Where is a Churchill incarnate when you need him?

Someone better wake up, maybe the Queen should intervene. Drastic measures are needed.

The wartime song "There'll always be an England and England shall be free......." had better be heeded with the addendum, free of Sharia and Muslim immigration.
Britain, our Constitutional Motherland, has some extremely difficult times ahead.

It appears that Britain has entered her dotage. The time has come, indeed may be long past, when the adult children of the Constitutional Mother need to take complete charge of her affairs to be sure she doesn't harm herself.

Sic transit gloria Brittaniae.

Formerly, the chorus

"Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves! "

Changed to

Rue, Britannia! Britannia, rue the slaves!
Britons never, never, never shall make waves!

"Where is a Churchill incarnate when you need him?"

Could be too late, Liz. Might be time for the reincarnation of Boudica, hopefully with a more successful end to the campaign of resistance. (or Bodicea, or however it's spelled.)

Those were stupid comments made by Moishe Feiglin both about the Arabs and about the 'moral depths to which Britain has sunk'.

What's his point with both remarks? To show his intellectual and moral superiority? Why?

Don't throw out Britain and its legacy, which includes the Magna Carta and that important separation of church and state, just because it is currently trapped within a phase - and I mean that, a phase - of multiculturalism and an inability to figure out what to do about immigrations. Remember that Europe and the UK were not immigrant nations like the US and Canada.

We in Canada are trapped within our own morass of multiculturalism. It's not as bad as Europe because the numbers are smaller and our economy has enabled more of our immigrants to be middle class. But, we have our Charter and our HRAct to show how ignorant we are about dealing with multiculturalism.

As for Feiglin, such a disparaging sneer at Arabs doesn't help the situation - which is that they exist; they aren't going to disappear in a poof of wished-for-smoke; they must move out of tribalism into industrialism, and the West is going to have to guide and help this transformation. Remarks like those of Feiglin don't help.

ET,

If we don't laugh at Britain and Britons, how are they ever to understand the depths to which they are descending.

They are becoming the butt of jokes deservedly. Better that than the alternative that awaits them.

The butt of a rifle on their face.

Moshe Feiglin, who is 'far-right' in Israel is apparently coming to Toronto at the end of March to speak to a fundraising for the JDL (Jewish Defense League). The JDL, by the way, is defined as a terrorist organization by the US.

Baruch Goldstein, the settler who opened fire on Muslims praying in a mosque, killing 29 of them and injuring 150, was a member of the JDL. He's revered by the far-right in Israel.

The New Yorker, in 2004, quoted Moshe Feigen:

"Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy
of a Jewish state?"
"For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish
state, not a democratic
state. Democracy should serve the values of the
state, not destroy them."
In any case, you can't teach a monkey to speak and
you can't teach an Arab
to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture
of thieves and robbers.
Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and
a killer and a liar. The Arab
destroys everything he touches."

Now, if a Muslim were saying that about a Jew, we'd be quite correctly outraged. Hatred and ignorance exists on both sides.

ET said

"Now, if a Muslim were saying that about a Jew, we'd be quite correctly outraged. Hatred and ignorance exists on both sides."

Yes. And what does this have to do with the anti-democratic nature of current British politics?

Did not Columbia University just welcome Ahmadinejad to the US?

Seems to me, Britain is losing its way.

ET, I have no doubt Moshe Feiglin has indeed said some offensive things about Arabs. He may not be my cup of tea, but democratic countries don't normally ban elected representatives of other democratic countries.

ET said

"Now, if a Muslim were saying that about a Jew, we'd be quite correctly outraged. Hatred and ignorance exists on both sides."

Very true but for one important difference. The Jew would not retaliate with a suicide bombing.

ET,

"Achmed Mohammed, the squatter who opened fire on Jews praying in a synagogue, killing 29 of them and injuring 150, was a member of the Hamas. He's revered by the far-left in Israel.

The New Yorker, in 2004, quoted Sayyid Al Jazeera:

" "

oh, never mind. They wouldn't bother because it upsets the narrative.

Considering how fast their converting to Islmofacism, I guess its no big deal to hate Jews.

After all England has a history of that. Going back to "pigsty John" or King John as we know him . Expelling the Jews in the 13nth century. That of course spelled the end of the Plantegenant Empire as did the mass persecution of Jews the Spanish one when they too where kicked out of Spain in the 15nth century.

I fully expect to see within a life time the persecution of Christians in the whole of europe. Time will tell.

When folks forget their roots than the seas of change will engulf them leaving not a branch nor root of hard fought freedoms. All will be slaves except of course the monsters or strong men .

All because they forgot who & what they stand FOR INSTEAD OF WISHY WASHY social trends brought to the hysteria of an almost religious fever by social busy bodies trying to cahnge the unchangable. Human nature.

Liz J asks "Where is a Churchill incarnate when you need Him?" Christpher Monkton, 3rd Earl of Brenchley sounds very likely the type of man you may have in mind. Consider this: Monckton has been described as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party. Go to Wikipedia here: http://tinyurl.com/ysj8nw for more.
To read more on this amazing man google his name. Over the recent past he has argued very effectively against the global warming/climate change hysteria.

re moshe's speaking engagement:

http://www.jdlcanada.org/parsha35.htm

March 27 in Toronto.. seems to refer to this year given the context in the piece.

ww,
Thanks for the heads up regarding the visit of the person in question.

I will post it on my calendar to see whether the CBC, Global, or the CTV broadcast the inevitable protest and pie-throwing displaying their openness and tolerance to diversity.

The only question remains, should I wear black that day in preparation for one of their assassins?

Here's the flyer with address of venue

http://www.jdlcanada.org/images/toronto_event4.jpg

let's see, Feiglin is far-right, he is coming to speak to the JDL, Baruch Goldstein was JDL and is revered by the far right in Israel.

Goldstein acted alone, he wasn't supported by the Israeli government, Jews did not party and hand out candies after he committed murder, the Israeli government did not issue statements in support of his murderous rampage, he was probably suffering from mental illness, but sure, the British should ban Moishe Feiglin.

How dare those Jews want to be sovereign in their own country, living by their own laws, and not accepting dhimmi status in some "democratic" middle eastern Islamic state.

There is pretty good evidence that the prophet of Islam was a robber, liar, and murderer, but I guess it is unhelpful to point that out.

kevin jaeger - I don't think the axiom of 'democratic countries don't ban elected representatives of other democratic countries' is enough, rationally, to conclude that Moshe Feiglin ought to be admitted to the UK.

The fact that he's an elected representative isn't enough to mitigate that he is openly, virulently anti-Arab, and pro Jewish Defense League (you can check out their mandate).

In the UK's present fragile multicultural state, could they provide enough security for someone as arrogantly provocative and immune to debate and dialogue as Feiglin?

Sarnia Jim - the presence of the IDF, its soldiers and its bombs and bulldozers means that a suicide bomber isn't necessary. Therefore, your attempt to show 'moral superiority' is invalid.

h20 - and what's your point?

Don't throw out Britain and its legacy, which includes the Magna Carta and that important separation of church and state ..."

Umm, would that be the same separation of Church and State that has the Queen as head of the Church of England and a law banning the Head of State of Canada (She is the Queen of Canada, you know) from being a Catholic? THAT separation of Church and State?

The statements by Moshe Feiglin were over the top but a preemptive banning is a tad much as well. And neither allows you to make stuff up like that. As a sort-of Catholic, that law and the Queen's status as our head of state has always bugged me a bit.

ET, sometimes you surpass even yourself.
You mean 'truth' that 'might' be considered an insult to Arabs and their nomad way of life can no longer be spoken by anyone? It is truth, and a quote. What do you think the result of camels grazing in an arid county is, ET? Lush countryside?

I don't know how to highlight but even though he had no plans to visit, he was banned anyway. With no right of appeal. Jacqui is a female socialist. What can you expect?

From The Jewish Chronicle:
The deputy leader of Israel’s Likud party, Moshe Feiglin, has been excluded from Britain by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith using powers invoked after the July 2005 London bombings — even though he had no plans to visit.

In a two-page letter sent to Mr Feiglin’s office in Ginot Shomron, an unnamed Border and Immigration Agency official, writing on Ms Smith’s behalf, cited articles written by Mr Feiglin and said she had “personally directed” that he be banned.

The letter said: “It is considered that you are seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

“In light of these factors, the Home Secretary is satisfied you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good.” There is no right of appeal.

ET asked

"h20 - and what's your point?

