Fatah Begins Gaza Bombings
J-Post:
After failing to organize a popular uprising against Hamas in Gaza, Fatah has begun resorting to “insurgency” tactics in a bid to undermine the Islamist movement, Hamas officials said Thursday.
The officials told The Jerusalem Post Fatah militiamen were behind a series of bombings that targeted Hamas members and institutions over the past few weeks.
On Tuesday, three Fatah men were killed in a “work accident” as they were trying to place a bomb near a Hamas security installation west of Gaza City. The three, Hudaibi Khader, Yusef Hamadeh and Mu’taz al-Qami, belonged to Fatah’s armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades.
“They were killed when the bomb they were carrying was detonated prematurely,” said a senior Hamas official. “We have evidence that Fatah is behind a series of explosions that occurred in Gaza recently.”
The official dismissed as “untrue” claims by Fatah that the three men were killed when Hamas militiamen fired a rocket at their vehicle.
The Aksa Martyrs Brigades threatened to avenge the killing of its members. The group accused Hamas of eliminating the three “while they were on a jihad mission” - meaning an attack on Israeli targets.
Early Thursday morning, three Hamas militiamen serving in the local police were wounded, one of them critically, when a bomb was detonated near their vehicle at the Askoulah junction in Gaza City. Again, Hamas accused Fatah of standing behind the attack.
Hamas’s security forces on Thursday arrested Maher Khwaiter, a Fatah activist from the city’s Zeitun neighborhood, on suspicion of involvement in the bombing.
Another Hamas official told the Post that Fatah was behind at least 14 attacks against Hamas figures and institutions in the Gaza Strip over the past month. He added that Fatah’s decision to resort to an “armed struggle reflected Fatah’s frustration after failing to ignite a popular uprising against Hamas.”
Over the past two months, Fatah has organized a series of peaceful protests against Hamas in the Gaza Strip; thousands of Fatah supporters participated in open-air prayers to protest against Hamas’s June “coup.”
The protests, which have meanwhile been suspended, led to street clashes between the two parties, seriously embarrassing the Hamas government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
Most of the alleged Fatah operations have targeted security vehicles used by Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip. Following the attacks, the Hamas Ministry of Interior, which is in charge of security in the Strip, instructed all its operatives to check their vehicles before using them and to be on alert for roadside bombs.
“Apparently, Fatah is trying to copy the tactics of the anti-American insurgents in Iraq,” said a Palestinian journalist in Gaza City. “It’s ironic that Hamas is now describing the Fatah attacks as acts of terrorism.”
Khaled Abu Hilal, a Fatah dissident closely associated with Hamas, said the latest wave of bombings was designed to destabilize the situation in the Gaza Strip. Accusing Fatah leaders in Ramallah of instructing their men to attack Hamas, he said: “These crimes reflect the terrorist mentality of the murderers and of those who give them the instructions from Ramallah.”
Denying the allegations, Fatah officials in Ramallah said they were unaware of an “armed resistance” against Hamas.
“Hamas is trying to cover up for its daily crimes against our people in the Gaza Strip,” said one official. “Now they are trying to justify their crimes.”
The official accused Hamas of raiding the Fatah headquarters in Gaza City late Wednesday night. “Their forces stormed the building and kicked everyone out,” he said. “They did not offer an explanation for the raid.”
Ihab al-Ghissin, spokesman for the Hamas Ministry of Interior, confirmed that his forces had “occupied” the headquarters. But he said it was a “temporary” measure taken for security reasons.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I ran out of space on my scorecard years ago.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:21 amCradle of civilization, my ass.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:38 amDoes anyone know if there is any legal justification anywhere for Israeli displacement of Palestinians…?
October 5th, 2007 at 6:06 amI can’t seem to find any.
What are “Palestinians”?
October 5th, 2007 at 6:45 am@ الٲمريكى (The American)
What court and who would be the judge and jury in the examination of the ‘legal justification’ of the displacement of the palestinians?
How far back in history will you go to base a judgement?
