constitutes terrorism or a military attack. The latter is the only thing that can possibly justify him being a military target.
| 3 January 2009, 4:43 pm |
You would be against the assasination of Hitler.
I would have been against the death penalty for Hitler in a war crimes trial, but I would not have been against him dying in a military operation, as he was part of the military machine and I view that war as justifiable.
In the sense that Rayyan was part of military or terrorist operations against Israel, that brings him closer to being a legitimate target in war, although it still leaves open the question whether the overall military operation is justifiable or likely to result in success, and you have my views on that.
| 3 January 2009, 5:06 pm |
Benjamin: Far from being thoughtful, you are sinking lower and lower on a daily basis. How DARE you come up with this gem about the targeted killing of Nizar Rayyan:”having dubious views on Jews and religion are not sufficient reasons for killing then – in fact in themselves they are no reasons at all.”
Did you simply forget that this individual does not just have “dubious views” about Jews but was a senior military commander of the group fighting Israel and, on a personal level, sent his OWN SON on a suicide mission inside israel”. Is that not appropriate motivation, or are you going to parse and slice that as well. It’s one thing to be legalistic, but to purposefully obfuscate why he was killed is low and worthy of Hasbara Buster.
| 3 January 2009, 5:13 pm |
Nizar Rayyan is a reminder of exactly what Israel is up against in its fight against Hamas, a group that puts out TV shows aimed at indoctrinating children with ideas of anti-Jewish genocide
And the following Jewish boy, who celebrates Baruch Goldstein dressed up as him and enacts his massacre of Arabs at a Purim party in Kiryat Arba, is a reminder of exactly what the Palestinians are up against:
http://www.ahikamseri.com/slide_show.asp?catId=30&id=33
Let us remember that the Jewish settlers in Kiryat Arba enjoy heavy subsidizing from Israel and the full protection of its army, which looks on as they rampage the West Bank.
Dehumanization of the Other is not a good tactic. It backfires with extraordinary ease.
| 3 January 2009, 6:01 pm |
HB:
“Dehumanization of the Other is not a good tactic. It backfires with extraordinary ease.”
Your entire religion is predicated on dehumanisation of the other, so you should know.
| 3 January 2009, 6:02 pm |
Just wondering if that children’s TV stuff was an adaptation of Michael Rosen’s work. It’s certainly similar in intent to his political output.
| 3 January 2009, 6:02 pm |
Benjamin,
You tried a similar tack in another thread, claiming that Rayan was a mere political leader, and got answered there:
“Stick to something you know. Nizar Rayyan was not merely a political leader. He was a military commander who led the coup against Fatah in 2007. According to those who knew him, he was fond of dressing up in camouflage and joining the games in person, including both capturing Fatah installations and firing rockets against Israeli civilians — which is a war crime. He also planned suicide bombing — another war crime.
All this is readily available from the Jerusalem Post today, at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733134624&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull”
Either you have zero reading comprehension, or you have the attention span of a gnat, or you argue in bad faith. I’d guess the latter.
Rayyan was a thug who was actively, personally involved in a terrorist war against the people who eventually killed him. He was also not just a mere Benjamin Mackie of the Gaza strip, a blowhard who liked to stir the pot, he was a senior leader of Hamas, directly responsible for terror, incitement, and endangering his own people (both the people he ruled and his own immediate family). He was also, God help the Palestinians, a professor at Gaza’s Islamic University, where he had the opportunity to twist a new generation of minds (boycott, anyone?). Killing such a man at a time of active war is not just a right, it is, unfortunately, a duty.
| 3 January 2009, 6:07 pm |
Benjamin seems to have ‘evolved’ somewhat in recent weeks. This is a new, tougher, more cynical Benji we are seeing. It reflects recent events in his private life and tough choices he’s had to make. He is on a voyage of discovery and it could get messy.
He’s still an insufferable cunt mind you.
| 3 January 2009, 6:22 pm |
Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.
No, that’s Captain Jack.
| 3 January 2009, 6:27 pm |
Monty
HB:
“Dehumanization of the Other is not a good tactic. It backfires with extraordinary ease.”
Your entire religion is predicated on dehumanisation of the other, so you should know.
HB is not Jewish
| 3 January 2009, 6:35 pm |
Would Benji have found that there was sufficient reason to kill Goebbels?
| 3 January 2009, 6:37 pm |
This post created more questions than it answers. Nizar Rayyan clearly had some noxious views about Jews and the state of Israel but how does that justify his death?
