Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Israeli Minister threatens Gazans with Holocaust

The Israeli promised Holocaust

In June, 1942, in reprisal for the assassination of the Nazi commander Reinhard Heydrich, the Germans carried out a murderous rampage of murder and terror throughout Czechoslovakia. The small Czech village of Lidice bore the brunt of the German revenge, with the SS killing all the men, deported all women and children and razed the village to the ground.

Similarly, in March 1944, thirty-three German soldiers were killed when members of an Italian resistance group set off a bomb close to a column of German troops who were marching on via Rasella in Rome. Adolph Hitler got furious and ordered that within 24 hours, ten Italians were to be shot for each German soldier that had been killed. Herbert Kappler, the local German commander, quickly compiled a list of 320 civilians who were to be assassinated as vengeance. On March 24, the victims were transported to the Ardeatine caves where they were summarily executed by the SS.

Numerous other ‘pacification operations’ were carried out by the Nazi armies against civilians throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, in which men, women and children were brutally killed to avenge the death of German occupation soldiers by local resistance fighters.

Now what is the difference between these Nazi atrocities and what Israel, the “only democracy in the Middle East” is doing in the Gaza Strip, where “the most moral army in the world” is slaughtering babies as young as six-months’ old? I know that many Zionists have developed almost instinctive knee- jerk defensive reactions to any comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. However, the truth must be proclaimed aloud, irrespective of how many Zionists will get angry.

Israel claims that it doesn’t murder innocent civilians deliberately. But this is a big, obscene lie, of which even most Israelis are aware. Mistakes happen a few times, but when the wanton slaughter of children occurs each day and every day of the year, it means it is policy.

In addition, when the number of victims, especially innocent victims, as in Gaza, even intent itself becomes irrelevant.

In the final analysis, murdering knowingly is murdering deliberately, regardless of the prevarication and the verbal juggling.

What Israel is doing to these helpless Palestinians is a virtual Holocaust or at least a Holocaust in the making.

True, Israel had not introduced gas chambers in Beit Hanun and Khan Younis or Rafah. But we have F-16s raining down bombs and death on sleeping children and women and innocent civilians.

This is not a war. Wars occur between armies and states.

What is happening in Gaza is actually a merciless and brutal rampage of murder and terror waged by a Wehrmacht-like army against a blockaded, beleaguered and starved people who want to survive and be free, very much like Jews did under the Nazi occupation of Europe.

Indeed, when Israel murders a hundred Palestinian, mostly innocent civilians, for every Israeli killed, there is a name for that, it is massacre.

It is conscionable that honest people around the world, including many conscientious Jews who can’t bear watching the heinous crimes Israel is committing in their collective name, must call the spade a spade. A Holocaust, after all, doesn’t become lesser when perpetrated by Jews.


Once again, human decency is being affronted and insulted by Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy defense minister, who has gone as far as threatening the thoroughly tormented Gazans with a Holocaust.

Speaking to the Israeli army radio Friday morning, 29 February, Vilnai said “the more Qassam rockets fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, the Palestinians will bring upon themselves a bigger Holocaust because we will use all our power to defend ourselves.”

Is Vilnai vindicating the Nazi Holocaust?

Today, people around the world, including millions of Jews, are watching the slaughter in Gaza live on their TV screens. And no amount of spin, lie, or hasbara will make the images of mutilated babies look innocuous.

Finally, the people of the world will not be duped by the propagandistic lies about so-called rocket attacks on Israeli towns, which are meant first and foremost to create an artificial equation between the wanton extermination of Gazans and the mainly psychological discomfort experienced by some Israeli citizens as a result of the fall of these nearly innocuous fire-crackers, fired by some desperate Gazans in order to deter Israel from killing more of their children.

This is because Israel knows very well how calm and peace can be restored for both the people of Gaza and Israelis across the border: Lift the criminal siege on Gaza, allow Gazans to access food and to travel, allow them to export and import, and stop these daily massacres. And then not a single Qassam will be fired onto Israel.


  1. All what I care is that Badawi, your favourite leader who happens to be the NAM and OIC chairman even is not aware of it. He is the only Muslim leader who never commented on the genocide that wiped out the Palestinian children. Knowing that petty elements of your ilk preach to us that Anwar is for Jews, (Our Prophet was for Jews too), I thought Anwar's enemies must be fought by Bodohwi therefore. Anyway, that stale finger pointing has been worn out. Nowdays, we have terror. So if you would like to reign supreme, you accuse your opponents of terrorism, Hindraf style. I wish in 1998, terror was the main topic too. What will be the rallying call later?

    Anyway, Tian Chua is waiting for Dr. Lim Keng Yaik's son to debate on the people issues. But the boy is not forthcoming. Help???


  2. Ha, ha, ha KTemoc, once again you have put your foot in your mouth. Such a long post just to repeat someone else libel ! This is to be expected when Middle East Online is your source. Even the much maligned Yahoo! has a clarification

    So did you make this mistake in innocence?


  3. ktemoc, you are right in saying that removing the border and travel restrictions will end the Qassam attacks.

    This will be primarily because Hamas will return to the far more damaging suicide bombings, which have been completely ceased ever since Israel built and guarded the 'apartheid wall'. Which was built in the first place to stop suicide attacks.

    And as peterp points out, it is ignorance or intentional misrepresentation that translates the Hebrew word for disaster as Holocaust.