October 5th, 2007 at 6:58 amI think its about time for Israel to make a deal with the Devil. Support Fatah in the Gaza strip and kill all of the Hamas(Iranians)bastards. Restore Israeli military credibility. Then rule over a weak Fatah government that knows what can happen to them. The breaking point is coming soon, Fatah may be too weak to stay a viable power and then Hamas will surround Israel. This may also be a great way to bring Iran into a war that the US can use to destroy all of the Nuke shit in Syria and Iran.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:19 amالٲمريكى (The American)
Maybe we cvan go back to the Book of Exodus.
Or maybe more recent history:
…The Arab argument, which many intellectuals find seductive in its simplicity, rests on two interrelated fabrications: that around 1900 the Jews, an alien European people, colonized an Arab land; and that in 1948, and again in 1967 Israelis aggressively occupied this land, driving its native population out. Justice therefore demands, Arab propagandists claim, that the land be restored to its original owners, and that the Jewish aggressors be punished and repulsed.
Yet the fact is that Arabs never owned significant parts of land in Palestine as private property, nor controlled it as a distinct national entity. Following the Jews’ exile by the Romans and the destruction of Judea’s elaborate agricultural infrastructure (which was further despoiled by repeated conquests, not least by the Arab one), much of the country became unsuitable for habitation. The Arab conquerors settled, farmed, and established private property rights (mostly squatters rights) over only a few percent of Palestine. The rest became desert or malaria-infested swamps.
After the Ottomans evicted the Arabs in 1517, the largely desolate country became the sultan’s property. In 1919, a British mandatory government that undertook to build a Jewish national home inherited Turkish title to over 95% of the land. A similar percentage of the land in Israel and the “West Bank” is still government owned.
During an 1867 visit to Palestine, Mark Twain observed: “Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes…”
Jewish settlement, which made the country habitable, again, did not violate, by and large, any Arab individual property rights. Most Jewish land was acquired. Only tiny private areas were requisitioned, against compensation, for security and public needs.
As for national rights, those offered the Arabs over parts of Palestine by the 1947 United Nations partition plan were forfeited when they rejected partition and launched a genocidal war against Israel, trying to destroy it with help from seven Arab armies. After the war, the Palestinian Arabs never attempted to establish an independent state in their allotted territory. They cooperated with its unilateral annexation by Jordan, becoming part of its political system.
It was Jordan, then, not an imagined “Palestine,” that lost the West Bank after attacking Israel. The claim that Israel occupied Palestinian lands is therefore totally baseless.
So is the claim that the Palestinians are waging a war of liberation designed to overthrow Israeli occupation. Since more than 90% of all Palestinian Arabs now live under their authority’s jurisdiction, they are not occupied any longer, though they do suffer severe restrictions as a result of the war they declared on Israel and their widespread use of terror.
In brief, the Palestinians are not fighting for the return of “Palestinian lands,” private or national, but for the possession of lands that were Turkish or British in the past.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:30 amSteve M,
Well said. Factual and relevant.
(The American),
If you’re looking for legal doctrine, try the California State law of Squatter’s Rights. If you ’squat’ (reside) on land for more than 7 years and can show that you have improved upon the land, by legal definition (California State Law), you acquire title to the land. While this doesn’t apply internationally, if you beg the question of a legal precedent, there’s your answer.
Furthermore, if you’re going to ask for a legal definition for past displacement of peoples, how far back do you go? Where do you draw the line? Should Constantinople be returned to the Greeks? Should the Shah of Iran be returned to power? Should the Native American’s be returned the whole of North America?
We live here today, not yesterday. We can only advance if we move foward.
What’s more interesting is the ‘civil war’ between the Palestinians. It appears frighteningly similar to post-independent Ireland. Maybe we’re finally nearing a conclusion to this thorn in the international buttocks.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:41 am“….. if you beg the question of a legal precedent….”