Fer cryin' out loud. Must I repost?

If Ahmadinejad is allowed to speak and showed up for the foolish murderous bastard he is, surely, Britain is already lost for not allowing the Jewish equivalent to speak.

Of course, we (most of SDA) know who stopped the Jewish equivalent to speak in the first place.

The Ahmadinejad sympathizers or his equivalent.

Wake up!

Woah, ET. I never realised we would ever be on the same wavelength, even if for different reasons, but here you have just said everything I would have.

Menachim Begin and Shamir were banned for their roles in Israeli groups that were carrying out what we would today call terrorist acts against British forces in Palestine, including the assasination of British officials such as Lord Moyne. The British had every right to ban them.

"but democratic countries don't normally ban elected representatives of other democratic countries. "

Yes they do. When an elected politician is seen as being incompatible with the laws of the land. The United States recently banned a Hindu Nationalist Indian Chief Minister (equivalent of a Premier) from visiting the US. The Indian government responded the way you did. However, if you are identified as a crook under the law of a country, they are allowed to stop you from entering.

"Did not Columbia University just welcome Ahmadinejad to the US?"

He was in the US to address the UN general assembly. He was not a visitor to the US and the US cannot turn him down when he visits at the invitation of the UN. Columbia did not apply for his visa either. Theres a bunch of diplomatic agreements that govern these things.

"Very true but for one important difference. The Jew would not retaliate with a suicide bombing."

Yeah, he would probably just use a gun instead. Like that Baruch guy. How many suicide bombers targetted the Southern Baptist Churches after they called Mohammed some less than nice things?

ET is correct. Nutcases have always existed on both sides of any divide.

The point is of course that Britain has no qualms about inviting leaders like Bashir Assad from Syria to its shores. And London Mayor Ken Livingston gave a wonderful reception to the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader Qaradawi.

So ET's point isn't valid. The UK has degenerated into a soft-headed shadow of its former self, and considering how Labour has been unraveling Thatcher's reforms, it's probably just the beginning of that country's decline.

gellen

"You mean 'truth' that 'might' be considered an insult to Arabs and their nomad way of life can no longer be spoken by anyone? It is truth, and a quote."

What did Feiglin say that is the truth? That Mohammed was a liar robber etc? Do you have proof? Does he have proof? Is it all just heresy? The liar bit is especially bizzare - a non-christian could call Jesus a liar (in fact many jews did). Ditto Moses. And the Virgin Mary seems to run contrary to many truths. But thats besides the point.

Mohammed, unlike Jesus is meant to be a human, not a son of GOd, and in keeping with Abrahamic religious traditions, where hhumans are imperfect and hence on earth instead of heaven, he has been endowed with the many imperfections of a human. I find it odd that a thief would condone the amputation of other limbs. Or that a murderer would preach against it.

Feiglin said what he felt like. Whatever suited him. Saying hatred inciting things and slapping false charges can be a dangerous thing. And I think jews, of all people, have experienced the more dangerous aspects of it.

sputter

""""" He was not a visitor to the US and the US cannot turn him down when he visits at the invitation of the UN. Columbia did not apply for his visa either. Theres a bunch of diplomatic agreements that govern these things. """""

the "visa" to the UN in the US is different than a visa to the US, and yes, going to CU was an extenton of the UN visa, that could have been rejected. So the USA did tolerate a scumbag, as bad or worst, to speak on it's soil

Sput:

There is one difference between Jesus and Mohamed. Mohammed encouraged his followers to lie when it was expedient. Jesus never did encourage anyone to lie. In fact he encouraged His followers to be so honest that taking oaths was not needed. Some people may say Jesus lied but is there any evidence? We know from his own writings that Mohammed encouraged lying. Don't believe me? Read the Qu'ran.

Sput,

You are very confused. First, the US can refuse admission to someone even if they have been invited to the UN. Secondly, while there is disagreement on the wisdom of inviting Ahmadinejad, it was a debate.

Alas, Britain fails on both counts.

Goodbye Brittania.

Good riddance Iran.

GYM,

It was not an extension of the UN visa. The UN visa is not an airport to hotel to UN visa. They are allowed to move around Manhattan and make speeches and engage in other PR stuff.

The Brits have clamped down on hate speech post the July 7th bombings. One would expect a democratic country to apply its laws equally to all groups. Muslims can no longer say hatred inciting things, and most of you think that this is a good thing.

But hwen you apply it to a Jew who is essentially a muslim baiter - thats not cool.

SUch double standards may work on this board. But they do not work in democracies. Well democracies that are based on the rule of law anyway.

sput,

The double standard would appear that both the United States gov't (evil right winger Bush) and Columbia University allowed a hate-monger to speak and be heard.

Britain...not so much. Goodbye Brittana!

"There is one difference between Jesus and Mohamed. Mohammed encouraged his followers to lie when it was expedient. Jesus never did encourage anyone to lie. In fact he encouraged His followers to be so honest that taking oaths was not needed. Some people may say Jesus lied but is there any evidence? We know from his own writings that Mohammed encouraged lying. Don't believe me? Read the Qu'ran."

The whole Qu'ran is online. Point me to the passage and I shall read it. Something tells me you dont know. Put your money where your mouth is.

Some people may say Jesus lied? All the Jews said he lied, hence their refusal to convert. Does that consitute proof? Jesus couldnt have admitted he was lying - that would have undermined his own position as the son of God. He might very well have lied for the sake of expedience. Just because he didnt admit it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

What does the Qu'ran say about lying and murder? Perhaps you should look it up.

sput,

please point to British Visa requirements that say israeli extremists are disallowed and US visa requirements that say Muslims extremists must be allowed.

"The double standard would appear that both the United States gov't (evil right winger Bush) and Columbia University allowed a hate-monger to speak and be heard."

They didnt have a choice. They agreed to allow him to do that the moment they arm twisted the UN into locating in NY - that whole prestige thing.

Fidel Castro would drive around Manhattan. But he wasnt allowed to go anywhere else in the US.

Ahmedinijad could only speak in Columbia or NYU - Bush wouldnt have let him speak anywhere else.

Sput,
"Ahmedinijad could only speak in Columbia or NYU - Bush wouldnt have let him speak anywhere else."

As opposed to Britain which won't allow Moshe Feiglin to speak anywhere.

Any way you cut it, Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak his hatred and Feiglin isn't.

Which is more democratic?

SPUT SAID:
"SUch double standards may work on this board. But they do not work in democracies. Well democracies that are based on the rule of law anyway. "

Which law is more beneficial for democracy , SPUT?

Go do your own research.

After the 7/7 bombings a whole new set of hate speech laws came out - aimed mainly at shutting up the militant mullahs, and hauling the troublesome ones into jail.

From an immigration perspective, in the 80s and 90s, political dissidents like Abu Hamza came to the UK as refugees. Hamza was recently deported. He was the crazy imam at Finsbury Park. Under new rules people like him are not allowed to enter the UK, regardless of faith. Crazy right winger = crazy right winger, in the eyes of these laws. They treat all faiths equally, including Judaism.

US Visa requirements do not allow muslim extremists. However, there are international diplomatic treaties that govern how international cities work (Geneva, Vienna etc - all the cities with major international organizations). Diplomats for all countries are allowed. In doing so, all governments represented within those organizations can send whoever they wish, including their leaders. As long as Iran is represented in the UN, an Iranian head of state can visit. And so on.

Its not rocket science. Ahmednijad did not come as Ahmednijad the individual. He came as the leader of the delegation of Iran to the UN. Its really quite simple. The US agreed that the UN's nation states can be represented by anyone thier governments see fit. That was one of the concessions they made to entice people to put the UN in New York, a thoroughly illogical place given its distance from the population centers of Asia. Europe would have been more logical. But I digress.

Sput,

You can argue all you want but the bottom line is that Muslim extremists can preach their hate in the US (and Britain) while Jewish ones can't.

h2o273kk9

"As opposed to Britain which won't allow Moshe Feiglin to speak anywhere."

They dont have to. They're not under the same self-imposed obligations as the US is with the UN. If the UN was in London and Feiglin was a govt minister, he would have been allowed to come, and speak at LSE or Kings or whatever.

Ahmednijad can only come to England if he is invited to come here as the head of state. And so far, he hasnt been invited. As a private citizen he will be banned in the same cateogory as Feiglin. That much I can guarantee.

