“My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.”
Part 1.
Full video and text of Geert Wilders’ speech in Tel Aviv.
“My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.”
Part 1.
Full video and text of Geert Wilders’ speech in Tel Aviv.
” Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.” Lol! Yeah, thats going to leave a mark…:)
When Israel got jammed into the area where Palestinians lived, that caused displacement and the Arabs didn’t want Palestinians on their lap any more than China wants to care for the North Koreans.
Wilders is too narrow when he says “This conflict here in the Middle East is not about land and borders, but about Islamic jihadism opposing Western liberty.”
Like all geopolitical conflict, what this is primarily about is… economics. The Palestinians and the Jews need to share the area to make a living. It is a waste of time talking about the area being owned by one tribe over another going back to Abraham; i.e. before Mohammad invented Islam in an attempt to ruthlessly maintain his nomadic tribal ways against the evolving agricultural societies. On a macro basis land is not genetic, not inherited, land is political. Because the First Nations were in Canada before Europeans doesn’t mean Canada is theirs forever.
Again the conflict is about the ecology which drives the economics. Israel is not going to give up the water for example. Therefore what Israel/Pals have to do is what Upper and Lower Canada did, French and English have no “love” for each other but what we do have is enough common sense to share the St Lawrence Seaway for example.
Forget blaming the Arabs and the Islamofascists and come back to the notion of sharing the ecology which drives the local economics. That’s where the solutions lie. Israel and the Pals need to share the area under some less than perfect arrangement, much the same as how the ROC tolerates Quebec and vice versa.
Excellent comment, nomdeblog. Yes, it’s really about economics and economics rests within the geographic resources of an area.
Ideological beliefs, whether defined as ‘culture’ or as ‘religion’ rest upon and within the first level: the economic realities of a geographic area. These ideological beliefs, held within emotion and expressed within words, are man-made; they can be changed by man. With difficulty and over time. But, you can’t change the geographic resources.
As for Jordan ‘being’ Palestine – or Palestine being Jordan – that’s rhetoric. Words. There is no such thing as an ‘essential bond’ between a cultural or religious group…and a geographic area. That goes for Jews as well as indigeneous peoples everywhere.
As nomdeblog points out, if we agreed to that, then, which ‘cultural or religious group ‘owns’ Canada? Or the US? Or any part of America? Africa? Asia? Or even in Europe – the site of thousands of years of conflicting jostling for economic control over geographic terrain.
As I’ve said before, the geographic reality of the Israel-Palestinian geography is based around water. Before the population growth of both peoples, by means of an industrial economy, populations were low because of the limitations of a dry non-industrial horticultural economy. Now, the key requirement is: Water. That’s the aquifers of the W. Bank.
Israel cannot afford to let these aquifers move into the sole control of a sovereign Palestinian state. Plus, it wants the land for agricultural and settlement expansion.
The material reality of a multimillion population, Palestinians, who can’t be absorbed by the neighbouring Arab states because of size and history – is something that many in the West, ignorant of history and culture, slide past. Many in the West view Arabs as homogeneous, just as many in the East and Middle East view all Westerners as homogeneous ‘evil white men’. This is naive on both sides.
My oft-repeated suggestion is not for a one-state solution, for that would be impossible given the ideological insistence on Israel as a Jewish state. It is not for a two-state solution, for a ‘free’ Palestine would be swallowed in a nanosecond by Iran.
It’s a federation. Rather similar to, as nomdeblog points out, what we have in Canada. Two federated ‘states’, economically bound within one, with each state having control over various issues such as education, religion, health, etc, etc..and the federation over boundaries, currency, resources, defense.
A democratic Palestinian population would be quite an example for the other Middle East peoples, trapped as they are in the tribal politics of the other Islamic nations of the ME.
In my view, that’s the only solution. Focusing around the yes, trivia, of ‘well, the Palestinians have to stop hating the Jews first’ is as superficial and dead-end as ‘well,the Israeli Settlers have to stop hating the Palestinians first’. And don’t be naive; the settlers and many rabbis are vicious against the local Palestinians.
Read the ‘rules of behaviour to others’ within both the Halakhah and the Hadiths (Jewish and Muslim); they are similar in their rejection of Other Peoples.
Focus on the economic; let the babble of hatred and support (and both exist on both sides) continue to babble. But if you set up an economic infrastructure that empowers BOTH peoples to interact with each other, then the rhetoric will change and people, ordinary people, will realize that they, not their old histories and their hysteric ideological activists, are in charge of their lives.