The problem is indeed one of circular reasoning, or assuming as true what you should be proving, but it goes much farther than “legal precedent”. A majority of the Arabs that resided in the former British Mandate of Palestine have continually and constantly REJECTED a state of their own. So, to my mind, they have no right to even call themselves Palestinians and الٲمريكى (The American) needs to first explain to us “What are “Palestinians”.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:40 amKeep it up guys! You are saving us some valuable ammo for when we have to go in and clean out the remainder of the terror scum
October 5th, 2007 at 10:05 amClearly you all misunderstand my implication
First of all, a majority of Arabs do not reject a state of their own. When the Balfour Declaration was issued under the British Mandate the whole Muslim world erupted-They already believed they already had an ARAB state in Palestine. Bear in mind it was issued in the ’20s, well before any Western guilt was due over the Holocaust. There was effective local Arab leadership in Palestine, and there had been for well over 50 years. The Arab uprising in Palestine was due to British suppression of an already ruling Arab government. They subjugated their leadership through secret police and martial law. (If you don’t remember, the Balfour declaration was a blank check for an unjustified migration of Jews into Palestine.)
But, to make things easy, Palestinians are Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and scattered else where across the middle east. They are a stateless people because of the violence and authoritarian British Mandate and the results of our Western guilt over the Holocaust. Palestinians today have somewhat of an identity complex; they have an identity crisis. They are technically refugees and have hard times finding a home. In many ways, Palestinians today are like Jews of the 1920’s and after WWII.
If you like, I could go on and on about the proposed partition of Palestine. This is something I feel passionately about and I also feel that are alot of misconceptions about the history of that area.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:23 amالٲمريكى The Mariki
WTF is a Palestinian? Let me answer my own question. To wit:
The Palestinians claim that they are an ancient and indigenous people fails to stand up to historic scrutiny. Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine. Until the 1967 Six-Day War made it expedient for Arabs to create a Palestinian peoplehood, local Arabs simply considered themselves part of the ‘great Arab nation’ or ‘southern Syrians.’
“Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.”
Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels
“All [that Palestinians] can agree on as a community is what they
want to destroy, not what they want to build.”
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
There is no age-old Palestinian people. Most so-called Palestinians are relative newcomers to the Land of Israel
Like a mantra, Arabs repeatedly claim that the Palestinians are a native people. The concept of a ‘Stateless Palestinian people’ is not based on fact. It is a fabrication.
Palestinian Arabs cast themselves as a native people in “Palestine” – like the Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in America. They portray the Jews as European imperialists and colonizers. This is simply untrue.
Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a God-forsaken backwash that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey.
The land’s fragile ecology had been laid waste in the wake of the Arabs’ 7th-century conquest. In 1799, the population was at it lowest and estimated to be no more than 250,000 to 300,000 inhabitants in all the land.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Arab population west of the Jordan River (today, Israel and the West Bank) was about half a million inhabitants and east of the Jordan River perhaps 200,000.
The collapse of the agricultural system with the influx of nomadic tribes after the Arab conquest that created malarial swamps and denuded the ancient terrace system eroding the soil, was coupled by a tyrannous regime, a crippling tax system and absentee landowners that further decimated the population. Much of the indigenous population had long since migrated or disappeared. Very few Jews or Arabs lived in the region before the arrival of the first Zionists in the 1880s and most of those that did lived in abject poverty.
Most Arabs living west of the Jordan River in Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza are newcomers who came from surrounding Arab lands after the turn of the 20th century because they were attracted to the relative economic prosperity brought about by the Zionist Movement and the British in the 1920s and 1930s.
This is substantiated by eyewitness reports of a deserted country – including 18th-century reports from the British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, French author and historian Count Constantine Volney (Travels through Syria and Egypt, 1798); the mid-19th-century writings of Alphonse de Lamartine (Recollections of the East, 1835); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); and reports from the British Consul in Jerusalem (1857) that were sent back to London.
The Ottoman Turks’ census (1882) recorded only 141,000 Muslims in the Land of Israel. The real number is probably closer to 350,000 to 425,000, since many hid to avoid taxes. The British census in 1922 reported 650,000 Muslims.