1 ) Are you suggesting everyone should be killed who believes
‘Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God’.?
Thats pretty OT.
2) Are you suggesting that people who believe all Jews should be killed (and I dont think Rayyan falls into this category) should themselves be killed? Or that Rayyans politicla religous views justifies his death? Would you support Muslims or Arabs killing people who believe all Muslims /Arabs should be killed on the same basis?
Would you condone the killing of Rabbi Kahane who did? Whats the difference?
3) Jewish Settlers in places like Hebron protected by the IDF hold many genocidal views against Arabs and want them expelled. Many resort to attacks on Arabs. Given that they are on occupied land (which the Gazans arent) Would you say taregtting Jewish settlers was legitamate? If you support the targetting of Hamas leaders why not?
4) Lets assume after all that you still justify the killing of Nazar Rayyan even without a trial. On what basis were his wives and children killed?
Jeffery Goldberg has an artcile on those lovely Jewish settlers here
http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php
| 3 January 2009, 6:41 pm |
Josh Scholar
“Would Benji have found that there was sufficient reason to kill Goebbels?”
So given there call for the annihilation of Arabs and attacks on Arabs whose land they have occupied what opposition to you have to targetting extreme religious Jewish settlers?
A few years ago a member of the Israeli governemnt who advocated the genocide of Arabs in Israel was killed by a Palestinian group. (and incientally given laudatory praise as “a scholar” in the media)
His killing (not he himself and his ideas) was called “terrorism” by the Israeli govt and they slaughtered numerous Palestinians in revenge.
| 3 January 2009, 6:48 pm |
devorgilla
“Anyone who thinks the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about land is fundamentally mistaken. If it was about land that could be solved rationally and would have been decades ago.
The real roots of the problem are theological.”"
Quite. One groups belief that G-d gave them someone elses land in the Bible
” They rest in Muslim anti-Semitism, because the Jews of Arabia were stubborn against Muhammed’s message. Thus they are cursed in the Quran. Thus Jews returning to ‘Muslim’ lands are an intolerable offense against god.”
So what about the Christian /Marxist/Athiest/Secular palestinians who fought Israel?
The Palestinians resistance was until the 1990s entirely secular – and even now is predominantly so
If its just about religion why did the Arabs fight the Muslim Turks for control of their lands ?
You ignore the fact that one of the first things the Muslim conquers of Jerusalem did was allow the Jews
The fact that you consider opposition to someone stealing your land to be “anti-semitism” is a sign of total moral collapse.
| 3 January 2009, 6:56 pm |
“..Nizar Rayyan clearly had some noxious views about Jews and the state of Israel but how does that justify his death?…”
In a word – Yes – because this animal acted on them:
This animal groomed suicide murderers. What else did he deserve – the Nobel Peace Prize?
| 3 January 2009, 7:24 pm |
I find it interesting to speculate about the psychological effect on Hamas of the death of this animal and the skill of Israeli intelligence which showed them where to find him and other leaders.
Hamas is pathologically narcissistically personality disordered en mass. The disposing of Rayyan and other Hamas leaders by the allegedly inferior Jews, and hopefully the ground action which I am now hearing about, will cause them such narcissistic injury that they will never recover fully, although they may make a lot of noise about how the world and Israel has wronged them.
Rayyan should be happy if he’s conscious to have been sent to Allah’s right hand because at last he has practised what he preached and said he believed in, or perhaps he’s frying in hell as I write. Either way, I am glad he is dead and may other Hamas murderers swiftly follow in his tracks.
| 3 January 2009, 7:26 pm |
Yohoho
“This animal groomed suicide murderers. What else did he deserve – the Nobel Peace Prize?”
A state of his own like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir
| 3 January 2009, 7:28 pm |
Yohoho
“..Nizar Rayyan clearly had some noxious views about Jews and the state of Israel but how does that justify his death?…”
In a word – Yes – because this animal acted on them:
Fine but you or anyone else still havent answered my question about why this doesnt apply to Jewish settlers on occupied land who act on their noxious views of Arabs?
| 3 January 2009, 7:39 pm |
So given there call for the annihilation of Arabs and attacks on Arabs whose land they have occupied what opposition to you have to targetting extreme religious Jewish settlers?