I dont know what you ar eharping on about, but to put it simply, laws apply equally. Feiglion cannot visit as a private citizen. Nor can most Iranian conservative politicans. Feiglins being Jewish is irrelevant - he is seen as a hatred inciter and treated as such. The same would apply to a Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc.

Of course I suspect for you the restriction should only apply to Muslims, because, you know, you re so damned smart and you know everything.

In any case, I dont have the time or energy to explain the difference between government officials visiting in an official capacity, and private citizens. Its pretty intuitive. Not rocket science.

Sput,

"Ahmednijad can only come to England if he is invited to come here as the head of state. And so far, he hasnt been invited. As a private citizen he will be banned in the same cateogory as Feiglin. That much I can guarantee. "

Grow up!

"You can argue all you want but the bottom line is that Muslim extremists can preach their hate in the US (and Britain) while Jewish ones can't."

DOnt be daft. Muslim extremists arent allowed to preach either - the law shuts them up too. In fact it was aimed at them. Abu Hamza and company. Nobody can preach their hate in Britain.

And Muslim extremists can hardly get onto a plane to the US without the plane being turned around.

You re just talking nonsense now.

Sput,

"DOnt be daft. Muslim extremists arent allowed to preach either - the law shuts them up too. "

Sorry. The videos circulating from the British mosques belie your suspension of disbelief.

The authorites can make all the "neutral" laws they wish but if they aren't enforced...and they aren't in Britain...they are defacto, tacit agreement.

Grow up?

Why? What did I say thats so wrong? That Ahmedinijad can only come to the UK if he is iinvited in his capacity as the head of state of IRan?

If he applies for a private visa, he wont be allowed. Theres a long list of personna non grata - and most of the Iranian leadership is on that list.

"The authorites can make all the "neutral" laws they wish but if they aren't enforced...and they aren't in Britain...they are defacto, tacit agreement."

Prove it. Theya re enforced. And people are deported.

You re basking in conjecture now. Get your facts straight and then go shootng your mouth off.

In any case its Saturday evenign and I have better things to do.

Sput,

"If he applies for a private visa, he wont be allowed. Theres a long list of personna non grata - and most of the Iranian leadership is on that list. "

And Ahmadinejad's name shows up where precisely?

Not there? Gee, What a shame?

What's that? Only a matter of time, you say? Really? I'm sure you have the Foreign Secretary's ear.

No seriously, how dumb are you?

If Britain invites Irans HEAD OF STATE (which, incidentally, it hasnt), it does nto matter if his name is Ahmednijad or Khomeini or h20 blah blah blah. He will be allowed.

If Ahmednijad or his cronies apply fro a visitor visa like Fleiglin, then they will not be allowed.

Sput said

"If Ahmednijad or his cronies apply fro a visitor visa like Fleiglin, then they will not be allowed. "

Look, you blew your load. Twice!

"If he applies for a private visa, he wont be allowed. Theres a long list of personna non grata - and most of the Iranian leadership is on that list. "

Show us the list forbidding Ahmadinejad. What's that? You can't! Say it ain't so.

So do you always spend your evenings defending murderous bastards on the internet where millions can decipher your malificent intentions?

Pappe was allowed into England by the Jacquibite socialists. Why not Feiglin?
...-
"Ilan Pappe: I'm not a traitor

Controversial historian Ilan Pappe left Israel last year after his endorsement of an academic boycott of Israel exposed him and his family to death threats. Now a professor in England, Pappe maintains that a cultural boycott on his homeland is the only way to end the occupation."
http://tinyurl.com/33nq2m (ynetnews)

Sput,

It's very simple. You say Ahmadinejad won't be allowed in.

Surely, you have some proof to back up your assertion that the private citizen Ahmadinejad isn't welcome.

Surely he's on the same list as private citizen Moshe Feiglin.

Show us the list!

This is a crazy discussion. For heavens sake, preemptively banning someone from coming to Britain is flat out stupid. Banning someone for writing or thinking something offensive to Muslims is even more stupid.

I don't know how anyone can come to the defense of the Brits for doing this. If they can take this action, they certainly should also be turfing out anyone LIVING in Britain who have repulsive views. Last I checked, some British Muslim Imams don't seem to be too keen on Jews. Yet they aren't prevented from visiting the country, they live in the country. And that appears to be OK with the likes of Jacqui Smith.

ET, its a double standard. Worse than a double standard actually, and that's the problem.

Heh - what fun. Gellen said:
"It is truth, and a quote. What do you think the result of camels grazing in an arid county is, ET? Lush countryside? "

Heh. So, now we know what causes deserts. Camels. Who'd have thought of it? Deserts are caused by camels grazing. Sheesh. If there weren't any camels, then..there wouldn't be any deserts. And who owns the camels? Gosh, it's those Arabs. So, the Arabs have created the deserts. Gosh..

I don't know why people are so upset that Britain has banned Moshe Feiglin, who promotes hatred against Arabs, promotes a 'holy war' against Muslims, denies the feasability of a Palestinian state..

It recently banned Ken Livingston's 'friend', Al-Qarawadi of Qatar, who is also banned from the US; he promotes suicide attacks, the destruction of Israel and the death penalty for homosexuals.

Banned Omar Bakri, who praised the July 7th bombings and praised the 9/11 bombers.

ET,

"I don't know why people are so upset that Britain has banned Moshe Feiglin, who promotes hatred against Arabs, promotes a 'holy war' against Muslims, denies the feasability of a Palestinian state.. "

So why do you then go on to list people banned by the US. The apples to apples comparison would be Britain, yes?

BTW, did I mention that Ahmadinejad, who advocates the elimination of Israel, is allowed to speak to private citizens in the US?

ET,
It's very simple. Just acknowlege the double standard where Islamicists hell-bent on murdering Jews are allowed to speak and preach in the West, virtually unrestricted, whereas Jews are not allowed the same abhorent behaviour.

Do you remember Concordia and Bibi Netanyahu's reception? What were the consequences to those opposed to his speaking and what rights to those who wanted to hear speak have.

Surely, you recognize the de facto and dangerous double standard?

ET>

Do you personally know any Arabs and have you ever visited any Arab countries? Have you experienced the culture first hand or talked with any, one to one to understand what they really feel and think? Really I’m curious; I’m not looking for a long-winded bash on you one way or the other.

ET>

“I don't know why people are so upset that Britain has banned Moshe Feiglin”

I would say that they are angry for the same reasons that the HRC feels one group is a better hate group to accept complaint over the other as with Andrew Guille.

In the meanwhile British Imams are screaming in the street with bullhorns demanding the blood of British citizens, their leaders and their allies.

Knight

"In the meanwhile British Imams are screaming in the street with bullhorns demanding the blood of British citizens, their leaders and their allies."

I wish noone was actually in the streets doing this at all. Unfortunately, they are.

My objection is that we let one group of psychopaths, who have shown a propensity to actually carry out their threats, continue to preach hate unopposed while we ignore our own laws designed to diffuse their wrath, AND at the same time, we hypocritically refuse to even HEAR psychopaths who are LESS LIKELY to actually carry out their agenda but we recite chapter and verse the legal restrictions against them.

DUH!

Bibi is welcomed with a riot, Ahmadinejad gets yuks.

h2o273kk9 >

Agreed!

Knight 99. Yes, I have personally talked with Arabs and Muslims about the situation. Also with Israelis and Jews.

H20 -I think you misread what I wrote. I was listing people banned by Britain. The first guy, Qarawadi, is banned by BOTH Britain and the US.

Both groups of extremists are equally likely to carry out their threats. I think you should read a bit on Feiglin and his past record. And the Jewish Defense League and their mandate and history. The point is, extremism exists on both sides. There isn't any moral 'this extremist is better than that extremist'. They are equally amoral.

ET,

"The point is, extremism exists on both sides. There isn't any moral 'this extremist is better than that extremist'. They are equally amoral."

Technically, I agree.

Practically, I don't. One is more likely to kill me and laugh at what stupid dhimmi whitey I am. They other isn't likely to do it at all but if they did they would feel bad about it.

I'd still be just as dead but I'm an atheist and I can still see the difference in religious fanaticism leading to the likelihood of my demise.

I'm sorry you are having such difficulty choosing sides.

yes yes both sides, both sides

The government of Israel did not condone Goldstein, they do not condone the JDL, in fact Meir Kahane's group may be outlawed in Israel.

Feiglin is not a criminal - he may have proposed solutions to the Arab/Israeli problem that leftists do not agree with - eg. transfer. Extreme.