Aerial photographs taken by German aviators during World War I show an underdeveloped country composed mainly of primitive hamlets. Ashdod, for instance, was a cluster of mud dwellings, Haifa a fishing village. In 1934 alone, 30,000 Syrian Arabs from the Hauran moved across the northern frontier into Mandate Palestine, attracted by work in and around the newly built British port and the construction of other infrastructure projects. They even dubbed Haifa Um el-Amal (‘the city of work’).
The fallacy of Arab claims that most Palestinians were indigenous to Palestine – not newcomers - is also bolstered by a 1909 vintage photograph of Nablus, today an Arab city on the West Bank with over 121,000 residents. Based on the number of buildings in the photo taken from the base of Mount Gerizim, the population in 1909 – Muslim Arabs and Jewish Samaritans – could not have been greater than 2,000 residents.
Family names of many Palestinians attest to their non-Palestinian origins. Just as Jews bear names like Berliner, Warsaw and Toledano, modern phone books in the Territories are filled with families named Elmisri (Egyptian), Chalabi (Syrian), Mugrabi (North Africa). Even George Habash – the arch-terrorist and head of Black September – bears a name with origins in Abyssinia or Ethiopia, Habash in both Arabic and Hebrew.
Palestinian nationality is an entity defined by its opposition to Zionism, and not its national aspirations.
What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge – such as Israel did after the 1967 Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule, no matter how distant or despotic.
A Palestinian identity did not exist until an opposing force created it – primarily anti-Zionism. Opposition to a non-Muslim nationalism on what local Arabs, and the entire Arab world, view as their own turf, was the only expression of ‘Palestinian peoplehood.’
The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a charismatic religious leader and radical anti-Zionist was the moving force behind opposition to Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s. The two-pronged approach of the “Diplomacy of Rejection” (of Zionism) and the violence the Mufti incited occurred at the same time Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq became countries in the post-Ottoman reshuffling of territories established by the British and the French under the League of Nation’s mandate system.
The tiny educated class among the Arabs of Palestine was more politically aware than the rest of Arab society, with the inklings of a separate national identity. However, for decades, the primary frame of reference for most local Arabs was the clan or tribe, religion and sect, and village of origin. If Arabs in Palestine defined themselves politically, it was as “southern Syrians.” Under Ottoman rule, Syria referred to a region much larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today, with borders established by France and England in 1920.
In his book Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, Daniel Pipes explains:
“Syria was a region that stretched from the borders of Anatolia to those of Egypt, from the edge of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of today’s states, the Syria of old comprised Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, plus the Gaza Strip and Alexandria.”
Syrian maps in the 21st century still co-opt most of Greater Syria, including Israel.
The Grand Mufti Al-Husseini’s aspirations slowly shifted from pan-Arabism – the dream of uniting all Arabs into one polity, whereby Arabs in Palestine would unite with their brethren in Syria - to winning a separate Palestinian entity, with himself at the helm. Al-Husseini was the moving force behind the 1929 riots against the Jews and the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt against two non-Muslim entities in Palestine – the British and the Jews. He gathered a large following by playing on fears that the Jews had come to dispossess, or at least dominate the Arabs.
Much like Yasser Arafat, the Grand Mufti’s ingrained all-or-nothing extremism, fanaticism and even an inability to cooperate with his own compatriots made him totally ineffective. He led the Palestinian Arabs nowhere.
The ‘Palestinian’ cause became a key rallying point for Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, according to Oxford historian Avi Shlaim. The countries the British and French created in 1918-1922 were based largely on meridians on the map, as is evident in the borders that delineate the Arab states today. Because these states lack ethnic logic or a sense of community, their opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews has come to fuel that fires Arab nationalism as the ‘glue’ of national identity. (see details on the ramifications of British and French policy, which plague the Middle East to this day in the chapter “The European Union.”)