If they were officers in a terrorist organization that kills people and indoctrinates children to commit suicide, slaughter and support genocide, well none at all
If there was a settler equivalent of Hamas I would say they were perfectly legitimate targets for the Palestinians. But if there were a settler equivalent of Hamas the Israeli police would arrest them and and the Israeli judicial system would imprison them because Israeli society DOES function sufficiently well. And that’s because liberal democracy works.
| 3 January 2009, 8:02 pm |
Josh Scholar
“If there was a settler equivalent of Hamas I would say they were perfectly legitimate targets for the Palestinians. But if there were a settler equivalent of Hamas the Israeli police would arrest them and and the Israeli judicial system would imprison them because Israeli society DOES function sufficiently well. And that’s because liberal democracy works.”
Bullshit. It is the Israeli state that has settled hundreds of thousands of religious settlers many of them fanatically anti-Arab in the west bank and East Jeruslaem. It does little or nothing to stop them atacking Palestinians because it shares the same goals- that life be made so unbearable for the Palestinians they should leave so their land can be taken
This is from B’Tselem
“When Palestinians attack Israelis, the authorities invoke all means at their disposal – including some that are incompatible with international law and constitute gross violations of human rights – to arrest the suspects and bring them to trial. Defendants convicted by military courts can expect harsh sentences.
In contrast, when Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise toward the perpetrators. This policy is reflected in the actions of officials in charge of law enforcement – the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and the Israel Police Force (IPF) – which do not do enough to prevent harm to the life and property of Palestinians, and to stop the violent attacks by settlers while they are taking place. All law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities demonstrate little interest in uncovering the substantial violence that Israeli civilians commit against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
Many failures of law enforcement against Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories, and the discrimination underlying these failures, greatly undermine the rule of law in Israel, not only in the Occupied Territories, but in the State of Israel as well.”
http://www.btselem.org/english/Settler_Violence/Index.asp
“Examination of the human rights organization Yesh Din revealed that some 90 percent of the files opened by the police in 2005 regarding settlers who injured Palestinians or damaged Palestinian property, in which the investigation was completed (or not carried out because the police lost the complaint), were closed without an indictment being filed.”
No Defense for Palestinians Against Attacks by Settlers and Soldiers
Israel isnt a liberal democracy.
| 3 January 2009, 8:30 pm |
Uhm, I’m not knowledgeable to know how true your characterization is, but you have no way refuted that Israel is a liberal democracy, nor have you uncovered anything comparable with Hamas. Institutional prejudice can exist in liberal democracies – but that can (and must) be addressed through the political process and courts, not by violence.
| 3 January 2009, 8:32 pm |
Once again, liberal democracy works sufficiently that violence is not justified.
| 3 January 2009, 8:37 pm |
It is the Israeli state that has settled hundreds of thousands of religious settlers many of them fanatically anti-Arab in the west bank and East Jeruslaem
Which just happen to be part of the Jewish homeland, and neither you nor your ilk will make them Judenrein.
| 3 January 2009, 8:38 pm |
Would Benji have found that there was sufficient reason to kill Goebbels?
Of course not. Goebbels didn’t kill anyone with his own bare hands. Also, he was a cripple. Also, he had a PhD. That alone makes him beyond reproach.
| 3 January 2009, 8:41 pm |
the fantasy that Israel has that it can wipe out Hamas and its ideology through this military action
What about the fantasy that you know the first thing about military matters, and have the slightest basis for pontificating on them?
| 3 January 2009, 8:41 pm |
Josh Scholar
“Uhm, I’m not knowledgeable to know how true your characterization is,”
Then why did you make the claim about Israels response to settlers attacks? And if youre not knowlegeable about it why dont you read B’Tselem’s reports?
“but you have no way refuted that Israel is a liberal democracy,”
A state which settles hundreds of thousands of religious settlers on Palestinian lands allows them to attack Palestinians with impunity, actively discriminates against its minorities in every virtually every field is never a liberal democracy.
“nor have you uncovered anything comparable with Hamas. ”
When did i say Hamas was a liberal democracy ?
“Institutional prejudice can exist in liberal democracies – but that can (and must) be addressed through the political process and courts, not by violence.”