Israel talks tough, but until they nuke Iran, their just flexing their Obombamite muscle with no action.
At least Obamba can pull off predator drones flattening Pakistani neighbourhoods every week and still pocket a Nobel Peace Prize. Even has much of the left still supporting him in doing so. Not Israel, they can’t even wack a couple of Palestinian suicide bombers at their own border without bringing on the wrath of the left.
They don’t need Geert, they need Obamba’s “hope and change”. There would be one big smouldering ring of glass surrounding Israel for 2000 miles out like a big glazed donut.
ET
This is where we part company. The only solution that the “Palestinians” (a recent invention of the old KGB) will ever accept is NO ISREAL.
I am sure if you look you might find a “Palestinian”, who would compromise or claim to be so willing but my experience is that this is easily exposed Takiya(a lie).
This implacability by the “Palestinians” is one of this world’s few absolutes.
sasquatch – the implacability of the Palestinians is no different than the implacability of the settlers and rabbis who insist that ‘God gave us Judea and Samaria’.
You are generalizing and that’s a basic fallacy. It’s comfortable to declare that ALL Palestinians are..such and such. Or that ALL Westerners are such and such. Or that ALL Chinese, or blacks or Quebecois or…whatever. As I said – that’s the rhetoric. Focus on, not words, but the economic and geographic realities that no word, no rhetoric, can turn away from.
The implacability of the PQ separatistes, or the Basque separatistes, or the indigeneous of wherever, or of the Israeli settlers or of those who hate Harper or those who consider that 9/11 was an inside job….
it’s all the same. Words and emotions building a reality of hollow, and very satisfying, fancies. Why satisfying? Because no facts need intrude!
Focus on reality. Facts. Not fiction.
“These voices say the Palestinians should be allowed to return to “Palestine.” But where is Palestine?”
The money quote.
Islamists have proved to be mentally and emotionally defective. Perhaps the cousins marrying cousins for a few generations is part of that problem, but it remains, you cannot talk reason to a drunk or an islamist.
A retard is a retard and deals around economics is as important to them as it is to my cat.
Occam – a nation is a political construct not an essential entity, i.e., a nation is defined by man not by chemical rules (H2O).
One could ask the same question: ‘Where is Canada? Where is the USA? Where is France? Where is Kenya?’..and so on.
Nations are political constructs. They are not essentialist terrains linked by some natural law to some ethnic group since…well, since when? Since our species first emerged? Since homo sapiens moved and migrated all over the world?
Therefore, just as there was a time when Canada was populated by various indigeneous tribes, and then by the French and English and then…it became a single nation.
I find it stunning that so many people, rather than viewing reality objectively, i.e., considering the realities of population size, geographic resources and economic function – ignore all these absolute requirements for a population and instead, focus on rhetoric. Words.
So, we get the rhetoric about ‘All Palestinians hate…; and the rhetoric about: ‘well, if there wasn’t a nation called Palestine from the beginning, then there can’t be one now’..
Useless. Reality isn’t interested in rhetoric; it requires consideration of the hard facts: water, geographic limitations, climate, population size, economic requirements. Deal with those, and the people who live there will change their rhetoric to accomodate this new reality. People are in charge. Not words.
Occam “But where is Palestine?”
Where was Israel until the wretched UN decided where it should be? Does anyone here think the UN “knows”.
Land is political. It isn’t owned by Israel or the Pals because one or the other was there first. Our First Nations have claimed 105% of British Columbia … it makes no sense.
Let’s return geopolitics to the ecology and economics and on that basis tell Israelis to quit giving us the BS that they believe in a 2 state solution. It is not in their economic interest to do that and they never will. Instead the Israel/Pal situation needs to be set up like Canada and then you will see that the only way the extremists will survive is if you prop them up. The Separatists in Quebec would die out if we cut off their funding under equalization and for election funding. As ET says:
“set up an economic infrastructure that empowers BOTH peoples to interact with each other, then the rhetoric will change and people, ordinary people, will realize that they, not their old histories and their hysteric ideological activists, are in charge of their lives.”
“Occam – a nation is a political construct not an essential entity, i.e., a nation is defined by man not by chemical rules (H2O).”
Au contraire – a nation is: common language, borders and custom. I stress ‘borders’. The Jews themselves are a prime example of this.
Israel has been the land of the people of Israel ever since Joshua and the people of Israel conquered it thousands of years ago.
“Palestinians” now occupy part of Israel and there will be no peace until they are removed. This is a battle between Islam and Israel.