From the 1920s, rejection of Jewish nationalism, attempts to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland by violence, and rejection of any form of Jewish political power, including any plans to share stewardship with Arabs, crystallized into the expression of Palestinianism. No other positive definition of an Arab-Palestinian people has surfaced. This point is admirably illustrated in the following historic incident:
“In 1926, Lord Plumer was appointed as the second High Commissioner of Palestine. The Arabs within the Mandate were infuriated when Plumer stood up for the Zionists’ national anthem Hatikva during ceremonies held in his honor when Plumer first visited Tel Aviv. When a delegation of Palestinian Arabs protested Plumer’s ‘Zionist bias,’ the High Commissioner asked the Arabs if he remained seated when their national anthem was played, ‘wouldn’t you regard my behavior as most unmannerly?’ Met by silence, Plumer asked: ‘By the way, have you got a national anthem?’ When the delegation replied with chagrin that they did not, he snapped back, “I think you had better get one as soon as possible.”
But it took the Palestinians more than 60 years to heed Plumer’s advice, adopting Anthem of the Intifada two decades after Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 – at the beginning of the 1987 Intifada.
Under the Mandate, local Arabs also refused to establish an ‘Arab Agency’ to develop the Arab sector, parallel to the Jewish Agency that directed development of the Jewish sector (see the Chapter “Rejectionism”).
In fact, the so-called patriotism of indigenous Muslims has flourished only when non-Muslim entities (the Crusaders, the British, the Jews) have taken charge of the Holy Land. When political control returns to Muslim hands, the ardent patriotism of the Arabs of Palestine magically wanes, no matter how distant or how despotic the government. One Turkish pasha who ruled Acco (Acre) between 1775 and 1804 was labeled Al Jazzar, The Butcher, by locals.
Why hasn’t Arab representative government ever been established in Palestine, either in 1948 or during the next 19 years of Arab rule? Because other Arabs co-opted the Palestinian cause as a rallying point that would advance the concept that the territory was up for grabs. “The Arab invasion of Palestine was not a means for achieving an independent Palestine, but rather the result of a lack of consensus on the part of the Arab states regarding such independence,” summed up one historian. Adherents to a separate Palestinian identity were a mute minority on the West Bank and Gaza during the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian rule - until Israel took control from the Jordanians and the Egyptians in 1967. Suddenly a separate Palestinian peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood - and 21 other Arab states went along with it.
Palestinianism in and of itself lacks any substance of its own. Arab society on the West Bank and Gaza suffers from deep social cleavages created by a host of rivalries based on divergent geographic, historical, geographical, sociological and familial allegiances. What glues Palestinians together is a carefully nurtured hatred of Israel and the rejection of Jewish nationhood. (see the chapters “Incitement” and “Children Dying to Kill.”)
October 5th, 2007 at 10:26 amUmm Dan ( infidel)
Wow !!
October 5th, 2007 at 11:14 amYou should be a writer man
That was the most comprehensive explanation
I had a flashback to college
Cheers to Ya ( oh & ya had the %@ American shut up)
Dan, you are the Man! This is literally the single most comprehensive answer I’ve seen to date on this topic.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:25 amDan (infidel) …excatamundo!!
October 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am@ الٲمريكى (The American)
“This is something I feel passionately about and I also feel that are alot of misconceptions about the history of that area.”
Well for a number of reasons I am not convinced by your Balfour Declaration (which BTW was 1917 and not “the ’20’s”) argument but you certainly can go on if you feel that passionate about it. Be aware that you will not find much sympathy here for ‘Palestinian’ victimology. A victimology that stems directly from the fact that Arabs proved unable to destroy Israel altogether in 1948, 1967 and 1973 so now they have decided to whine themselves into some form of statehood.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pmUnfortunately (for them as well as the rest of the world) those “Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza” still find themselves under the thumb of either Arab states that DID have the foresight to accept statehood (Iraq, Syria and Jordan) or, as is presently the case, the Persians in Iran. Making Gaza the complete shithole that it is.