Feiglin was not even planning to go to the UK, but they decided to ban him anyway.

"I'm sorry you are having such difficulty choosing sides."

Funny. Because that is exactly how it appears when you come racing to the defense of Jacqui Smith based for banning Feiglin.....

You seem to be strongly opposed to "extremism". If so, don't you think she and her government's time would be better spent running down and shipping out nasty Imam's who actually LIVE in the country?

I mean come on...

By the way, ex-liberal, far right Jews DID party when Baruch Goldstein massacred those Muslims praying in the mosque. And his gravesite is a shrine, with a plaque that says:

"To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel."

h20 - I'm not having any difficulty choosing sides. I've chosen. I'm against extremists. Period.

ex-liberal. What does 'criminal' have to do with this debate? After all, Qarawadi and Bakri aren't 'criminals' either. But they are fanatical extremists just like him, who openly and publicly promote death and destruction. So does Feiglin. After all, someone who promotes 'holy war' (as does Feiglin) isn't just mildly talking about 'transfers'. You don't seem able to admit that there are extremists, fanatics and violent Jews. Why?

RCGZ- the UK does try to deport imams who live in the UK who preach hate; the problem is, if they are citizens, it's legally extremely difficult to do it.

"if they are citizens, it's legally extremely difficult to do it."

ergo the cheap focus on banning Feiglin who isn't even trying to visit. I remain surprised you would come to her defense.

The difference I see with Jewish fanaticism and Islamic fanaticism is one of them exists in a country of 7 million surrounded by a hateful mass of 500 million.

Some questions to ask yourself and others-

Who really thinks Jews are going to slaughter Arabs outside of self-defense? Hold up your hand.

How many feel it the other way around, will Arabs not slaughter Jews outside of self-defence? Hmmm no show of hands, crickets chirping in the background.

Which of the two groups will strap a bomb on their child and have them blow themselves up then praise them as martyrs? The more innocents they kill the higher they’re regarded.

Which of the two groups is a terminal risk to my life, way of life, culture and society as a whole?

Bingo, that’s right not a very difficult decision to make.

ET.

"h20 - I'm not having any difficulty choosing sides. I've chosen. I'm against extremists. Period."

That sounds definitive. However, it doesn't square with this less than definitive statement

"As for Feiglin, such a disparaging sneer at Arabs doesn't help the situation - which is that they exist; they aren't going to disappear in a poof of wished-for-smoke; they must move out of tribalism into industrialism, and the West is going to have to guide and help this transformation. Remarks like those of Feiglin don't help."

If you are against extremism, PERIOD, as you say, you can't GUIDE AND HELP the TRANSFORMATION.

It must be extinguished or expelled.

Of course, you could tolerate it by allowing other extremists equal time.

"There isn't any moral 'this extremist is better than that extremist'. They are equally amoral." posted by ET

Without doing the Bill Clinton like parsing of the "morals" of extremism, I am with you on this Knight99. Bringing it right down to deliberate use of children as bomb delivery devices, there should be no doubt. Muslim extremism is more vile than anything the Israelis have done. For heavens sake ET, the Israelis do not deliberately target pizza parlors full of families. Or weddings.

Nope. Your view that there are no degrees of extremism is moralistically relative. In my opinion. Of course.

I am wondering if you haven't just made a mistake on this one and just can't back off. You usually think things through and post cogent thoughts. Everybody makes mistakes, and you appear to have blundered here. Unless you really do believe that folks like Feiglin should be pre-banned. In which case we will respectfully disagree. Which is it though. Do you think that pre-banning Feiglin is a reasonable move?

Sput: In answer to your 9:13 post try 16:106 or 3:28. Both passages of the Qur’an are widely interpreted to mean that if a Muslim is under compulsion it is ok to deny the Islamic faith with your mouth so long as it is not meant in your heart. It is usually more broadly interpreted to mean that a Muslim may lie to an infidel with impunity.

Moshe Feiglin of Manhigut Yehudi (The Jewish Leadership Movement) is truly a much greater threat to the UK than all the Islamists residing and visiting there. Interesting indeed.

He is in favour of strengthening the traditional family structure in Israel through legislation and tax benefits. He wants the education system changed to include a comprehensive curriculum that includes Jewish heritage, Jewish history and Jewish identity.

He has stated that nothing is more dangerous than surrender to terror and would reverse Oslo and the Road Map. Arabs willing to live peacefully in Israel would be granted legal resident status.

So he is opposed to the dismantlement and destruction of Israel through piece by piece with the prerequisite that all Jews first be expelled from the piece in question.

This means he stands opposed to the Left's agenda with its SSM, multiculturalism, big government, excessive taxation and appeasement of terrorists.

In other words he represents true Jewish values and does the unspeakable - calls a spade a spade.

sure there are violent Jews - it would be pretty weird if no Jews reacted violently considering what they are up against. Why do you expect Jews to be perfect in turning the other cheek to their enemies? You have read about the massacre of the Jews of Hebron I'm sure.
h
You can pretty much count the wacko Jews and name each one that has carried out some dastardly deed - Goldstein, the guy who killed Rabin, umm, who else?

I'm not sure what you are referring to about "holy war" - Islam believes it is fighting a holy war. Is it so weird that some Jews would frame the threat to their existence in similar terms?

Thanks Alain, now I understand what a dangerous extremist Feiglin is.

I think we need to outlaw anonymous commentary on the internet, like South Korea did. That is my reaction to reading this extremely low quality post and the extremely low quality comments. Jaeger, you just blew your previously good reputation, permanently. Was it worth it?

"The announcement for Moshe Feiglin's March 27th visit to Toronto is here."

You forgot to mention his "visit" is to raise funds for a terrorist organization. You are now aiding and abetting a terrorist organization banned by the USA. Advertising on their behalf. On a Canadian conservative website.

Are you f*cking nuts?

I am not necessarily against a country having a 'refuse entry list' for non-citizens but what is particularly curious in this case is that Moshe Feiglin had no immediate plans to enter England and the letter from the British Home Secretary advising him of the ban came completely out of the blue.

Furthermore, Feiglin may be far too controversial for the Brits but just what standard of controversy are the Brits using when Ibrahim Moussaui from Hezbollah is allowed to enter England and speak but a Feiglin is not?

Sput can I just correct you. You stated that Abu Hamza was deported. This is incorrect. He is enjoying the delights of Belmarsh prison. He is wanted by the US and theoretically could be extradited there, but my guess is the British government will wimp out when the muslims start seething. The shysters will be falling over themselves to represent this dirtbag (at public expense of course) if he ever faces extradition. Removing him to Yemen will not happen I can assure you of that.

I think you may have confused one bastard with another. Omar Bakri Mohammed known as the "Tottenham Ayatollah" is banned from Britain. He had indefinite leave to remain but made the mistake of leaving Britain. It is unlikely that the maggots who run Britain nowadays would have removed this clown so he did them a favour.

As for banning Feiglin it is about par for the course nowadays. Under the 1971 Immigration Act an Immigration Officer can refuse entry to anyone who's presence in the United Kingdom is considered not conducive to the public good. This only works with non Europeans by the way since we were sold out to Europe.

By the way in terms of double standards you might like to read up on the People's Mujahadeen of Iran. The British government has done everything it can to ban this group even though they are against Ahminmedinnerjacket and all the other loons in charge of Iran, but it seems the British government doesn't want to piss off Iran. Maybe they are scared of more sailors being kidnapped?

I am British by the way, but I am no longer proud of what my country has become under the socialist traitors that run it now.

sput, the quran says " a false life" is good if your heart is true to islam and that"false life" helps to protect islam from it's enemies. also see joe above. for more info see blogging the quran by robert spencer. you may learn a little.

ex-liberal, I disagree with your view that asserts that it is pyschologically impossible for a Jew to initiate an act of hostility. You regard all Jewish actions as primarily retaliatory; I regard both 'sides' as equal in action and retaliation. That includes both suicide bombings and IDF bombings.

The govt of Israel may not officially condone the JDL but they don't outlaw the organization.

The term of 'holy war' refers to the Jewish belief that the ME lands of Israel are theirs because 'god' gave it to them. For both sides, the righteousness of their views is ascribed to a supernatural force, god.

I don't think that the 'whako jews' are so small in number as to be countable; the settlers, in the majority, with their firm belief in their religious right to the land, are among that set.

H20- I don't need your condescending pity and your assumed superiority. I claim that there are fundamentalists on both sides and both are equally amoral. There is no hierarchy.