Anyone ignoring the history of Israel will not understand this and ET is a good example. My suggestion is: read the Bible, it is all there,
not only the past but also the future. Geert Wilders understands it and his recommendation makes sense.
Abe Froman
You have the basics…..but left out the inconvenient truth is that the “Palestinians” are the rejects of those disfunctional nations.
Palestinians are the Arabs’ trailor trash….that is the very reason they were never assimilated/absorbed by the Arab countries….and kept in concentration camps by them for generations.
occam- you write that a nation is a common language, borders and custom. These are man-made, and are defined by man and ignore the fact that a nation is a political construct. Not a culture.
Language? Many nations have several official or legal languages.
Borders? These are vital and are defined by law not by custom or culture.
Custom? These are local rather than general and are defined by the people and are changed by the people. They rarely move into law.
So- what is a nation? It is a political, i.e., man-made legal construct. It is created by law and can be changed by law. Witness the development of the US and Canada.
Kroket: There is no essentialist Will that defines a geographic site as belonging, by essential right, to any particular population. Nor is there any historic right to a land. If we accept your opinion, then, the indigeneous peoples of Canada have the right to the land. And everywhere else.
Oh- and who else was there before Joshua? Does conquering an area make it, in perpetuity, always so owned? I don’t recall this as a Natural Law. After all, consider the history of all nations all over the world – which conquering force is finally privileged as ‘The One’?
Sasquatch and Abe – your rhetoric brings to mind the rhetoric of the Third Reich about Jews.
Perhaps I should have expressed the matter differently.
The Jews were more or less rejects from Europe….
The Palestinians are more or less the rejects of the ME….the arabs’ “trailor trash”.
One group very competant and the other group……..
The one fact everybody evades is what would have happened if Israel had lost the 1948 scrap.
There would have been no Palestinian state….or peace. The 1948 Arab hostiles would have been fighting over the same area still and the newly styled “Palestinians” would still be in refugee(concentration) camps.
Kroket nails it.
Check out this new site. It’s devoted primarily to the strategic indispensibility of Samaria to Israeli security.
Shomron Central
Do click on the various chapters when you get the time. Note right off, the side-by-side pics of Tel Aviv from the vantage point of the Samarian hills.
He also deals with much of the hard-left marxist/islamist propaganda terms like “settlers” and “occupation”, which legally it clearly is NOT!
Arabs who build illegally, BTW, aren’t labelled “settlers” (nor of course do we call the 20 million or so muslims who emigrated to Europe “settlers”.)
The great Israeli diplomat Abba Eban called the 1949 greenline the “Auschwitz borders”. If your anti-Israel interlocutors are sincere in not wanting Israel destroyed — and a second Holocaust — the geographical/topographical information contained here may help swing them around.
Clearly, our brave Dutchman is right: Jordan is Palestine. It’s 82% of Mandatory Palestine. 77% of Jordanians are “Palestinians”.
Finally, the site offers several possible solutions to the conflict. None of those is a “two-state solution” which our wise elites think is inevitable. Palestinian Arabs do NOT want to live peacefully in a side by side nation. A great many however would be amenable to a financial re-location settlement.
No need to discuss Hamas. Abbas favours a two-state solution: Palestine for Arabs only AND Israel for Jews and 7 million right-of-return Arabs [non-negotiable] — not just the original 800 thousand. In other words, a one-state solution with Jews as dhimmis who will leave the intolerable conditions of Muslim-supremacist Palestine.
This however is occupation:
Islamic Supremacists Illegally Occupy Streets of Paris.
me no dhimmi – that area has had more conquests and rulers and various peoples than almost anywhere in the world.
I’ll disagree with all your terms. The W. Bank is not, in my view, necessary for defense but is most necessary for Israeli’s economic viability; water and land.
The W. Bank is, legally, occupied. It is not, legally, part of any nation and is under the rule of Israel. Not Jordan. Its population, however, are not Israeli citizens but are non-citizens of any nation. They may apply for passports but not citizenship, from Jordan…they are for travel only and do not provide citizenship. The population in the W. Bank there have no control over their functions as a nation. They have no control over borders, airspace, resources.
The Palestinians who have been living there, in the main part of what is now Israel, for centuries, under various rules (Ottoman, British) had title to their farms. Thus, they are not illegal squatters or settlers. They, both in the W. Bank and in Israel, had legal title to their homes and farms, paid taxes to whichever administration…(Ottoman, British, etc)..and thus, Israel cannot ignore their rights.
Your analogy of 20 million Muslims immigrating to Europe as not similar to the settlers is a false analogy. Those Muslims went to become citizens of already established nations, on land that was legally part of the nation.