    Vilnai used the word “shoah” (meaning disaster), which Reuters mistranslated as “Holocaust,” which is “HaShoah” in Hebrew. It is like confusing a “white house” with “The White House.”


  4. The Psychological Asymmetry of Islamist Warfare
    by Irwin J. Mansdorf and Mordechai Kedar
    Middle East Quarterly
    Spring 2008, pp. 37-44

    U.S. military lawyers acknowledge that "civilians may not be used … to render an area immune from military operations… [or] to shield a defensive position, to hide military objectives, or to screen an attack. Neither may they be forced to leave their homes or shelters in order to disrupt the movement of an adversary."[1] Such restraint is not unique to the United States but also extends to Europe, Israel, and in the post-World War II era, many Asian countries as well. Increasingly, though, Israel's Arab foes and Islamist groups discount such constraints in order to seek psychological advantage against technologically superior foes. Western governments are challenged today by an enemy whose behavior is inspired by theological doctrines that not only disregard the Western concept of ethical combat but for whom the killing of civilians—on both sides of a conflict—also serves a vital purpose.

    Policymakers and military officials often discuss asymmetrical warfare in the context of strategies weak states or terrorist groups adopt to confront stronger military powers. Israel, for example, enjoys advantages in manpower and technology over its terrorist adversaries, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. But the ideology of Islamism has created a paradoxical form of asymmetric advantage for terror groups and states: By rejecting the entire Western concept of the rules of war, Islamist groups turn the adherence of Western military powers to restrictions on battlefield conduct into not just a disadvantage, but one that can be relied upon in a conflict, whether confronting U.S. peacekeepers in Mogadishu, NATO units in southern Afghanistan, or Israeli soldiers in Gaza. Accentuating the danger, not only terror groups but also states practice the Islamist way of war. Countries such as Iran have implemented these doctrines on the battlefield. During the Iran-Iraq war, for example, Tehran demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice tens of thousands of its own children and men to confront an enemy, and during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Iran's proxy militia launched rockets at Israel and fought from within civilian populations as part of a strategy that sought both to kill Israeli civilians and to ensure that any Israeli self-defense would kill Lebanese civilians.

    A Different Type of Asymmetrical Warfare
    Most analysts acknowledge that Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors,[2] a status preserved in part by the U.S. commitment to Israel's qualitative military edge relative to the Arab states.[3] Many Arab commentators and academics use this asymmetry for propaganda. Pro-Palestinian polemicist Edward Said juxtaposed "Israeli power" and "Palestinian powerlessness."[4] Nabil Ramlawi, the permanent observer for Palestine to the United Nations in Geneva wrote in 2002 of an alleged massacre in which Israel used "tanks and armoured vehicles, under a barrage of heavy gunfire from Apache gunships," and further committed a "long list of massacres" and "war crimes, State-sponsored terrorism and systematic human rights violations against the Palestinian people."[5] But Israel's technological edge does not mean that it enjoys every advantage in its battles with terror groups: While Israel subscribes to traditional restrictions on its battlefield conduct, its Islamist and jihadi adversaries, who eschew international humanitarian law, enjoy an asymmetric advantage born of psychological impunity.

    The Israeli military faces a serious dilemma because it adheres to a specific moral code. Despite Arab propaganda to the contrary, Israeli military planners respect human life.[6] Tel Aviv University philosophy professor Asa Kasher and current Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence chief Amos Yadlin write that, even when dealing with terrorists, Israeli soldiers conduct operations "in a manner that strictly protects human life and dignity by minimizing all collateral damage to individuals not directly involved in acts or activities of terror."[7] When trying to oust terrorists from Jenin in April 2002, for example, Israeli commanders decided to pursue a house-to-house ground strategy rather than employ the kind of airpower that would keep Israeli soldiers out of danger but would heighten the risk of collateral civilian casualties.[8] This decision cost the lives, in one incident, of thirteen IDF soldiers in an ambush in the Hawashin district on April 9.[9]

    The Israeli judiciary also provides a check on the military. Israeli courts regularly impose restrictions on military tactics, despite the "price paid by the limitations put on the army's actions."[10] Arab petitioners have a voice. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that Israel's courts represent an "independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own government."[11] In 2004, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled for petitioner Fatma al-Aju against the Israeli military in a case that called for the IDF to take into consideration obligations towards civilians, such as allowing medical teams to enter combat areas, and other humanitarian needs when planning military operations.[12] The court also sided with Palestinian Arabs regarding the routing of Israel's security barrier.[13] Arab states have no such judicial independence nor are their leaderships subject to the rule of law.

    Comparative prisoner treatment also highlights the discrepancy: The Israeli government provides access to and information about captured terrorists, opening itself to criticism of their treatment,[14] whereas neither Hamas nor Hezbollah even acknowledge whether captured Israelis are alive, let alone allow international monitors access to them.