How can it be when the state is institutionally prejudiced and is inherently so against non-Jews being in this case “a Jewish state” ?
| 3 January 2009, 8:44 pm |
Well, in the sense that Rayyan was in military or terrorist operations against Israel, that brings him closer to being a legitimate target in war, although it still leaves open the question whether the overall military operation is justifiable
Bingo. Benjamin retracts his earlier permission for Jews to defend themselves, just as I predicted.
or likely to result in success
Completely irrelevant to the original point, and simply another retread of your pontificating about matters of which you know exactly nothing.
| 3 January 2009, 8:45 pm |
A state which settles hundreds of thousands of religious settlers on Palestinian lands
The assertion that this is ‘Palestinian’ land is a lie for at least two separate reasons.
| 3 January 2009, 8:47 pm |
Your entire religion is predicated on dehumanisation of the other, so you should know.
HB is not Jewish
Of course, this is a completely non-antisemitic statement.
| 3 January 2009, 8:57 pm |
How can it be when the state is institutionally prejudiced and is inherently so against non-Jews being in this case “a Jewish state” ?
You’re completely paranoid. Israel is made of Israelis and on the whole they are more liberal than Brits are.
| 3 January 2009, 9:00 pm |
Well, I’m used to arguing that if Palestinian had used Gandhi’s methods (and adopted his attitudes) they would have been completely successful because Israelis are manifestly more liberal than Brits were in Gandhi’s time.
Currently I judge Israelis and Brits to be on par.
| 3 January 2009, 9:06 pm |
This is how the threads go:-
HP makes a post about a current situation.
Various posters drag us off-topic by quotes such as “Well in 1875, Abe Schmaltman said….” They do that because “current state” discussions all amount to Hamas taking a “Helluva Beating” and the World Community accepting that Hamas are a terrorist organisation and that Israel actions are justified. EU has just stated that IDF ground war is a defensive action.
Look all you anti-Israel detractors and Jew haters. Face the facts.
Israel is winning a war by being smart.
Its winning the propaganda hands down and its winning World Opinion.
You don’t get better than that. Why not debate why the Palestinians just lost this big on all three important fronts instead of having to drag spurious arguments into it.
You are Losing!!! You have Lost the argument.
| 3 January 2009, 9:16 pm |
Nearly Oxfordian
“Of course, this is a completely non-antisemitic statement.”
Sorry I forgot HP house rules. You can say what you like about Islam but if someone says exactly the same about Judaism (which has now suddenly become a race not a religion) its wrong
| 3 January 2009, 9:20 pm |
You can say what you like about Islam but if someone says exactly the same about Judaism (which has now suddenly become a race not a religion) its wrong
There really is nothing good about Islam, and many of it’s flaws simply don’t exist in other religions, so if you say try to turn criticisms of Islam on to Judaism, you are simply incorrect.
| 3 January 2009, 9:22 pm |
Maven
“Israel is winning a war by being smart.
Its winning the propaganda hands down and its winning World Opinion.
You don’t get better than that. Why not debate why the Palestinians just lost this big on all three important fronts instead of having to drag spurious arguments into it.
You are Losing!!! You have Lost the argument.”
“Mission accomplished”
Actually even the Americans are split over Israels actions 44% for vs 41% against
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2627
Anti-semites
| 3 January 2009, 9:33 pm |
Actually even the Americans are split over Israels actions 44% for vs 41% against
And…..?
| 3 January 2009, 9:45 pm |
HB, your obsession with all things Jewish continues apace! Are you really devoid of all other interests? Is your life so sad that you have nothing else to focus on?
What an ugly soul you possess! The Jewish boy imitating Baruch Goldstein is an aberration; Nizar Rayyan is the predominant culture in gaza, extending from hamas’s evil charter to toddlers’ tv programmes, as shown by this post. But you cannot see the difference! Go on, force yourself to read the subtitles on the screen shots.
‘Eyes they have but do not see; ears they have but do not hear.’
| 3 January 2009, 10:13 pm |
Dehumanization of the Other is not a good tactic. It backfires with extraordinary ease.
The tactic certainly hasn’t worked for Islam.
| 3 January 2009, 10:27 pm |
You ignore the fact that one of the first things the Muslim conquers of Jerusalem did was allow the Jews
Yes they were conquerers. That and the fact Jersualem is nowhere mentioned by name in any of Islam’s core texts demonstrates the illegitimacy of the arab claims it is a ‘muslim’ city.
And since when is it enlightened and ‘tolerant’ to conquer a people whose only wish is to be free of such conquests?
They didn’t want you in Andalusia either.