The W. Bank is not legally part of Israel. IF IT WERE – then ALL its occupants would be, legally, citizens of Israel. This is not the case; the Palestinians are not defined as citizens of Israel.
Jordan is not Palestine and Palestinians are not Jordanians. When they were living in the land that is now legally Israel, were they under the rule of Jordan? No. Were they citizens of Jordan? No. Were they living in TransJordan? No. They were settled in the land that is now Israel and the W. Bank. The Ottomans ruled until WWI; then, the British took over until 1948.
So, your belief that All Palestinians are Jordanians is, in my view, without evidence.
Equally, your outline of ‘occupying the streets’ is a semantic misuse of the term ‘occupation’ in this situation and is a false analogy.
The facts remain. The Palestinians were there, in the land base that Israel took over; they had title to their homes and farms. What does a new rule do with these people – in particular, when it does not want them as citizens? That’s a key question.
As far as the W. Bank is concerned, the situation is similar; there were thousands of Palestinians living there, with title to their farms and homes. What does Israel do with these people, when it does not want them as citizens, but does require the land?
My suggestion of a federation – seems to me to be the only obvious solution. I ignore the rhetoric of All Arabs are Retarded – which is as juvenile as All Jews are Money-Lenders. The basics of a nation are its economy and its resources – how does it deal with its population who are all, all, to be considered citizens?
1. There is a piece of land called Israel. It is located at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea, between it and the Jordan River.
2.There is a people called Israel who have lived there ever since Joshua fit the battle of Jericho. They lived there in the time of Jesus.
One would think then that it makes sense that the people of Israel would be allowed to live in the land of Israel but for some people that is such a difficult concept. OK then, let’s ask the question: “Where then should the people of Israel live if not in the land of Israel?”
Judea and Samaria — de-judaized into West Bank to deligitimize Jewish claims on the area — IS NOT OCCUPIED. They are NOT occupied territories but disputed territories because the Arabs wouldn’t negotiate after losing the six-day war in 1967. Google: The Three No’s.
They WERE, however, illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, and Gaza by Egypt. Curious how the Phonystinians didn’t object to those true occupations.
Our brave Dutchman is most certainly right: Jordan is Palestine. Sadly, even the Arab countries don’t want the Phonystinians after the PLO terror masters have thoroughly radicalized them.
A Federation? Between Arabs and Jews? That’s delusional. Next you’ll be recommending UN monitoring as in S Lebanon!
The very first requirement of a state is that it have defensible borders. Israel sans Samaria is not defensible. It’s a concentration camp.
Israel should — but won’t, given their wussy, rotten leaders, including sadly Netanyahoo himself — declare sovereignty between the Jordan and the sea and destroy Hamas and the PLO.
Terrorists never become non-terrorists and no peace is possible except the Peace of Islam (submission) or the Peace of the Grave.
It’s fascinating, but no-one here ever considers the factual realities of ‘what is a nation’.
A nation is a political construct, embedded within an economic system, which is itself embedded within an ecological and demographic reality. It operates as a nation within the rule of law. To talk about Israel and Palestine etc as nations, one must consider these variables. But, at SDA, no-one does.
Instead, we get essentialist determinism, where ‘the past is in the bible and so is the future’. Or fallacies of ‘first footprint’ where ‘well, they were there a long time ago and so should be there now’. Or generalized stereotyping of ‘all Arabs are retarded’ and ‘all palestinians are terrorists’.
me no dhimmi – the W. Bank is, in my view, occupied. By Israel. The use of the term ‘occupied’ means that the people in that area are not citizens of Israel, nor of any other nation. They are not self-governing but fall within the rule of Israel yet have no electoral or other power in these rules. They may neither leave nor enter except with the authority of Israel; they have no rights of resources, borders, airspace, building permits etc…All of these are decided by Israel. Now – if that isn’t occupation, then – what’s the term you prefer to use?
If they are merely ‘disputed territories’ then, the dispute ought to be between two nations. But there is no nation of Palestine.
By the way, I don’t think it’s constructive to argue using ‘smear names’ (phonystinians). We are adults not teenagers and I think we can debate these issues as adults.
Kroket – you are mixing up definitions. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel – and they can be, religiously, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc. Your question of ‘where should an Israeli (citizen) live has to be answered: anywhere in the world where they can, via that Israeli passport and visa, live. In Israel, in Canada, in the US.
As for your phrase ‘people of Israel’ – since Israel is a political construct, then, see my point above about where an Israeli citizen can live.