    The result is an asymmetry in which Israel restricts itself in accordance with international law from indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets while groups such as Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah intentionally target Israeli civilians and employ their own civilians as human shields to deter an Israeli response. Avi Dichter, Israel's public security minister, spoke to this predicament in the context of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war: "You can [conduct military operations] in a short time; you can flood southern Lebanon with ground troops, and you can bomb villages without warning anyone, and it will be faster. But you'll kill a lot more innocent people and suffer a lot more casualties, and we don't intend to do either."[15] Maj.-Gen. Giora Eiland, Israel's national security advisor from 2005 to 2006, explained the Israeli decision-making process: "We are forced to kill someone only when four conditions are met: Number one, there is no way to arrest someone. Number two, the target is important enough. Number three, we do it when we believe that we can guarantee very few civilian casualties. And number four, we do it when we believe that there is no way that we can delay or postpone this operation, something that we consider as a ticking bomb."[16]

    Israel is further harmed by the invocation of international law to implicate the legitimacy of its fight against its adversaries. International law is routinely misconstrued by the media commentators and non-specialists who cite it. Some journalists, for example, describe Israeli treatment of Palestinian terrorists as a contravention of international law. This is misleading. Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, among others, fail to meet the criteria required for full protection under the Geneva conventions.[17] More broadly, human rights groups selectively quote international law but fail to note that "protected persons" (i.e., citizens under occupation) may not participate in violent activities against the occupying power.[18] Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is no "right of resistance" under international law to either civilians under occupation or irregular forces that purport to challenge an occupier.[19]

    Conventional war between armies may favor Israel, but the fact that Islamists do not differentiate between civilians and legitimate combatants creates an asymmetry in favor of those who are eager to use any method available to advance their cause.

    Suicidal Ideology
    Islamists preach unquestioned obedience to God and the duty of men to sacrifice their lives for God. Saudi columnist Mozammel Haque, writing for the London Central Mosque, explained, "The sacrifice of life and wealth in the way of Allah is the zenith of a man's belief."[20]

    Despite the theological claim that man is free,[21] Islamists have a fatalistic approach to life.[22] If a person dies, it is because his predetermined day of death has arrived; the methods by which his life ends are beside the point.[23] Such beliefs contribute to a readiness among many combatants to have little or no fear of death. They cite the Qur'anic verse, "Their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, neither shall they grieve."[24] Islamists preach istishhad,[25] voluntary martyrdom, which results in no pain upon death.[26] In addition, martyrs receive seventy-two virgins and can invite fifty relatives to paradise following their deaths.[27] The promised rewards make death materially better than life and encourage jihadis toward martyrdom.

    In practice, this means Islamist thinking finds no problem with what Western nations see as the immoral and unacceptable killing of civilians. If collateral damage occurs when, for example, Hamas fires upon soldiers from schools or ambulances, there is no fault: The civilians caught in the crossfire were destined to die. The Saudi exile Muhammad al-Massari explains that any civilian killed in an attack on the enemy "won't suffer [but instead] … becomes a martyr himself."[28] During the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah "apologized" for an attack on Nazareth that killed two Israeli Arab children—but said the two children should be considered "martyrs."[29]

    Many Islamist figures, for example, Zuhair Afaneh, president of the Islamic Society of Central Pennsylvania,[30] obfuscate the religious justification for war crimes by citing a Qur'anic verse: "Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."[31] Other Islamists, though, cite alternate verses to abrogate this.[32] Perhaps not all these radicals have proper religious credentials,[33] but such theological imprecision is moot if their followers accept the legitimacy of their religious justifications. As a result, Islamist groups have conducted horrendous acts against civilians, including mass killings,[34] beheadings,[35] and the use of children in terror attacks.[36]

    Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, explained, "If the Muslims' enemy attacks Muslim civilians, then it is permissible for us Muslims to apply the rule of reciprocity and attack the enemy civilians."[37] Egyptian Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research, added that "martyrdom operations … are not in any way included in the framework of prohibited terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians."[38] In July 2003, the London-based pan-Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported that Qaradawi issued a religious ruling encouraging suicide attacks on Israelis regardless of whether they are civilian or military.[39]

    The acceptability of suicide missions has led several Islamic groups to boast that they "love death" in the same way that Jews and Christians love life.[40] Such sentiments extend even to young children, brainwashed to fight[41] despite international conventions against children participating in military combat.[42] The official Palestinian Authority television regularly encourages children to violence.[43] One clip instructed children, "How sweet is the fragrance of the shahids [martyrs]. How sweet is the fragrance of the earth. Its thirst quenched by the gush of blood flowing from the youthful body."[44] More recently, Hamas television featured a Mickey Mouse look-alike urging children to fight and, if necessary, die to extend Palestine to include all of Israel.[45]

    Psychological Manipulation
    If Islamist theology provides the moral inspiration for the strategy of terrorism, psychological warfare helps secure its benefits in practice. Psychological warfare is "the planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives."[46] Although psychological operations are aimed at enemy soldiers and civilians, insofar as Islamists view their own civilians as part of the military equation, they become a mechanism to achieve tactical advantage. A call to jihad is compulsory conscription for all citizens to participate in military operations either by choice as a combatant or involuntarily as a victim. One jihadist publication aimed at women is specific: "The blood of our husbands and the body parts of our children are our sacrificial offering."[47] Psychologically, the expansion of Islamist groups' pool of participants to include mothers, children, and other civilians helps create a sense of strength, solidarity, and purpose beyond what a limited band of fighters could provide.