Furthermore, I claim that Israel's continual settlements of the West Bank, its occupation, its discriminatory treatment of Palestinians vs Settlers and Israelis, and its refusal to enable a Palestinian state, is a major cause of the problem.

"What did Feiglin say that is the truth? That Mohammed was a liar robber etc? Do you have proof? Does he have proof? Is it all just heresy? The liar bit is especially bizzare..."

Sput,

You are either a Muslim liar yourself, or supremely ignorant and should not be commenting about things you haven't a clue.

Sura (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Sura (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'"

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:
Narrated Jabir: The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)." Based on this advice, bin Maslama went and befriended the victim, lied to him, and when his guard was down, murdered him. Mohammad rewarded the assassin after the deed was done.

Taqiyya and kitman are well understood Islamic deceptions based on Mohammad's teaching and actions.

Furthermore, moron:

Mohammad personally ordered and presided over the mass beheadings (600 to 900 men) of the Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza. These were non-combatants. There only crime was not joining Mohammad's terrorist army. He then allowed his men to rape all the widows and daughters and then sell them into slavery. But not before he took the prettiest widow for himself. Having already murdered her husband and father in front of her face.

The Hadith and Sira are rife with the monstrously evil doings of Mohammad the pedophile, slaver, pirate, rapist and mass murderer.

You forgot to mention his "visit" is to raise funds for a terrorist organization

Well, I know nothing about this guy ... but, how do you defend yourself against a terrorist war (a jihad) which uses civilian shields and brags about it and DELIBERATELY targets civilians. I say you take a gun to a gun fight, a knife to a knife fight, behead the believers!

Alan Dershowitz is in Israel at the moment promoting reform of international law to take into account a re-thinking of "civilian" casualities. As any fair and just observer would have to admit, Israel is suicidally hamstrung by the enemy's exploitation of this phony concept. Using current anti-Semitic notions of "non-proportional" responses against an enemy with no sense of proportion, we could NOT have won WW2.

ET: Earlier you mentioned this guy promoting a "holy war". But what else would you call a defense against an aggressive "holy war", aka jihad (tho' I realize you don't acknowledge that the "Palestinians" are waging -- and have been for 60 years -- a jihad.) Which is what it is, and has been all along, tho marketed, with KGB assistance, as a "national liberation movement" for white-guilt junkie consumption.

ET,

You disregard the fact that Muslims are inculcated with hatred towards non-Muslims, especially Jews, as their mothers milk.

They believe they have divine right and are commanded and rewarded by Allah and his monstrous prophet to hate and kill.

The Jews are referred to as the sons of apes and pigs throughout the Quran. In fact, according to the Hadith the last hour will not come until the Muslims have killed all of the Jews, where even the rocks will say, "Oh Muslim, there's a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

This has been institutionalized into their Shariah law.

Saudi Arabia was pressured to revise its fundamental textbooks supplied to Muslim schools around the world, including the U.S., because they contained intolerance.

The Washington Post, May 21, 2006, published excerpts of these textbooks in an article "This is a Saudi textbook (after the intolerance was removed)":

4TH GRADE: "True belief means ... that you hate the polytheists and infidels."

5TH GRADE: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in Allah and His Prophet."

8TH GRADE: "The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

9TH GRADE: "It is part of Allah's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the Hour [of Judgment]."

11TH GRADE: "Do not yield to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

Furthermore, what is included in these so-called Muslim rights under shariah?

Mohammed said: "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)." Hadith vol. 9:50

ET,

It makes no difference what your feelings are on this matter, morally or otherwise. This is what they believe. This is what they say. This hatred and murderous intent is institutionalized in their law.

If Muslims were willing to reject this ideology, then perhaps you may have a basis for your 'feelings' on the matter. Otherwise, your feelings are not based on fundamental Islam and what they believe. And are therefore irrational, with absolutely no foundation in reality.

in 1988, Israeli law was amended to forbid racist groups from participating in elections, effectively barring Kach (the party started by Meir Kahane, the JDL founder)from the political scene.

I know that Jews can be violent, big deal. The "evil settlers" that I know do not condone Kahane or Kach or Kahane Chai - they say that it is a bunch of hotheaded teens and early twenty somethings who are adament about not being like their grandparents who many describe as "walking like sheep to the gas chambers" - they want to stand up and fight.

ET,
It makes no difference what your feelings are on this matter, morally or otherwise.
- irwin daisy.

This, in fact, is what I tried to tell ET very early in my sda experience with regard to the "Palestinian State" [living peacefully alongside a Israeli state] which NO Arabs want, including Jordan and Egypt, and certainly not the PaliNazis; that what ET wants has zero relevance to the topic at hand. Moreover, ET's frequent claim that she wants a "pluralist state"! So what? Of what relevance is this is a region notable for its total absence of pluralism.

ex-liberal: Nothing mystifies me more than hearing western-white-guilt junkie "anti-racists" decry the notion of Jews "settling" in the "territories" [within the 20% of the Mandate after Britain illegally gave away 80% of it to the Arabs]; their advocacy of a judenrein region. And especially today, with 20 million Mohammedans living in Europe. No one advocates a musulmanrein region.

Also, few things mystify me -- per ET further up -- than the argument against a religion-based state in a region where all the states are religion-based; a state formed after millenia of persecution, mass murder, and genocide against a religion! I mean, if you are facing a genocide because of your religion, how can any sane and just observer argue against a state founded on self defense.

And one question I keep asking but never get an aswer to: How is Pakistan -- a religion-based state OK, and Israel not? Simple: anti-Semitism, end of sentence.

It is sad that a person, such as ET, who can normally provide reasoned and intelligent comments on other subjects is incapable when the topic is Jews or Israel. On this subject the lights go out, the mind closes being overcome with pure venom.

I suggest ET that you either refrain from commenting on Jews or Israel for your own sake or do the research with an open mind to learn the facts. Otherwise you are truly an embarrassment to yourself.

As for the comment from fd... at 3 AM to-day, that the speaking engagement in Toronto is to raise funds for a terrorist organisation, it is such rubbish that it must come from a jihadist or jihadist supporter.

ET,
Knowing your blind spot when it comes to Jews, I simplified my response down to yours. Whether orvergrazing by camels and sheep is the cause or not really doesn't matter. Your reaction to Feiglin's repeating the quote of the British High Commissioner is what is important. Usually you are praised for your insight into complicated issues but your knee-jerk reaction whenever anything Jewish is mentioned needs to be challenged.

I'm not in the least venemous towards Jews or Israel. You wouldn't be able to find a single statement from me in that style. Speaking in favour of a Palestinian state is hardly anti-jewish, and criticizing Israel is hardly anti-semitic. But I don't have a blind spot towards Israel, as many of you do, which posits that everything Israel does is just and good, and everything the Palestinians do is unjust and evil.

me no dhimmi - No, I don't acknowledge that the Palestinian fight for their own state is akin to Islamic jihad. By the way, if you read the JDL axioms, you'd have to conclude that their agenda is a 'holy war' - as referenced in the New Yorker quote.

I consider Islamic fascism and the Palestinian-Israeli situation two completely different things and consider it erroneous to merge them.

The first is the result of the Arab oil nations moving, economically, into industrial mode but politically and socially remaining tribal. That asymmetry is the root cause of Islamic fascism.

The Israeli-Palestinian situation is where Israel refuses to acknowledge that the Palestinians who were living in the land base in 1948, when Israel was created as a political nation, also have a right to a political nation. Nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with tribalism, nothing to do with fascism. Pure political reality that acknowledges that these people were settled there for hundreds of years.

me no dhimmi - could you provide me a link where I say that I want a 'pluralist state'? I don't even know what the term means!

And where did I say that Pakistan is OK? And that a religion-based state, anywhere, is OK? I've always maintained support for the separation of church and state because their knowledge bases operate in two completely different styles.

And I don't think that the Holocaust or other attack, as you suggest above, justifies a religion having a state. That would mean that blacks in America ought to have their own state (cause: slavery). Of, natives ought to have their own state (cause: massive extinctions due to wars and disease).