I will add that it will most assuredly be you that turns up with “misconceptions about the history of that area.”
you want a history lesson…here goes.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIt was written yes, in 1917, but the real effects of it weren’t felt until the 1920’s. To remind all, the middle east wasn’t separated into the British and French mandates until April of 1920 at the San Remo conference, and therefore the Declaration itself was not implemented until after that date. But that, in all honesty, is besides the point. What justification did they have to form a mandate in the first place? What right did a Western country have to come in and violate the right to self-determination of a people that already had a functioning government? What right did the British have to forcibly sell Arab land at less than market value to immigrating European Jews during the 1920’s? What right did the British have to restrict jobs form Arabs to those same immigrating Europeans? What right did the British have to forcibly evict Arabs from cities in Palestine and displace them to the outlying countryside? What right did the British have to violently crush the Istiqlal (Arab Independance Party) after their initiation of a boycott of British goods and civil disobedience? What right did the British have to partition Palestine through the Peel commission into arbitrary designations that left the Palestinians with the fallow land in the south and the Jews with the northern, fertile part of the country? The resulting revolt of 1937-1939 consisted of attacks, to include firebombing and mobs, on British as well as many Jewish targets. aThe British response was even more violent than their reaction to the Istiqlal, and consisted of the leveling of Palestinian homes with the urban centers and they designated secret Jewish police forces to “police” the area, which resulted in documented killings and more violence. All these are documented facts. Pick up a book on the history of Palestine or on the formation of Israel, or on the British Mandates in general (they had one in Iraq as well…) I recommend “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” by Charles Smith.
My real question is this: Has not western Imperial interest contributed to the animosity between Jews, Palestinians, and the West? How would you feel if alien peoples came and forcibly removed your family and displaced them from their homes and to the rural countryside?
Dan, the infidel, you can still take the time to explain. They remind me of fifty percent of the population I had in the back seat of the cab. The same dumb shit I heard coming out of the grandparents’ mouths in the ’70s was the same dumb shit I heard coming out of the mouths of the grandchildren in ‘02. When I hung up my keys in Nov ‘02 I said to myself, “I don’t have to listen to dumb shit anymore”. To paraphrase EZ Rider, they along with the palis are the pains in the ass of the planet.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe whole concept of Palestinian this or Palestinian that is a complete farce. In 1948 the UN gave the Arabs and Israelis an opportunity for seperate states. And what was the Arabs reply? A war of annihilation against the Jews.
Since that time Arabs have played the “oh woe is me” game; all the while talking “peace” to the West while waging a never-ending war against Israel.
They say “Israel has no history”. That’s pure BS. Israel has been in that part of the ME for something like 5,000 years. Israel existed long before Islam existed. Jerusalem was Israeli until the Romans conquered it in AD 69. That’s about 600 years before Muhammed was even born.
And where is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? How about nofuckingwhere. Israel belongs where they are. And there they will stay.
In 1998, Arafat was given 99% of what he told the West he wanted and what was Israel’s reward? The second Intifada because the gayman Arafat was lying.
Ever read Palestinian docs? Not the shit they tell the west, I mean their own crud. Read Fatah’s charter sometime.
All they want is for all the Jews to be cast into the sea or to be slaughtered.
No, that Palestinian relativist arguments don’t work here.
Too many of us have been studying this issue and have met with PLO members. We are well aware of what they really think. We’ve read their playbooks.
Here’s the real goal of the Palestinians. To wit Article 19
Fatah Constitution:
“Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”
What the Palestinians tell the west is pure tagyiya. It’s bullshit of the highest caliber, because the problems in the ME are not because of the Jews or the West or Western Culture…the problems in the ME are the result of 7th Century mentalities who continue to fuck themselves in the ass and blame it on everyone but themselves.
Thanks for the kudos….
October 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmالٲمريكى (The American)
nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet
October 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pmDo you deny that the West had no right to displace the Palestinians like that?
Do you deny that the West forced an Imperial mandate on the Palestinians without justification?
How is this different from American treatment of Native Americans during the push West?