    Hezbollah, for example, was able to galvanize international outcry over civilian deaths after a July 30, 2006 Israeli strike on Kfar Qana, leading to demands for a halt in operations. Such tactics are not limited to irregular forces and paramilitaries. Where Islamist thinking shapes state military operations, the protection of civilians becomes irrelevant. Giora Eiland describes Iran as willing to sacrifice up to half of its population in order to fulfill what the leadership in Tehran sees as a religious imperative to destroy Israel.[48] And there is ample precedent for forced sacrifice in Iran: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution and Supreme Leader of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, called the deaths of thousands of children in human mine-sweeping operations a "divine blessing."[49] The German political scientist Matthias Küntzel describes how Iranian authorities gave young Iranians, some only twelve years old, plastic keys to paradise to hang around their necks.[50] Today, the Islamic Republic maintains "martyrdom-seeker" suicide units in the Iranian armed forces.[51]

    The willingness of Islamists to suffer collateral damage—and even to pursue tactics specifically designed to cause the deaths of their own civilians—does not nullify their ability to exploit civilian causalities in order to gain sympathy from both domestic and international public opinion. Extensive reports by the Israeli NGO Monitor continue to document how Israeli counterattacks, which result in Palestinian causalities, spark criticism of Israel by human rights organizations whose condemnations either ignore or minimize Israel's right to self-defense.[52] Although moral codes limit Israel's range of action, such restraint does not prevent exaggerated accusations of Israeli "war crimes." During Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin, sensational claims of a "massacre"[53] were trumpeted by the Palestinian Authority, the U.N., various NGOs, and in the European and, particularly, the British media.[54] The claims were later found to be without merit,[55] but at the time they served a vital psychological-operations purpose: to undermine the moral legitimacy of Israeli self-defence.

    Finally, the combination of standing armies and an alliance with or belief in Islamist ideology makes countries such as Syria and Iran a formidable challenge for Israel. Like terror organizations, they too pay little heed to the self-imposed restrictions of Western armies, but unlike most terror groups, they possess the manpower, weaponry, and finances to represent a far greater military threat.

    How to balance military needs, international humanitarian law, and the reality of facing an enemy whose tactics are not restrained by accepted conventions are challenges to which Israel and other Western nations need to devote serious thought. The asymmetry of battle that Israel faces requires a rethinking of strategy to deal with threats from forces whose ideologies allow them not just to frustrate many Western military advantages but to use the openness of Western societies—especially their print and image media, and the organizations through which the Western penchant for self-criticism is expressed—to their own advantage. Ideology, including the perception of right versus wrong, becomes part of the discussion. Ultimately, non-Islamists, such as Israel, need to win the ideological war as well as the military one.

    In the short-term, Israel can take the lead by repeatedly and forcefully asserting the moral high ground by pointing out that civilian causalities are never intentional but, given the cynical tactics of the enemies it must fight, are regrettably inevitable. Israeli spokespersons must further assert that the culpability for civilian casualties lies with the terrorists who have deliberately chosen to wage war against Israel from within civilian populations precisely because of the propaganda benefits of such tactics. While this is not likely to appease those who seek to paint Israel as a serial violator of human rights, the evidence will show that, given Israel's military arsenal, any premeditated policy of targeting civilians would most certainly have resulted in massively higher death tolls than have actually taken place. From a human rights perspective, the tables need to be turned by arguing that states such as Israel are victims of a capricious and cynical policy of civilian exploitation and that militant Islamists are intentional violators of international conventions that seek to protect civilian lives.

    In the long term, though, defeating an ideologically-based movement may not be possible without defeating the ideology itself. For Islamists, any move toward moderation will be a political tactic or a forced concession rather than an actual political or ideological reform or accommodation. What should Western societies do when fighting Islamist groups? In order to defeat the political ideology behind Islamism, Muslim civilians must develop a viable and practical alternative to the Islamist organizations that claim to represent the broader Muslim community.[56] While the ideology is immutable, if the civilian population withdraws its support, Islamist movements will be rendered impotent.

    Irwin J. Mansdorf is director of the David Project fellows program in Israel studies at Midreshet Lindenbaum in Jerusalem. Mordechai Kedar served for twenty-five years in the Israel Defense Forces in military intelligence specializing in Arab political discourse and now lectures on Arabic at Bar-Ilan University.