If you are trying to, incorrectly, define someone who follows the Jewish religion as ‘people of Israel’, then, you are merging ‘church and state’. A Jewish person ought to be free to live anywhere in the world and is defined by his religion, not by some essentialist connection to a land base.
I’m aware that the Third Reich disagreed with my view – but my view is that in our modern world, religious filiation should not decide where one lives. I hope that there is a strong Jewish community in Canada (I know there is)..and hope that you do not suggest that they should all move to Israel!
the Flying Dutchman indeed. Gotta luv that guy.
Fact: Palestine was a name invented by the Romans in an attempt to erase any Jewish claim to the land.
Fact: Transjordan, now Jordan, was carved out of Palestine by the British, so Wilders is correct.
Fact: The term “Palestinian” to identity Arabs was a KGB ploy, therefore as a people, a nation or a culture Palestinians do not exist.
Fact: A person is Jewish by birth, not necessarily by religious affiliation, except in the case of a person converting to the Jewish religion.
Fact: To continue to talk of peace between two groups when one has no interest is a waste of time.
I realise that for some documented facts mean nothing, but for what it is worth I have presented a few essential ones.
ET: No Jews have to move to Israel. Like me, they can live wherever they are still welcome, (fewer and fewer places, apparently, like Sweden and Holland recently) but they should be able to move to Israel if they want to. After all, it is their homeland, all of it.
“totally new approach” “acknowledge” Wotta card !
Geert Wilders!
“My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.”
Daniel Pipes
Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. […]. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure. [Bit teutonic-sounding, that last bit]
Daniel Pipes
Is Jordan Palestine?
The sum of this complex tale is that Jordan was part of the Palestine Mandate for a mere eight months, […] A few months of rule that was neither de facto nor de jure is hardly reason, seventy years later, to call Jordan a part of Palestine. Besides, it is preposterous to base today’s major decisions of war and peace on the transient interests of the British Empire after World War I. That Jordan was briefly part of the Palestine Mandate does not establish a vital link; it merely recalls a historical curiosity.
As L. Dean Brown observes, “Jordan is Palestine only in the sense that Nebraska, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase, is still Louisiana.”
Politics makes strange juxtapositions.
ET said: “A nation is a political construct, embedded within an economic system, which is itself embedded within an ecological and demographic reality. It operates as a nation within the rule of law. To talk about Israel and Palestine etc as nations, one must consider these variables. But, at SDA, no-one does.”
Oh I don’t know. I think the reality facing Israel is that of a free nation surrounded by dictatorships. Tyrannies threatened by the example of free people in their midst. The Saudis are an absolute monarchy, Syria is a fascist dictatorship, Egypt is likewise, Jordan absolute monarchy, Lebanon a vassal state of the Syrians, Iran is a religious dictatorship with a secular president deliberately emulating Hitler…
All these centrally controlled, centrally planned tyrannies find the presence of a free Israel absolutely intolerable. So they try again and again and AGAIN to crush Israel.
This “Palestinian uprising” of late is armed and paid for by the Saudis, Egypt, Syria and Iran, and -everybody- knows it. If those Wikileaks documents prove nothing else, they prove that. Also that the “Middle East Peace Negotiations” are an ongoing circus act, whereby the Arab states stall while they re-arm for another go at Israel.
I think Wilders is a self serving, pot stirring demagogue, and this speech does nothing to change my mind. But you know ET, he’s not -lying-.
The Palestinian issue can’t be solved by negotiating with the Palestinian puppet leaders. It can only be solved by either negotiating with or defeating in war the dictators pulling the strings.
Thanks dizzy. One comment on your Pipes piece (heh, that has a nice right, what?) who seems to be very knowledgeable:
“The paragraph “Eight Months of the British Mandate” contains a misleading header and description: It is claimed that the only mandatory of GB over Palestine was internationally agreed on July 1923 – and therefore the entity “Palestine”, which was ruled on the eight months, is irrelevant.
“The fact is that GB gained an international mandatory on Palestine already in April 1920 (San Remo resolution). The artificial separation/administration between east Palestine (=Transjordan) and west Palestine only occurred in 1922 solely by GB, and therefore can’t be regarded as an international legitimate act.
“So yes, Jordan IS Palestine, and after the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty of 1994 – as Jordan removed all claims for Judea and Samaria (formerly “the West Bank”) – they are now part of Israel and should be annexed to Israel. Its Arab citizens should be moved to Jordan/Palestine.”