Imagine if I were to illegally invade and squat in YOUR home, and then told you I would tolerate your presence there?
| 3 January 2009, 11:07 pm |
You ignore the fact that one of the first things the Muslim conquers of Jerusalem did was allow the Jews
And when they conquered Mecca and Medina they slaughtered Jews.
| 3 January 2009, 11:15 pm |
Graham,
I am only passingly familiar with Islam holy works and eschatology. These commentaries (I assume that is so), speak to the essential conflict Mohammad had with Jews. I can see how he was poisoned by it. Though he would have it that this was deliberate assassination, the story has a deeper intent. Not too dissimilar to the Jews being responsible for that death of another holy man, though the Mohammad rendition is much more subtle.
The Jews differed with Mohammad, as they did with Christians, over their knowledge of how God rules. Jews merely espouse their beliefs, and back it with such convincing power that it strengthens the adherents and poisons the opponents.
The symbolism of being poisoned by a sheep’s leg is scripturally blatant. It is the lamb that the Jews sacrificed as a critical demonstration of their belief in God and acceptance of His rule. When they arrived at Mt Sinai, this covenant was sealed when God gave the Jews His Torah. The Torah and the pascal lamb, Jews acceptance of it, are inextricably linked. Mohammad was one of a long line of people who would deny that such a link continues to exist. He would enter into a dialectic about it. Not convincing the Jew (whose approbation apparently is vitally needed), He would threaten him, so visceral was his frustration at not being able to convey the Truth to “someone who should know better”. The period of time it took to die from this poison, from one dose, defies identification. Rather She gave him a ‘taste’ of the pascal lamb, with all its meaning for Jews and non-Jews alike, that the Torah is true, and eternal; and it talks only of Jews as the chosen people. Mohammad struggles with this. It is not a scriptural struggle, but an existential struggle. It appears to be true – but if it is true, than I have fundamentally erred. His conclusion was to deny its truth, and be poisoned by harboring what he now knew to be a lie (in that it was not more powerful than Torah). His choice led to his antipathy to those people who burst his bubble.
The simple part of it is- call them both myths. If you really believe it, you don’t have to fight about it. Just find a niche where you can live it. If there really is one truth, it can come out in a peaceful way.
Then there’s the issue of how to deal with people insist on the not-peaceful way…
| 3 January 2009, 11:53 pm |
“The assertion that this is ‘Palestinian’ land is a lie for at least two separate reasons.”
…which you don’t bother to mention, Nearly Oxfordian. By the way, what is the origin of your nom-de-guerre, N.O.? Is it what you think should be the boundary of the Jewish homeland?
John P. I think you’ll find that- whatever their other faults- the muslims who conquered Jerusalem allowed jews to go back there. It was the Romans a.k.a. the Byzantines- whose invasion was no more welcome than the muslims’ and whose later occupation was even less so because of their hatred and active persecution of so-called heretics and taxation policies- who expelled the jews and refused to allow them to return.
| 4 January 2009, 1:23 am |
@devorgilla
Thus Jews returning to ‘Muslim’ lands are an intolerable offense against god.
Have the so-called “Muslim lands” been demarcated? Where are the borders? How much of Spain is included? How much of the Balkans?
| 4 January 2009, 4:51 am |
Have the so-called “Muslim lands” been demarcated?
One way is that any land that was ever ruled by Muslims is permanently Muslim lands which is why Islamists are so keen on ethnic cleansing – if they can make a land muslim majority it becomes muslim land for all eternity.
But some Muslim “thinkers” have proclaimed that various no longer in the majority ethnic groups were “natural Muslims” and thus Australia (by the aboriginals) and the United States (by the indians) are covered by some sort of Manifest Destiny where Muslims are bound to take us over.
| 4 January 2009, 11:32 am |
Yes, but people like Baruch Goldstein and that boy, don’t control Israel’s military.
| 4 January 2009, 9:23 pm |
One shouldn’t mock the mentally afflicted, but….
Hypocrite, which reality are you in now and have you got your snuggle blanket with you?
roger, the Muslims who conquered Jerusalem made the Jews there second-class citizens.
Josh, I thought these nutters think that we are all Muslims but most of us are so misguided as not to realise it.
| 4 January 2009, 10:21 pm |
“the Muslims who conquered Jerusalem made the Jews there second-class citizens.”
No they didn’t.
The jews were already second-class subjects under the Byzantines. Their conditions certainly became less bad under the Persians and probably were less bad under the muslims who tended to grant the limited toleration to jews advocated by the quran, where the christians tended to think them god-killers.
Edmund, an outstanding post and well-researched. My hat of to you sir!