States that are aligned with specific ideologies don't really function to protect that ideology. After all, we've had states aligned with the communist ideology and that certainly didn't protect the ideology! Same with fascism (Italy and Germany). Same with Catholicism in Europe; the states moved into the Protestant mode. It's difficult to set up a state, a political entity, to promote a non-political ideology.

irwin daisy, I reject your 'mother's milk' idea. That's untrue for the majority of Muslims - and despite your incessent hatred and constant hostility towards Muslims - I don't think your opinions are founded on fact. After all, one can say exactly the same thing about zionism, which teaches from birth, that god gave the land to the Jews and only the Jews. That's also in the teachings, in the bible. Is that valid for all Jews? No.

ex-liberal, I don't think that trivializing violence by anyone - Muslim or Jew - is the correct approach. You trivialize settler violence and reject the right of the Palestinians to the land. That's your opinion. It isn't mine.

alain, why should I refrain from comments because I have a different analysis than others? Is this blog only for one view? My views are not mere prejudice, but are based on data and analysis. I've done a fair bit of research, I assure you!

I'm hardly the only person who comes to this conclusion: that Israel should not have settled the West Bank/Gaza; that it should have, right from the start worked to accept and enable a Palestinian state by not occupying these areas and also, right from the start, acknowledged the viability of a Palestinian state (which it still refuses); that it should compensate the Palestinians for land lost.

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=495&docid=3159

The JDL has been defined by the FBI as terrorist, it raises funds for the Israeli terrorist group Kahane (outlawed but not defunct). It's a violent, racist, exclusive and excluding 'ism', rejects any notion of a Palestinian state, and it's a sad day for the majority of Jews in Canada, who don't hold these views, to have someone like Feiglin invited.

ET you have just proven my point. I rest my case. To call the JDL a terrorist group is equivalent to calling all Canadians wanting the deportation of terrorists from Canada terrorists.

You cling to the KGB invention of a "Palestinian people" and then support the idea of the creation of yet another terrorist haven with the label of a "Palestinian State". The fact that every bit of land Israel has been pressured to turn over to this group has been immediately transformed from a thriving productive economy into a terrorist haven, you choose to ignore.

You are possessed with profound Jew hatred. Nothing more, nothing less. Case closed.

ET,

I reject everything you say on this topic. It is obvious by your rejection of facts and imaginary, revisionist history in favour of Islamic fanatics who want nothing other than to wipe Israel out - one can come to no other conclusion than you are indeed an anti-Semitic racist.

Wiping Israel out is the main objective in the Hamas charter, period. The children are taught to hate and to kill the Jews, this is fact, played out daily on Palestinian 'childrens' TV. Their Imams and leaders preach another Holocaust against the Jews.

Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council):

“This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was (sic) afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation… Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine… Make us victorious over the infidel people… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”
[PA TV, April 20, 2007]

He is not talking about a Palestinian state, he clearly states, "in the heart of the Arab nation." This is exactly how they think. And what they say and mean on a daily basis. What you think is irrelevant.

Your ignorance and support of such monstrously evil people is astounding.

Under these extremist circumstances a Palestinian state is not negotiable. And neither do they want just a state. They want no more Jews in their Islamic midst, their "Arab nation". This is what they say and this is how they act, regardless of your so-called analysis.

"I reject your 'mother's milk' idea. That's untrue for the majority of Muslims"

Of course you do. Despite the Washington Post report and the excerpts from the school book texts that I posted. On this issue, facts do not exist in your world. Therefore your so-called 'analysis' is nothing more than an example of your own vanity and hatred.

ah Irwin,

Back to name-calling are we? I see you have certainly mastered the art of searching through the standard Islam bashing websites. I would take their word with a grain of salt. Perhaps even a bucketful.

The Qu'ran was the topic of discussion, not the Hadith. They are different things.

I am not going to bother defending Islam. I dont care about it enough to debunk the various myths and 'intepretations' that keep you so occupied. But if we are going around intepreting religious texts, the Old Testament has some pretty choice stuff on slavery et al. Its pretty much all the same, and very inconsequential. Suffice to say, if someone were to say about Moses the stuff said about Mohammad, well, there would be pandemonium.

All the same, since you have found some Islam bashing website, kudos to you. I expect you have discussed the 'intepretation' with an Islamic scholar other than Daniel Pipes, Horowitz, and the rest of your heroes?

This man was denied entrance because he will disturb the public peace. How so? By riling up the millions of muslims in the country. If a muslim nutcase can be banned from entry because of the things he says about, amongst others, jews, then a jewish nutcase can be banned from entry for saying things about Muslims.

"It's a violent, racist, exclusive"

I note you didn't ascribe that description to the Muslims in general nor the Palestinians ET.

irwin,

"You disregard the fact that Muslims are inculcated with hatred towards non-Muslims, especially Jews, as their mothers milk."

So are Jews and Christians. And any other religion that sees itself as the sole possessor of the 'truth'. Exclusivist religions are all based on the notion of their superiority over the 'other' (infidels, non-believers, blah blah). This leads to dehumanization which leads to easier justification for hatred. You can continue harping about how Christianity proclaims love, but its treatment of Jews, and dissenters within its own ranks, says otherwise. Not as bloody as Islam, I ll grant, but bloody all the same. Murdering one man or murdering a hundred makes a man a murderer.

The rest is your usual conjecture. Saudi Arabia is not representative of the Islamic world. It is not a monotonous homogenous religion. Just like Christianity, it is dispersed across various schools of thought.

I see you claim to have read the Hadith. Have you actually read it, or have you read the appropriate bits and pieces of it that float around websites like these? More fiction than fact.

Me-No-Dhimmi

"How is Pakistan -- a religion-based state OK, and Israel not? Simple: anti-Semitism, end of sentence."

Mixing up history. Careful. Pakistan was concieved as a secular homeland for Muslims. It was largely the result of a vicious fight for power between two secularists- Jinnah and Nehru. The bit that history book doesnt tell you is that Jinnah ate pork, didnt pray five times a day, and his daughter married a zoroastrian. He saw an opportunity and with support from undivided India's rich muslim elite, created a separate homeland that was meant to be secular.

And in fact, it was secular, till General Zia's reforms in the late 70's, early 80's. He turned Pakistan into the Islamic problem that it is today.

The other difference is that Pakistan was created on lands that were majority muslim and by majority you re talkin 90-10, not 51-49. Israel was not founded on an area which was, well, majority Judaic. The vast majority of those living in areas that owuld become Pakistan were Muslim. Again, this does not appear to be the case with Israel.

Perhaps the most important differecne is that Indian Hindus and Muslims participated in the negotiations leading up to Pakistan, including the drawing of borders. Again, not the case with the Arabs in Israel. It was an agreed solution between all the groups involved, not an agreement between two groups affecting a third group.

Heres the kicker though - Muslim fundamentalists such as the Deobandis rejected the concept of Pakistan as a homeland for muslims. The religious establishment was not as interested in Pakistan as the muslim elite, who were primarily concerned with their societal standing in Hindu dominated India, and couldnt care less about their religion. Islamic fundamentalism came with the Saudi oil money, and American realpolitik when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Thats when Zia came into power. And boy did Reagan adore him. But I digress.

"Jews "settling" in the "territories" [within the 20% of the Mandate after Britain illegally gave away 80% of it to the Arabs]"

This is interesting. The British gave it away illegally? Who did it belong to prior to that. I ask the question sincerely, not sarcastically.

As for the rest, I ve been on this board long enough to know that ET is not biased against Jews or Israel. He/She (whatever) is just not as willing to apply the double standard that most of you are. It is a case of treating jews equal to any other group. The white guilt junkies are you folk who insist on putting Israel on a pedestal and treating them with very different standards. Feiglin is the Jewish version of Bakri (thanks for the correction, call me infidel), and he is being treated as such. They both preach hate against the other. What most of you want is that Feiglin, BECAUSE he is jewish, be treated differently.

There is only one standard. SOme things are right and some things are wrong, REGARDLESS of who perpetrated them. You folk seem to refuse to acknowledge that.

"I note you didn't ascribe that description to the Muslims in general nor the Palestinians ET."

And you didnt ascribe it to Baruch or the JDF. What exactly is your point?

Well done, Irwin. Cite one extremist nutcase on one side and use it as grounds to label all Palestinians evil. I m sure we can find an Israeli nutcase who wants to wipe out Arabs/Islam. Perhaps that will allow us to call Israelis monstrous people.

I daresay you would like nothing more than to see horrors inflicted on Palestinians, or more generally, Muslims. I suppose that we can, accordinly, claim all Canadians are monstrous?

Oh and Daisy, those sound like the words of a very angry man, certainly not someone thinking rationally.

I ll make it simpler for you to understand. When an angry person tells you to go f*&* yourself, he is saying it for effect, and not because he wants you to engage in said activity.