    [1] USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide, Air Force pamphlet 14- 210 Intelligence, Feb. 1, 1998, section A4.2.1.2.
    [2] Mark A. Heller, "Assessing the Israeli-Palestinian Balance of Power," Strategic Assessment, Aug. 2000.
    [3] William Wunderle and Andre Briere, "Augmenting Israel's Qualitative Military Edge," Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008, pp. 49-58.
    [4] Edward Said, "Israel at Fifty: Palestine Has Not Disappeared," Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1998.
    [5] "Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine," U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, E/CN.4/2003/G/20, Dec. 17, 2002.
    [6] "Ethics," Israel Defense Forces website, accessed Oct. 17, 2007.
    [7] Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin, "Military Ethics of Fighting Terror: Principles," Philosophia, July 2006, pp. 75-84.
    [8] Yedi'ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), Apr. 10, 2002.
    [9] "IV: Background: The Battle inside Jenin Refugee Camp," Jenin: IDF Military Operations: Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinian Authority Territories, Human Rights Watch, May 2002.
    [10] Ayala Procaccia, "The Role of the Supreme Court in Israel in Protecting Human Rights," lecture at Boston University, Nov. 7, 2005.
    [11] The Harvard Crimson, Sept. 23, 2002.
    [12] Office of the State Attorney vs. Fatma al-Aju, judgment of the Israel High Court of Justice, HCJ 4764/04, May 30, 2004.
    [13] Beit Sourik Village Council vs. Government of Israel, judgment of the Israel High Court of Justice, HCJ 2056/04, June 30, 2004; The New York Times, Sept. 4, 2007.
    [14] The Palestine Monitor (Ramallah), Apr. 7, 2002.
    [15] The New York Times, July 26, 2006.
    [16] "Battle for the Holy Land, Program #2015," Frontline, PBS, Apr. 4, 2002.
    [17] Ted Lapkin, "Does Human Rights Law Apply to Terrorists?" Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2004, pp. 3-13.
    [18] See, for example, Article 68, "Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War," Aug. 12, 1949.
    [19] The New York Sun, Mar. 14, 2005.
    [20] Mozammel Haque, "Lesson of Hajj: Sacrifice on the Way of Allah," The Islamic Cultural Center and the London Center Mosque, accessed Oct. 17, 2007.
    [21] Qur. 4:40.
    [22] Louis Gardet, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. 2, vol. IV (Leiden: Brill, 1960), s.v. "Al-Kada' wa'l-Kadar," pp. 365-7.
    [23] Marmaduke Pickthall, "The Untenable Charge of Fatalism against Muslims," 1927, accessed Oct. 17, 2007.
    [24] Qur. 2:62.
    [25] E. Kohlberg, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. 2, vol. IX, s.v. "Shahid," pp. 203-7.
    [26] E. Tyan, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. 2, vol. II, s.v. "Djihad," pp. 538-40; "Sheikh ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza," Palestinian Authority TV, Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, Aug. 17, 2001.
    [27] Boaz Ganor, "The Rationality of the Islamic Radical Suicide Attack Phenomenon," International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Herzliya, Mar. 21, 2007.
    [28] The New York Times, June 10, 2007.
    [29] Al-Manar (Beirut), July 20, 2006.
    [30] The Centre Daily Times (State College, Pa.), Oct. 6, 2001.
    [31] Qur. 5:32.
    [32] Qur. 2:194.
    [33] David Zeidan, "The Islamic Fundamentalist View of Life as a Perennial Battle," Middle East Review of International Affairs, Dec. 2001.
    [34] "Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed Oct. 17, 2007.
    [35] Timothy Furnish, "Beheading in the Name of Islam," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp. 51-7.
    [36] "Children as Combatants in PA Ideology," TV Archives-Video Library, Palestinian Media Watch, Jerusalem, Oct. 2000 - mid 2003, accessed Oct. 17, 2007.
    [37] Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, quoted in "Attacking Civilians in War Times: Juristic Approach," Islam Online Fatwa Bank, Oct. 29, 2002.
    [38] "Al-Qaradhawi Speaks in Favor of Suicide Operations at an Islamic Conference in Sweden," The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch Series, no. 542, July 24, 2003.
    [39] Asharq al-Awsat (London), July 19, 2003.
    [40] Martin Kramer, "Ask Professor Esposito," Sandbox, Sept. 26, 2002.
    [41] The Forward (New York), Sept. 11, 1998; Justus Reid Weiner, "The Use of Palestinian Children in the Al-Aqsa Intifada," Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Nov. 1, 2000.
    [42] Children and Armed Conflict: International Standards for Action, Human Security Network and the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, New York, Apr. 22, 2003.
    [43] "PA Indoctrination of Children to Seek Heroic Death for Allah—Shahada," TV Archives-Video Library, Palestinian Media Watch, accessed on Oct. 17, 2007.
    [44] Palestinian Authority TV, June 28, 2006, video at Palestinian Media Watch website, accessed Oct. 17, 2007.
    [45] Fox News, May 7, 2007.
    [46] Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint Pub 1-02 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, Mar. 23, 1994).
    [47] BBC World News, Aug. 24, 2004.
    [48] The Jerusalem Post, Aug 24, 2006.
    [49] Matthias Küntzel, "Ahmadinejad's Demons: A Child of the Revolution Takes Over," The New Republic, Apr.14, 2006.
    [50] Ibid.
    [51] Ali Alfoneh, "Iran's Suicide Brigades," Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2007, pp. 37-44.
    [52] "Human Rights Watch in 2005: Political Bias against Israel Continues despite Wider Middle East Focus," NGO Monitor, Jerusalem, Apr. 6, 2006.
    [53] BBC World News, Apr. 18, 2002.
    [54] The Washington Times, May 1, 2002.
    [55] Richard Starr, "The Big Jenin Lie," The Daily Standard, May 8, 2002.
    [56] See, for example, M. Zuhdi Jasser. "Exposing the ‘Flying Imams,'" Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008, pp. 3-11.

  5. http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_06spring/habeck.html

    Security Studies Program Seminar
    Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror

    Mary Habeck
    Associate Professor of Strategic Studies, Johns Hopkins University

    February 15, 2006

    I'm not going to talk about Islam generally. Instead I'll talk about Islamism and Jihadism today.

    The Islamic world initially tried to adopt Western ideas to achieve modernization, but a small minority wanted a native solution; these are the Islamists. The wars of 1967 and 1973 provided impetus for Islamism. Today it has the support of 15-20% of Muslims, as opposed to 2-4% decades ago. Islamism is not waning. A minority of Islamists believe that Islam and democracy are compatible. The majority believe, however, that political power must be based solely on Islam.