Confident, not knowledgeable. And one can see where his mind is — // Judea and Samaria (formerly “the West Bank”) //
He pretends to distinguish between [invalid] inividual state actions & [valid] international decisions. That is a double-edged sword, since international agreements of long-standing are the legitimate solution.
Pipes notes that this is revisionist zionism of the 1920s warmed-over. So Wilders is wrong in his “totally new approach” remark. And everyone in the room would know that.
This practice of claiming what everyone knows to be false while everyone pretends that it is true reminds me that Israel has an official in charge of “nuclear ambiguity”.
In addition, Eldad was saying the same think two months ago.http://www.imemc.org/article/59610
Wilders is pandering.
dizzy – I fully agree; it is preposterous to define the identity of Palestine by a mere 8 months British ordered mandate of the 20th c. Palestine is not Jordan. Period.
Plus, Israel has to acknowledge that the people living in the land base of what is now Israel and also the W.Bank, were living there for centuries with title to their land and farms, under the Ottoman rule as well as post WWI British rule. They weren’t Jordanians then and to consider that they should all leave and go ‘home’ to Jordan is as ignorant as Helen Thomas saying that all Israelis should leave and ‘go home’ to Poland and Germany.
kroket: if we want to consider facts, then, a key fact is that there is no such thing as a ‘homeland’. Our species did not emerge from the soil of a particular geographic area and its descendents do not carry the genetic composition of that soil in their biological genes.
Cultures develop, when/if they settle, in particular geographic areas, in large part in reaction to the particular ecology of the area and their economic role in that domain. So, we can have German, Polish, Yemenite etc cultures. Then, you can add the religious attributes to that complex..This is not a ‘homeland’ but a cultural complex. It can change when the population changes, when the ecology changes, when people move to another area.
Alain – I disagree with all your ‘facts’. The KGB conspiracy one is fun. The only one I’ll discuss is that ‘fact’ that one is Jewish by birth. This refers not to the religion but to the community. It’s important to consider because it shows the ancient correlation between Judaism and Islam. Both are TRIBAL with reference to defining membership. This is important. Read their halakhah and hadiths (the rules of societal behaviour for both)..and you’ll see how tribal they are and how they reject Others who are not members of the tribe.
Judaism considers that one is a member of the tribe by matrilineal descent; Islam, by patrilineal descent. This is informative; it tells you that the Judaic tribe’s economy was horticulture and based around small scale gardens, while the Islamic was pastoral nomadic and based around the men’s work with large animals. I’ve said for some time that Islam says very little about the metaphysical (god) and most of it is pure judaic; Islam is primarily a political and societal tract. It is militant because its economic land base, required for pastoralism, was being encroaoched upon by the settled Christian developments of the post Roman era.
Note that this attribute of ‘how to define membership in a group’ sets up Judaism and Islam as tribes. Not religions. Tribes. That means a closed genetic pool. That’s the Third Reich view as well.
Christianity is a remarkable ideology in that it was the first societal/political ideology (and these ‘religions’ are, above all, societal and political infrastructures)…that explicitly rejected the notion of the tribe. That’s astonishing in that era – when all peoples lived and identified themselves as members of a genetic tribe, connected to some ancient ‘first ancestors’.
Astonishing.
What Christianity said was to deny the location of the individual within a tribe and instead, insist that all ‘others’ are not ‘other tribes’ (as found in Judaism and Islam) and thus, enemies, but all are ‘children of god’ and all are neighbours. ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’. Oh – and you weren’t BORN into this religion. It’s not a tribe. You had to, as an individual, choos it. It was an act of reason not birth.
What was going on? Well, the people in this area were settling; their numbers were increasing; their economy had to move from local isolate self-sufficient means…for the local produce could not support the growing population…and move to a market economy. Where surplus was produced and traded. So – you had a religious ideology develop that supported this networking, co-operation, getting along. A dramatic change from the previous isolation of the Judaic and other tribal sets.
And, with Christianity, you had a distinct separation of church and state, while in both Judaism and Islam – the two are merged.
Alain – does tribalism still function in the modern world? I don’t think it should. The basic cause of islamic fascism is tribalism – the fact that the dictators of the Islamic states in the ME are ruling for themselves and their elite tribe-in-power and not for their population who are members of other tribes. The Islamic nations are refusing to allow a free middle class to take economic and political power – and they reject Israel as a democracy with a middle class.
I agree with dizzy; Wilders is pandering. And I’ll stick by my suggestion of a federation.
All respect to you ET.
But, again another lengthy predictable response.
Yawn..
ET: “I agree with dizzy; Wilders is pandering. And I’ll stick by my suggestion of a federation.”