Mindboggling, eh?

sput: That's a distinction without a difference. Wasn't one Muslim and the other Hindu. Wasn't Pakistan founded as a majority home for Muslims, or, er, did that just sorta turn out that way, accidentally? And by the way, Hindus in Pakistan have dropped from about 15% of pop. to 1.5% while Muslims in India are rising as a percentage of pop. That's a future big story. sput: Listen up: Muslim can't live with other people having equal rights. Period.

ET: Israel wasn't "religion getting a state". It was the Jewish people -- a true people -- having a state where they would be the majority, as a long overdue and just response to millenia of persecution, mass murder, and genocide. Hitler didn't mass-murder relgionists -- he mass-murdered Jews as scapegoats, the historic role of Jews.
Undermining Jews as a people because the basis of their peoplehood is Judaism, is anti-Semitism, end of sentence.

In the context of that region, Israel is not a "religious state" in the sense of an apartheid religious state like, say, Saudi Arabia. It is in fact a secular state which allows the various religious groups perfect freedom to practice their religions.

To say that, even after a Holocuast, in which about one-half -- one half -- of Europe's Jews were murdered in industrial murder factories is not justification enough for their having their own state -- well, again, I count that as anti-Semitism, end of sentence.

Why is it OK for 1.5 million Arabs to reside in Israel but not OK for a small percentage of the pop. of the West Bank to be Jewish.
And BTW, Judea is the heart of historic Israel. The Romans renamed it Palestina as part of their attempt to erase the Jewish historical roots -- in exactly the same way as the PaliNazis are doing now.

Anybody with even a modicum of street smarts can see that there is zero possibility of of a viable "Palestinian" state in the West Bank/Gaza. And BTW, there is also zero possibility of Kosovo being a viable state.

In an ideal world, the best solution would be a single bi-national state. However people who argue for this are either a) people utterly ignorant of the history of dhimmitude under Islamic rule or b) anti-Semites who secretly wish the destruction of Israel. That's the vast majority of the Arabs and Western lefties, of which you are one, on this topic. End of sentence.

It belonged to the Turks, the Ottoman Empire which sided with the Germany and Austria-Hungary, after Britain and France begged them to remain neutral -- and they LOST. And to the victors go the spoils. And those victors decided to grant a tiny tiny tiny portion (what is it, 1/10, or is it 1/100 of one percent of the region) to the Jews as a desperately needed survivalist homeland.

The Arabs, er, got 99.9% or so of the region. That's a good chunk, eh?

The Israelis are often called colonizers/imperialists by the hard left. Not so: they in fact fought justly against Britain which cynically betrayed them. And their "terrorism" was primarily on military targets.

And oh, they didn't steal anything. They bought the land at high prices. And oh, there was also a huge influx of out-of-area Arabs when they say what the Jews accomplished.

Pretty simple Sput. Nowhere in this thread does ET ascribe those terms to Muslims and Palestinians.

The omission is glaring.

alain, it was the FBI that called the JDL as terrorist group. However, you can check out the history of their actions, including attempts to bomb Peace Now offices.

irwin daisy - we've been throught this before. I don't accept your view of Muslims as 'from the ground up evil'. I have a different view of the cause of Islamic fascism than you. There's not much more to be said on this.

me no dhimmi - I simply don't understand your claim of Jews as 'a true people'. What does that mean? Judaism is a religion. It is not a genetic composition. There is no such thing on this planet as a 'true people'. True to what?

Furthermore, a nation is a political construct. There is no such thing as a land base 'biologically' or 'geologically' bonded to one set of 'people'. Nations are political entities created by human beings; their identities and boundaries can change.

I don't agree that 'a people' should 'be given' (by whom? who 'owns' the land) a territory in compensation for maltreatment. That isn't anti-semitism; it's a conclusion based on 'how does one obtain legal rights to land'?

If that is the case, as I pointed out, then blacks in America ought to have their own nation. Natives in Canada and Australia and the US each ought to have their own nation. Gypsies in Europe. Catholics and Protestants...etc etc. I simply don't think that persecution should lead to a separate nation. And one confined to that 'people'. Sounds a bit multicultural to me.

After all, if you call me anti-semitic because I don't agree with such a 'cause' as a legal basis for title to land, then, should I call you racist because I'm sure you don't agree that persecution ought to entitle blacks, natives, etc etc to land titles? Caledonia?

We've been through this West Bank argument before, and I think you are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. I'm not saying that it is NOT OK for Jews to live in the West Bank. Please note that the arabs living in Israel are under the rule of law and citizenship of Israel. The Jews living in the West Bank should be under the rule of law and citizenship of Palestine. I've said this before; you deliberately ignore this vital difference.

Oh, and of course, the West Bank settlements are not open to Palestinians to live in.

I disagree with your assertion that Israel is not a religious state; it specifically wants a Jewish majority, which is why it does not want a 'one-nation' solution to the Israel-Palestinian situation. Certainly, other religions may practice in Israel, but their numbers are minimal, not encouraged and dwindling (eg, Christians). Why are you denying the very identity of Israel, which is its focus on Judaism - in all its variations.

Ahh, so now, you are denying the possibility of there ever being a Palestinian state. Exactly as many on the far-right in Israel assert. So, why doesn't Israel openly state it - openly state that it wants the full West Bank for itself (not for 'defense purposes)' and that there is no possibility, ever, of a Palestinian state, and that the Palestinians can all go drown in the desert.

Now - if Israel had said that right from the start, at least the world would know where it stands. But you know, there are MANY Israelis who DO want the Palestinians to have their own nation. They want this out of a sense of justice and fairness to the people who were living in that land for centuries. They want this because they know that the Palestinians aren't expendable 'boat people' to be shipped off somewhere else because You Want The Land.

They want this because they disagree with the settlers, and the settlements. So, I'll still hold out hope that these people, who wish for justice for others, just as they want it for themselves, can achieve a Palestinian state.

I am not a leftist. Nor am I an anti-semite. Nor are you, really, anti-Muslim (like Irwin Daisy). I believe in justice, and the only solution I can see is a two-state solution. But, where the two nations are economically networked together. These people got along before, and they can get along in the future.

Sput,

"I see you have certainly mastered the art of searching through the standard Islam bashing websites."

You have exhibited no knowledge of Islam, so how do you figure this? On the contrary, I have studied the ideology and its history for 12 years now. My knowledge is well beyond a couple of websites.

You on the other hand?

"I would take their word with a grain of salt. Perhaps even a bucketful."

Once again, I can safely assume from your posts that you have no knowledge whatsoever. So your advice is less than useless.

"The Qu'ran was the topic of discussion, not the Hadith. They are different things."

Who says? You? The Islamic ideology, for your information, is based on the trilogy. The Quran, aHadith and Sira. The Quran has little context without the other texts. In fact, shariah law and most of their 'pillars' are based on the other texts.

"But if we are going around intepreting religious texts, the Old Testament has some pretty choice stuff on slavery et al. Its pretty much all the same, and very inconsequential."

Well, there we go. The fools argument had to come up. Besides this being irrelevant to the topic of Islam, you display zero knowledge about the OT either. Regardless of some of the more distasteful things described, violence in the OT was limited to a time and a place in history. The commands and rewards for violence and brutality in the Islamic texts are for all time.

"So are Jews and Christians. And any other religion that sees itself as the sole possessor of the 'truth'. Exclusivist religions are all based on the notion of their superiority over the 'other' (infidels, non-believers, blah blah)."

Really? Care to prove that from, say, Christ's life example and the NT? Care to prove that Christianity is foundationally violent like Islam? That it inculcates children with hatred, racism and violence towards the other? This will be interesting.

"The rest is your usual conjecture. Saudi Arabia is not representative of the Islamic world."

Do you ever grow tired of your stupidity and ignorance? Islam is Arabic. It represents Arabic cultural imperialism, as much as it does political. What culture provides the names that newly converted Muslims assume? How about clothes? Architecture? The Haj (one of the pillars of Islam)? To where are the mosques oriented? Oh, and that little matter that one can't fully understand the Quran unless it's given in Arabic.

"Well done, Irwin. Cite one extremist nutcase on one side and use it as grounds to label all Palestinians evil."

Well, there are hundreds, if not thousands of other examples. Would you like me to post more? Or would you care to get off your sanctimonious and ignorant ass and find out for yourself?

"I ll make it simpler for you to understand. When an angry person tells you to go f*&* yourself, he is saying it for effect, and not because he wants you to engage in said activity."