My questions concerned the formation of Israel and the consequences of that formation, and not contemporary politics of radical Palestinian groups.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm“It was written yes, in 1917, but the real effects of it weren’t felt until the 1920’s….. But that, in all honesty, is besides the point. ”
And why would the “real effects of it” not be felt until the 1920’s? And, btw, it was YOUR point to bring up Balfour.
“What justification did they have to form a mandate in the first place? What right…and so on and so on”
The same right that Israel has in maintaining possession of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan if they choose. Arabs (and Turks prior to 1922) have had an uncommon knack of not only picking the wrong horse to ride but also one that cannot win.
“Pick up a book on the history of Palestine or on the formation of Israel, or on the British Mandates in general (they had one in Iraq as well…) I recommend “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” by Charles Smith.”
Thank you for the admonition but I have not only read at least “a” book on this subject, I do have some intimate experience with the subject as well. I have read Mr. Smith’s tome and found it lacking and somewhat selective in “documented facts”. Not quite as bad as Jimmy Carter’s book but not very good nonetheless.
“My real question is this: Has not western Imperial interest contributed to the animosity between Jews, Palestinians, and the West?”
I would have to say no. The ‘Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza’ had a rather generous offer for statehood presented to them by the U.N. in 1948(much more generous than the Israelis can provide) and, as Dan noted, opted “to fuck themselves in the ass and blame it on everyone but themselves.” Think about it…. the last 60 years with a Palestinian state. A dream come true for one as passionate as you.
“How would you feel if alien peoples came and forcibly removed your family and displaced them from their homes and to the rural countryside?”
I don’t expect I’d like it very much at all but had, say, the Allies lost WWII… I might reasonably expect our national language to be German today.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmالٲمريكى (The American):
Your points have already been answered, Your playing the “oh woe is me” line. The only real Palestinians that exist are those individuals that were born in Israel. Anyone else is NOT a palestinian.
If you people want peace then change your constitution. You are not going to push the Jews into the sea.
And this land for peace BS isn’t working anymore. No matter how much land Israel gives up, you will ALWAYS want more, because your end goal is the destruction of Israel.
This is not the equivalent of the native american problem
For 1,300 years Islam subjigated the Jews in their own homeland until the west helped them get their homeland back.
So if anyone is a “native” in Palestine it is the Jews.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pmMy two cents on the whole issue…REAL SIMPLE:
David marched the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem 3,000 years ago. That land belongs to the Jews.
The philistines were and are a CONQUERED people.
And just for the sake of argument: You get your ass kicked by your enemy and he takes your land, guess what? If he decides to keep it, it is HIS land. WTF are you gonna do about it?
The Palestinians do not know how to govern themselves, they do not know how to properly educate their children, as evidenced in recent figures put out by the UN, see a post here I put up yesterday. All they have taught their children is to hate and that becoming a shaheed is the highest aspiration.
When you pound that into children for 15 years while they live in dirt houses with dirt floors and eat dirt three times a day, that “Paradise” sounds awful nice.
One more thing…
You want it? Take it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and take what is given. To the victors go the spoils, this ain’t The Disney Fucking Channel.
All this barking is gonna get nasty reeeeel soon.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pmJohn Cunningham:
I’ve explained this issue succinctly ad nauseum today.
steve m:
“nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet” If I remember my Latin correctly you said: “No man is more deaf than he who will not hear”. Hear! Hear!
“The Mariki” reminds me of that line from “A few Good men”.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmHe can’t handle the truth either.
Dan (The Infidel), and you’ve gone beyond the call of duty. I would not have had the patience. You did a phenomenal job.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pmJohn Cunningham:
Thank you sir. Let’s have a beer
October 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm“And just for the sake of argument: You get your ass kicked by your enemy and he takes your land, guess what? If he decides to keep it, it is HIS land. WTF are you gonna do about it?”
I’ll tell you what I’d do about it. Fight my ass off for what was mine. Start and underground, RESIST.