Of course Wilders is pandering. He’s a battlefield crow. But even if by magic you managed to create a peaceful, democratic Israel/Pelestine federation, absolutely nothing would change ET. You’d have Jews and Arabs peacefully co-existing within the confines of Israel/Palestine, still at war with the rest of the Arab dictatorships.
Actually, that is what they have now. You just want to add some more Arabs, is all. You can’t get to peace without fundamentally altering the dictatorships. Altering Israel is just moving the deck chairs.
dizzy / Phantom.
I find your characterization of Wilders as a panderer shocking, disturbing. He is the anti-panderer for he sees and understands the steady, dreary, inexorable march of Islam on Europe. The man has expressed views on Islam shared by me, and you both, and is under 24/7 armed guard for doing so, while of course Muslims in Europe are perfectly free to slander Christianity and Judaism without consequences. He also understands that all appeasement toward Islam emboldens it, not softens it.
You are both ingrates.
I disagree with his view on banning the Koran, of course, as Mein Kampf itself is not banned, nor should it be. I’m anti-book-banning, period.
As to the topic at hand, he GETS that Israel is the front line in the world wide jihad. As he mentions, he spent a year there and loves the country and the people.
I’m amused at the pointless sophistry above about Palestine, what it is, what it isn’t. For crysakes just look at a map of Mandatory Palestine. It covers all of Israel, Transjordan, Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza. ALL. The Arab-Israeli conflict is NOT A BORDER DISPUTE. The Arabs got 78%, were offered a share of the remaining 22%, rejected it, and waged a genocidal war on Israel.
And ET, your federation is positively delusional. Arabs/muslims don’t want a federation with infidels, let alone its sons of monkeys and pigs subset. YOUR problem is hyper-rationality, an occupational hazard. Sure, what you would like to see would be nice, but its simply not in the realm of possibility — UNLESS, the terror PLO/Hamas infrastructure is destroyed, which clearly you don’t advocate as you seem to believe that you can “do business” with unreconstructed, unapologetic terrorists who want Jews killed and Israel destroyed.
Abbas himself has just recently stated, unequivocally, that even with a Palestnian state he won’t recognize the State of Israel. And he’s the “good terrorist”.
How you can possibly see a federation with this monstrosity mystifies me.
Me No Dhimmi
I’ll defend the pandering characterization since it shocks & disturbs you; it partly depends on a different view than yours of the people he is associating himself with.
pander
// to do or provide exactly what a person or group wants, especially when it is not acceptable, reasonable or approved of, usually in order to get some personal advantage //
Think of his money-raising activities in JDL-associated temples & Ziotropic Christian churches in the U.S., in which he rattles the rubes with a statement like this —
// 2005 USA “With heavy-lidded eyes, Mr. Wilders laid out his views. He said over the last 30 years, the population of non-Western immigrants in the Netherlands grew 40 times faster than the Dutch population. “The Dutch are a minority already,” he said. ” //
He could, of course, never get away with that statement IN the Nerherlands, the Dutch have only to look around them —
Nationmaster stats — Netherlands Ethnic groups — Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, etc
Religion — Percentage Muslim 6% Islam > Population 984,449 [CBS 2007 update 850,000, or 5.2 percent ]
Or his statements in Australia
As to the particular occasion of the speech, he is recommending to them, AS IF a novel & helpful suggestion based on the terrible situation in Europe, just exactly their own party policy; that is, one of ethnic cleansing. Take a muslim view — does this really look like the “inexorable march of Islam”?
His Fitna, which is part of his money-raising activities, is a mini-me of a piece of black propaganda called Obsession, which was sent to 20-odd million Americans just before the 2008 election — the considerable money & organization involved being supplied by Canadian-Israeli & American lobbies.
[your “muslims free to slander” is an odd remark in THAT context]
Geert needs the money because of the “fuhrer principle” that operates in his party — & I do mean HIS, as he is the only member.
The peculiar nature of his party means that he can’t get government support so he needs these people’s fear & loathing. And they need him for their world-wide “muslims are nazis” campaign.
They are pandering to each other — take the insalubrious partnership of Pam Geller & Geert. She gets about the only working-politician the Islam-watchers yet have to headline her New York rally; he gets a prime venue for his “international network”.
If you really disagree with his views on book-banning, just follow the implications of that [e.g. is people banning OK?]. You will eventually change your whole view of the man.