    Jihadism is an extreme version of Islamism. Less than one percent of Islamists are jihadists. The jihadist ideology holds that they are the only true believers. The rest of world is made up of hostile unbelievers whose sole purpose is the destruction of Islam. These people are thus worthy of attack.

    The jihadists agree with fact that Islam requires political power and should run the state, but they believe that the faithful cannot wait for ideological change, but must use violence to create the Caliphate, which will maintain the struggle against unbelievers.

    It is important to understand how jihadists subvert the tenets of Islam, specifically tawhid, jihad, da'wa, and ideas about governance.

    In traditional Islam, tawhid is the three main tenets of Islam: There is only one God; he has no partners; anyone who worships another god is sinning and will be judged by God.

    Jihadists take the idea that God has no partners to mean that any secular ruler is taking God's role by making laws and is therefore an idolater who must be killed. This idea makes liberalism a false religion.

    In traditional Islam, jihad generally refers to fighting, both internal and external. It is similar to the Western concept of just war. Jihad is both an individual and communal duty, and in the latter sense, a matter of state. The idea originally was that at least once a year Muslims had to serve communally to spread just laws around the world. But by the 19 th century, the idea of jihad as war was lost, and the idea of jihad as fighting survived only in the sense of self-defense.

    Jihadists define jihad as an individual duty for all Muslims. Because Islam is under attack, all must respond. Jihad cannot be a communal duty, a matter of state, until a legitimate Islamist state exists. First, believers must fight off attackers and then they can switch to offense.

    Traditional Islam allows many correct forms of governance, but holds that laws in a Muslim country should be inspired by Islam. This can be loosely interpreted, however, to mean that laws are moral. Private and family law should be inspired by Islam, but modern Islam sees private life and government as separate matters. Most Muslims do not want a return of the Caliphate.

    Jihadists claim that the only correct form of governance is the Caliphate, led by a Caliph. No one is clear on who the caliph should be or how one gains the title. The Caliphate is ruled by shari'a law, in both public and private life, with no popular elections or legislature. The land governed by this Caliphate includes any area that has ever been subjected Islamic law, which includes all of Russia, China, parts of France, Spain, plus all of the Middle East. The Caliphate's foreign policy is eternal jihad.

    In traditional Islam, da'wa means the original call to Islam from Muhammad. Today, it means to engage in missionary work to convert unbelievers or simply to lead a pious life and hope that this attracts converts.

    Jihadists believe that da'wa must be given anew to convince other Muslims to become jihadists against the apostate rulers, the occupiers, and the unbelieving world. If you do not answer the call, you can be justly killed.

    Jihadism's main war is with other Muslims. Ideologically, it says that da'wa is used to convert other Muslims. Politically, it aims to create a Caliphate and implement Islamic law. This requires overthrowing apostate regimes. Militarily, it says that true believers must fight Muslims who actively oppose jihadism or support the unbelievers. This means attacking liberal and secular Muslims, Sufis, Shi'a and others.

    There is then a war being fought over what is authentic Islam. The moderates are losing. The Jihadists proselytize and moderates do not, so they are being shouted and intimidated off the stage.

    The problem jihadists have is how to prioritize enemies. There is an argument over whether to focus on the near or far enemy, and who the near enemy is. Most jihadist groups focus on the near enemy. Al-Qaeda was unique in its idea that one should target the “greater unbelief” first, meaning the far enemy and particularly the United States and Britain, the centers of liberalism. They take this idea from Ibn Tamiyya and Sayyid Qutb.

    Most jihadists do not buy into this and continue to focus on their near enemy. Their war plans mirror the Sira, the life of Muhammad. First is Mecca: the creation of a vanguard of true believers. Second is Hijra: migration to safety and securing the land. Third is Medina: creating an Islamic state, jihad in the form of both defense and offense, conquest, and winning allies.

    Jihadism has three major ideologues, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Hassan al-Banna, and Sayyid Qutb.

    Al-Wahhab lived during eighteenth century in what is now Saudi Arabia and Iraq. A theologian, he blamed the fraying of the Ottoman Empire on retreat from true Islam. He redefined tawhid, saying it allowed Muslims to kill non-believers – holding that judgment of nonbelievers need not be left to God.

    Al-Banna, an Egyptian, founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 as an ideological party to struggle against the British occupation. He preached jihad as violent struggle against the occupiers, but targeted the new apostate Egyptian regime once the British left.

    Qutb became the Brotherhood's main ideologue after Banna's assassination in 1949. He was radicalized by a trip to the United States, which he found revolting. He merged the teaching of Wahhab and Banna and identified the United States and Britain as the main enemies.

    Today the progeny of these beliefs focus on various enemies. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine, like the jihadists in Chechnya , attacks the occupiers. Egyptian Islamic Jihad killed the apostate leader Sadat, but little changed. This failure affected tactics. Egypt's Jamaat al Islamiya targets tourists, as does Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia.

  6. Anon of 9:44 AM posted a rather long discourse, but alas, written by Irwin J. Mansdorf, director of the David Project fellows program in Israel studies at Midreshet Lindenbaum in Jerusalem, and Mordechai Kedar, an Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer - says it all ;-)

    peterp - have a look at this one from The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3459144.ece

    ;-) enjoy

  7. Tut tut. The Times is obviously pursuing the `holocaust` angle. Doesn`t make them right just because they are white skinned.