The UN agreement was not generous. Not only did Palestinians have almost no representation in the UN, but the offer was almost identical to the one the British offered with the Peel Commission in 1937. It gave all the fertile land by the coast and the southeastern boarder to the Jews and the arid land in the north and west to the Palestinians.
But what does the UN and WWII have to do with Palestinians being ejected from their homes in the ’20s and ’30s? No one seems to be able to justify why the British seemed to think they had the right in the first place. What right did they have to do what they did? I’m talking about a totally different time period, WWII and the holocaust hadn’t even happened yet.
Please, someone tell me why the West continues to believe that they can tell Arabs what they can do? What about the right to self-determination?
October 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pmthe Mariki:
“I’ll tell you what I’d do about it. Fight my ass off for what was mine. Start and underground, RESIST.”
Perfect evidence that you should have taken the red pill rather than the blue one. The key ingredient in the red pill is common sense. Really dude. Resisting the opportunities at statehood because you don’t like Jews and you prefer to take orders from your masters in Syria and Iran? Gimme a fucking break.
“The UN agreement was not generous.”
The U.N. agreement of 1948 was very generous. Particularly since it was being made to a people who had sided with Hitler in WWII in his attempts to eradicate Jews for that express purpose. Look at the fucking map in that proposal. Never mind. As Dan adroitly and succintly pointed out the whole area was a wasteland. It was the industriousness of the Jews that made the desert bloom into something Arabs might want to steal that is also an issue here. That would be an industriousness that is diametrically opposed to the only sort that Arabs in the area seem to prefer… that of pulling triggers on suicide vests.
“Not only did Palestinians have almost no representation in the UN,…”
Um… that is something that is afforded to nation-states. Not terrorist organizations (in theory anyway). It would be necessary to accept sovereignty to gain representation.
“..but the offer was almost identical to the one the British offered with the Peel Commission in 1937.”
You brought up Balfour, then you decided it was beside the point and now you want to bring up Peel 1937? WTF??
I’ve searched high and low and the words “Palestinian” and “State” were not conjoined and used as part of the lexicon of the ‘Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza’ (your term for the Arabs of the area) prior to 1948. That was by the Muslim Brotherhood and then as now continues to call for the eradication of ANY independent Jewish state in the Middle East.
“But what does the UN and WWII have to do with Palestinians being ejected from their homes in the ’20s and ’30s? No one seems to be able to justify why the British seemed to think they had the right in the first place. What right did they have to do what they did?”
Well it is obvious that “No one seems to be able to justify why the British seemed to think they had the right in the first place.” to your satisfaction and probably never could.
Dan and Bashman have explained it quite well and I’d recommend you reading their posts again (or for the first time, since you don’t seem to go past the first line).
The ‘Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza’ had been under Turkish rule in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years and after WWI and the dissolution of that Empire were under British rule. Which, BTW, they (the Brits) were trying very hard to get out of themselves by looking for some sort of ‘equitable’ solution. And, contrary to your limited horizon, the Jews were also an indigenous people.
“Please, someone tell me why the West continues to believe that they can tell Arabs what they can do?”
Both Dan and Bashman have explained this to you quite well. Hence my feeling that you have not read their posts. Certainly not with any sort of open mind. I now believe you find this incessant whining to be a gratifying form of self-intoxication. Go have a beer instead and relax.
“What about the right to self-determination?”
Huh? The ‘Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza’ did ’self-determine’. They chose to allow themselves to continue to be slaves to Damascus and Tehran by choosing HAMAS. That has served them quite well hasn’t it?
On a broader scope. Self determination is something you obtain when you win. We did not obtain it in this country until we won it from England. The “Palestinians” have been offered what I view as a form of ‘conditional surrender’ in 1948 and in MANY ‘negotiations’ since then. The only acceptable form of ’surrender’ to the masters of the ‘Sunni Muslims who are living in Gaza’
October 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pmthat reside in Damascus and Tehran is an unconditional surrender of Israeli sovereignty. And that ain’t gonna happen.