In the Netherlands, the academic question these days is apparently, “Is it accurate to characterize Wilders as a fascist?” [here & here] [The last is the opinion of a conservative nobel-prize winner]
I’m no fan of Islam. But pace Wilders, it IS a religion. His talking point denies that so he can deny muslims religious freedom. [He’s also not too big on Freedom of Association — with Freedom of Speech, that’s three — I guess that’s why it’s called the Freedom Party.]
And the threat of islamist-based terrorism is actual. But there are bigger threats closer to home. Like a drunk walking down the pavement, it often not the initial swerve but the over-compensating anti-swerve that ends up in traffic.
Stick the Party wilders platforminto Google translate — the translation will be crude, but then, so are the ideas.
dizzy, you should get in touch with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs; maybe do some guest posts there. He’s big on the “fuhrer principle” seeing nazis behind every rock and tree.
I’m no fan of Islam. But pace Wilders, it IS a religion.
Sure dizzy. It’s one of the three great religions; one of the Abrahamic religions; we all pray to the same g-d yada yada yada?
Did I leave any Islamist cliche out?
Damn, yeah I did: how can Arabs be anti-semitic; why they’re a semitic people, too, right [see: Arafat, et al].
I’ll say it again. You don’t understand the Arab-Israel conflict just as ET doesn’t. You over-intellectualize it. It’s too simple for you to understand!
It is NOT A BORDER DISPUTE.
I’m afraid I don’t know much about Wilder’s fund-raising activities. All pols do this, though, don’t they? And look at the enemy funding from Saudi Arabia. What is it now: $100 billion to terrorists? Are you suggesting there are some unsavory folks making contributions to Wilders? That would be a shocka what?
Wilders is the anti-panderer. He’s a marked man because he’ trying to STOP the elite PANDERING to Muslims. Read: Efraim Karsh’s Islamic Imperialism: A History. In it you will learn about how the secular and church elites sold out to Islam, which could never have advanced without this betrayal. Read: Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia.
Me No Dhimmi
// get intouch with Charles Johnson …. big on the “fuhrer principle” seeing nazis behind every rock //
I put the phrase in quotes & explained what I meant. To elaborate —
He is the only member of his party. A populist party with one member — cool eh? So it’s really not PVV, but PW. When you donate to the various Free Geert Wilders access links, only Geert knows if the money goes toward his court case, party advertising or his hairdresser.
The election lists that he assembles for elections [he actually advertises for candidates] owe loyalty to him. And his selection could use some adult supervision. Three of his candidates were dropped before the cutoff date for various scandals, one being an Israeli who the government gave him a quiet word about [& who was found to be carrying a gun when picked up]
Since the elections, four more embarrassments have occured; hence the “honour-roll” title of this article on the latest — a guy with a military conviction for sexual harrassment & a recent court case dispute with neighbours. He wasn’t disciplined by Geert, apart from being removed from his spoksmanships for [get this] women’s issues & neighbourhood affairs.
Why? The coalition that relies of PWs voting support has a one-vote majority. [So the whole system is compromised]
As the article mentions
// At present 20% of the PVV parliamentarians have been involved in criminal activities, a figure higher than the 13.8% of Moroccan youths who have seen the wrong side of the law in ‘problem-town’ Gouda // [& which is a theme of the PW schtick]
Charles Johnson broke with Pam Geller over her aquaintanceships with european neo-nazis. Normally Geert steers clear of the obvious white power cum “stand for Israel” types [he didn’t appreciate the EDL excursion to Amsterdam]. But he has accepted the hospitality of Geller. [No evidence if they discussed Pam’s theory that President Obama is Malcolm X’s love child.]
As for the rest, I just said that Islam is a religion. You supplied the “Abrahamic” cliches. I call them sky-god religions.
And thanks for the reading list, but I have already read too much by Karsh.
Regarding Eurabia, among the available articles I have, this cuts to the chase nicely [think “Protocols of the Elders of Islam”]
ET
// to consider that they should all leave and go ‘home’ to Jordan is as ignorant as Helen Thomas saying that all Israelis should leave and ‘go home’ to Poland and Germany. //
Perhaps [she was apparently refering to the West Bank] she would have been better-advised to say “go home to Brooklyn” since so many of the settlers are American.
I recall one purim, the CBC were in Hebron – they showed the old market [with old scenes for comparison], the shops turned into new apartments, the parade of settlers along a street, with a couple of Palestinians peeking out through an iron grill a couple of stories above, until a soldier on a roof across the street waved them back in.
Down at street level, a chubby teenaged girl smilingly explained to the camera that ” they should go away, to some Arab country, this is not their country, this is our country “, all in a charming South African accent.