    The Times should look into their own country with all its problems from the fastest growing religion.

  8. 'You can't negotiate with somebody who does not recognize the right of a country to exist,' - Democratic presidential candidate tells reporters during campaign stop in Texas

  9. After almost five years of war, many young Iraqis, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.

    In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.

    "I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara Sami, a high school student in Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers."


  10. amazing, not unlike anwaristas, the moment one posts an article on their icon (in the Israeli case, the Israeli military), the zionists would all emerge from their holes to post articles to rip into Arabs, yet disappointingly with nothing to explain away the Israeli proclivities for Nazi brutalities and Holocaust inclinations against their victims. ;-)

    The unpleasant fact is the Israelis are no better than the Nazis - recall how Israel was very chummy with White Supremacist Apartheid South Africa.

    Nazis. Israelis, SA white supremacists, all vultures of the same racist feathers flock together.

  11. Wow...I got a lot helpers now to keep Ktemoc honest....I'll rest for today...LOL...:-)

    Treat it positively - Debate is good for examining the validity of your ideas - even if in the end your opinion remains unchanged.

  12. anon of 10:28 AM said "Tut tut. The Times is obviously pursuing the `holocaust` angle. Doesn`t make them right just because they are white skinned. The Times should look into their own country with all its problems from the fastest growing religion."

    ha ha ha - he has descended to this!

    kk46 - you've got it the other way around - kaytee has been, is and will be keeping you people honest ;-)

  13. Reuters has outdone itself in lionizing Hamas terrorists. Anti-religion when that religion happens to be Judaism or Christianity, Reuters is all of a sudden quite objective when reporting on the Islamic beliefs of destroying the Jewish dhimmis.

    The headline didn't even have scare quotes, as Reuters is reporting an established fact - that Hamas is inspired by God:

    Hamas fighters battle on inspired by God

  14. "ha ha ha - he has descended to this!"

    Then you must be very ascendant so perspective is totally out.

  15. In yesterday’s operations, the IDF began searching buildings in the “Qassam perimeter,” the eastern perimeter from which many Qassam cells have operated in recent months. And while terrorists continued to pound Israel with Qassams (yesterday’s tally was 38), there were less of the larger Grad missiles fired. Those Grad missiles that were fired (the 2 that struck Ashkelon) were fired from farther inside heavily populated areas of the Gaza Strip.

    All in all, 4 IDF soldiers were lightly injured in fighting yesterday, as well as 3 Israeli civilians from the 40 rockets fired against Israel. About 12 palestinians died, some while fighting Israel, and some from injuries sustained on Saturday. It is unclear how many were terrorists and how many were non-combatants.

    During their operations, IDF soldiers reported seeing a wide range of weapons, including improvised explosive devices, anti-tank missiles and - in further proof of either the terrorist use of civilians as human shields or civilian complicity with terrorists - booby-traps in some of the houses, and in at least one case, a weapons storehouse inside a mosque.

  16. Not only The Times (of London), but also Reuters, The BBC, and The Guardian still persist in this misinformation and thus so clearly show their bias.

    But the sad part of it is that despite now knowing that the Shoah story is bunk --- you are still peddling it.

  17. KTEMOC, your position stands on the strength of denial. Remove denial and you are gone. Unfortunately, there is nothing that Israel can do right by all of you. Absolutely nothing. Everything the Palestinians do, you sanctify. SO I guess while we battle our wits here the two antoganists will hopefully just wipe themselves out of the face of the earth.

    Can we hope for any of the protagonsists to just pause for a moment? You see that is the problem is'nt it? Who does one deal with among the Palestinians? Maybe you can suggest! It does not have to matter if it is one or two or more of them. But who? And it does not matter if they will come one at a time or altogether!

  18. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

    "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
    The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

    Article Eight:
    Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.


  19. "amazing, not unlike anwaristas, the moment one posts an article on their icon.." - ktemoc

    Well when you peddle what you peddle, and if one gets wind of it, it`s only natural that would happen.
    You know it, so don`t act aggrieved after all you do it with the purpose of attracting traffic to your site.
    I recall some muslim blogger telling you to shut up on Islam too. So nothing new in all this.
    You pander to them, they whack you around, and you try harder.
    Surely at time like these you wish menj was by your side. Not much difference.

  20. The conflict in the Middle East is the result, not of something that happened a few weeks ago, or a few months ago, or even a few years ago. We're talking about a conflict whose seeds were sown many, many decades ago, and whose roots continue to grow to this day, compounded by all sides of the conflict not wanting to back down from their perch of righteousness.

    Unfortunately, the mainstream mindset has the memory of up till the most recent conflict, and decides who's wrong or right, based only on recent events. To me, ALL sides are accountable for the mess that is the Middle East - Israel, the Palestinians, the neighboring Arab states, the Western world led by the US/UK... everybody has a stake in the total blame, in varying degrees.

    Hamas may not be the most savory of organizations, but look at how and why they were formed. But one needs to look even further back to fully understand why organizations like Hamas needed to come into being - perhaps to pre-Nazi Germany, to the time of Bismark. Yes, it goes as far back as that...