I didn't realize you are unbalanced as well. What in the world are you talking about? "Mindboggling" to be sure.

Listen. Do yourself a favour. Go learn a few things, then, you know, rationally think about it. And when you feel you're properly prepared, come back and we'll debate.

Given your obvious ignorance of the subject and inability to reason, further discussion is a waste of time.

ET,

It's quite obvious that you are an anti-Semite. Based on the fallacy of your arguments, and your rejection of facts, others have noticed and rightfully pointed out the same.

BTW, I'm anti-Islam and Islamist, for quite rational reasons.

ET:

But many of your posts seem to suggest that the Jews were interlopers ... colonizers .. people who came to Arab land and stole it. NOT. That said, I certainly acknowledge that the early Zionists DID recognize that their honest and sincere belief that "they were a people without a land, going to a land without a people" was not correct. But I also feel, that the Zionists were geniunely caring about the rights of Arabs in the region and that they fully and sincerely intended to recognize those rights. And haven't they proved this in Israel where 1.5 million Arabs live, even as members of the Knesset and the Supreme Court.

In ancient times, Palestine was considered the land of the Jews. The Jews, from, what, 1850 or so, even before the first Aliya, were a majority in Jerusalem. Judea, is really the heart of the Jewish nation. The Romans, as part of a programme of eradicating Jewish roots, renamed Judea - the Jewish heartland -- Palestina.

I think you've got your antropoligical hat on here, perhaps. You know, we're all human beings, there are no races, etc. True.

But surely you can admit that the Jews suffered greatly as a "people" [they were seen as a people and scapegoated as a people] through millenia, that Zionism was triggered by a wave of Russian pogroms, that the Arabs of Palestine under the grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini (a Hitler collaborator) were persecuting and slaughtering Jews and in fact planning their own Holocaust after Germany's.

As to owning the land, well, true, using your anthroplogical viewpoint. But the Arabs didn't own it either, eh? Why all this bother for a non-viable 23rd Arab state? It was part of the Ottoman Empire -- "owned" by Turks -- who lost the great war after joining in -- after being begged by the allies to stay neutral -- with the Germans and Austro-Hungarian empire.

You know, I often find myself looking at the map of the region. ET, surely you see what a tiny little wedge is left for Israel? Surely you see what a very tiny fraction it is of the region. And from that, surely, you should see what the true agenda of the Arabs is -- to drive the lowest of the infidels, the sons of pigs and monkeys, out of the region altogether.

And surely you can see that the prospect of Jews living peacefully in a single bi-national state with Arabs is just about zero. That a side-by-side state will not be viable, but a welfare-subsidized terror state. That should be as plain as the nose on your face!

And again, Jordan is 80% of the original mandate. As someone pointed out recently, the only non-Palestinians there are the Hashemites, dragged over by Churchill from Arabia. Jordan is, in reality, a Palestinian state, using "Palestinian" in your parlance meaning Arabs and not Jews. The Palestinian Arabs already have 80% of the territory and are fighting the Jews to divide the remaining 20% -- so that Israel itself will be non-viable. It's not viable without the West Bank.

which is why it does not want a 'one-nation' solution to the Israel-Palestinian situation

I, personally, think ONE state would be ideal.

HOWEVER, it does not want a one-nation solution because understanding the vile foundational genocidal hatred of Muslims for Jews, being aware that the Fatah AND Hamas charters call for the destruction of Israel, such a solution would be, er, the final solution.

You only need look at the decimated populations of minorities in Muslim lands. Typically, 90% reductions or more. See: Hindus in Pakistan -- down from 15% to 1.5%. See: Christians in Bethlehem, etc. Christians in Gaza, etc.

Honestly, what needs to happen is Gaza back to Egypt, West Bank, sans Jerusalem to Jordan. The Jews -- as they have proven -- would allow Arabs to visit their sacred sites -- something Jordan didn't allow when they had the WB.

Daisy,

I have enough integrity to admit that I couldnt be bothered about studying Islam. While that detracts from my knowledge, it certainly makes me better than those who engage in selective readings simply to prove their point. Like you. If you have studied Islam, then it has only been to convince yourself of its shortcomings. Which is akin to not studying it at all, but merely looking at those parts you like while ignoring those that dont suit you. And that is simple and plain dishonesty, which is generally considered worse than my brand of apathetic ignorance.

Going back to the original quote where I challenged the poster - he said it was in the Qu'ran. I asked a question. The poster I asked did not respond. He couldnt have - he never read the Qu'ran and he wouldnt be able to find it within it. Frankly, he probably picked it up fromt he same website as you.

I see you belong to the VS Naipaul - Islam as a form of Arabic imperialism - school of thought. Shocking though it may be, Indonesia is the largest muslim nation in the world, followed by either India or Pakistan. Malaysia is a muslim nation too, which practices its own brand of Islam. Indian Islam, especially things like Ahmeddiyas (you might have heard of Aga Khan) or Sufi-esque schools of thought have nothing to do with Saudi Arabia or Islam. They are syncretic versions that have adapted, kind of like Indonesian Islam, which has also adopted a lot of Hindu traits.

But these are meaningless, since you have studied Islam for 12 years and know that all Muslims are basically Wahabbis at heart. Islam was created in Arabia - where else would their holy sites be? In Jamaica?

"How about clothes? Architecture?"

What in the world are you going on about? Clothes being Arabic? The clothes didnt change with Arabia. Indians wear Indian clothes. Indonesians wear indonesian clothes. Granted some things are articles of faith, such as the hijab or skull cap, but thats hardly Arabic clothing. Even Jews wear a skull cap.

And with architecture, you have exposed your own lack of knowledge. Islamic architecture outside of Arabia is based on Persian and Turkish styles. Nothing to do with Arabia. The Taj Mahal is a mix of Turkish, Persian and Hindu styles. Not remotely Arabic.

You are treating Islam as a monolithic monster. I m surprised that after twelve years of study, you dont know better.

"That it inculcates children with hatred, racism and violence towards the other?"

Not hatred, racism, violence. Cant see Islam promoting racism either given its constituency, but it merely takes one step further than Christianity and Judaism. The latter two promote suspicion of the other. The common argument on the moral bankruptcy of atheists and so on. It is that underlying feeling of superiority, that whole "there is no way to the father but through me" aka "I m right and you re going to hell". By not accepting Christ, non-believers commit the most deadly sin a Christian can imagine. And it results in suspicion. Cant explain it any easier. Islam manipulates that suspicion better than Christianity, but Christian crazies do exist. Inquisitions were carried out in places like Goa in India to rid Christianity of outside influence. Thousands were affected, but it isnt a topic given much scrutiny. The stories are particularly gory - cutting children up into small pieces after cutting of their parents eyelids and making them watch. Well with no eyelids they cant close their eyes. And the man who campaigned for that inquistion is now known as St Francis Xavier. It may be in the past, but it had its roots in Biblical doctrine.

"Well, there are hundreds, if not thousands of other examples."

And as a percentage of the population? I mean you cant seriously expect me to compare the number of nutcases in a religion with 16 million followers with the number of nutcases in one with over a billion.

FOr someone who claims to know so much, you display a pretty extensive display of lack of knowledge.

"I have enough integrity to admit that I couldnt be bothered about studying Islam."

Yes. That's obvious.

"While that detracts from my knowledge, it certainly makes me better than those who engage in selective readings simply to prove their point."

Since you've admitted to not knowing, how can you possibly know?

Sorry, Sput, but the rest of your post is moot.

Daisy,

You sound a bit chuffed about the fact that someone who hasnt studied Islam for 12 years has demonstrated a greater knowledge than yours. Why dont you put your hand up and admit that you dont know jack? Honesty is not a bad thing.

I merely used that post to demonstrate that even my lay knowledge on the issue is greater than your 12 years of 'studying'. Which leaves us with many questions about how knowledgeable you actually are.

Refute the points in there instead of picking up rhetorical brownie points.

Heres the thing though. You WONT. Because you CANT. Silenced, shall we say?

You've admitted that you know nothing. That was, of course, obvious. You are not rational and I don't debate with juveniles.

You are pointless, hopeless and a waste of time.

If WINSTON CHURCHILL,RICHARD THE LION HEART and HORATIO NELSON were alive today they would be driving out those invaders and arresting the whimpy parlament

"I don't debate with juveniles"

says the one who is mature enough to say

"moreover, moron"

Very non-juvenile of you, name-caller.