    And the older the source of the problem is, the more difficult the problem will be to solve.

    There is some truth to say that the Israelis have come full circle, acting like the very same Nazis they were saved from. And there are many non-Zionist Jews who are equally as appalled at what Israel has done in recent times...

    But here's a scary thought, what IF the Zionists were in fact in collution with the Nazis, with the final end being setting up of a Zionist state? There is historical evidence to suggest this possibility (see this video - it's about 2-and-a-half hours long, so be forewarned). The end, as they say, justified the means...

    What KTemoc believes, he has the right to state, as do those who disagree with him have the right to rebutt. The situation in the Middle East has gone far beyond who's right and who's wrong, however - the only solution remaining being all sides having to come to terms with the others' right to exist. And to exist in decent human conditions.

    Until and unless that happens, the sheer breakdown in humanity that the Middle East has become will continue, with articles after articles claiming the position of being "correct". The end result, however, all sides being the ulitmate losers...

  21. the Zionists are fomenting these evils.
    provoking the Palestines to attack so they can hv jerusalem n build rebuild the temple, they will sooner or later destroy the temple mount.
    all part of d illuminati plan.

  22. What the Isralis are doing to the Palestinians is no different from
    what the Malaysian government are doing to the non-Malay/Muslims in Malaysia albeit in a different form.
    To put it simply the Jews/Malays use the non-Jews/non-Malays for their own economic and political gains when needed but refuse to grant the non-Jews/non/Malays equal rights under the law.
    This will perhaps explain Badawi's meekness over the Palestinian issue.
    It is sad that the Palestinians are being persecuted. On the other hand I used to have Christian Palestinian friends who now will never fight or go back to Palestine because of the marginalisation of non-Muslims in Palestine. In this sense Hamas et.al. will also have to bear the responsibility for having abused the Muslim religion for their owm violent ends.

  23. Awww don`t worry so much about the temple mount and shahid palis. It`s part of the master plan when Israel will be destroyed and the Day Of Judgement will come for muslims for it was written more than 1600 years ago.
    Only thing these juice won`t go without a fight. See how evil they are. They won`t even sit quietly and allow the Arabs to throw missiles at them.
    Dogs at least know better and allow themselves to be beaten. Jews worse than dogs.

  24. "IF the Zionists were in fact in collution with the Nazis, with the final end being setting up of a Zionist state?"

    Hmmm. The Mufti got there first:

    Like many other Arab leaders of his time al-Husayni was known for his anti-Zionism and fought against the establishment of a National home for the Jewish people in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine, particularly during the Great Arab Revolt. He fled Palestine in 1937 and took refuge in Nazi Germany during World War II and helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS. In 1941 al-Husayni met Adolf Hitler in Berlin and asked him to oppose, as part of the Arab struggle for independence, the establishment of a Jewish state . During the 1948 Palestine War his faction was represented by the Army of the Holy War, which had been founded as a secret society by Jamal al-Husayni in 1936. He opposed King Abdullah's ambitions for the Palestinian territory captured by the Arabs during the war.


  25. KT,
    Israel can't use the swastika. It is never inside Jews culture. ;)

    Today, Holocaust synonym to the massacre of Jews by Nazi. Now, that is interesting food for though.

    Nevertheless, IMHO, Israel government are the villain, rather than hypocrite. So far, Israel doesn't play the "soft trick" to assimilate Palestinian.

    On the peace talk, I doubt there will be any fruitful outcome. Bare in mind that Hamas can stop the rocket attack, but any neighbor country don't want a peaceful Israel and Palestine can fire Qassam "on behalf of them", reasons are obvious.

  26. moo_t, you mean because the swastika is an Eastern symbol, right? Such as the counter-clockwise Buddhist version (as opposed to the clockwise Nazi one)?

    But here's a scary thought, what IF the Zionists were in fact in collution with the Nazis, with the final end being setting up of a Zionist state?

    How odd. Perhaps they were like the Polish Jews who acted as police within the pogroms in exchange for food?

    Because as I recall, the Nazis were overtly chummy with the Palestinians. Especially the Mufti of Jerusalem. In a Lets-kill-the-Jews-together sort of way.


    Few dozen pics there.

    But of course, if Bush can be blamed for attacking his own WTC, I suppose Jews can also be at fault for helping Holocaust themselves in WW2.

  27. Imagine zionists have invaded everywhere? Look, they are here like ants giving us their hogwash. They are evil. They have a ready army for cyper terror. Zionists must be stopped. Anyway, they will go through the same treatment. That's nature. Only that it takes time and everything has its appointed term.

  28. Yup, there are Zionists under every bed, behind every Bush.

  29. watch this


  30. Scott,
    according to wikipedia, Swastika : An ancient symbol, it occurs mainly in the cultures that are in modern day India and the surrounding area, sometimes as a geometrical motif and sometimes as a religious symbol. It has long been widely used in major world religions such as Hinduism, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism and Jainism.
    It is ill-fated to become symbol for Nazism.

  31. quote "... there are Zionists ........ behind every Bush." unquote

    How true, so much truth in a casual saying like that, than you could ever realise ;-)

  32. Swastika and its Religious Significance:

    As some of you may be aware, there has been a great deal of controversy in the UK regarding the wearing of an armband by Prince Harry that had a “swastika” badge on it.
    This created a predictable uproar in the local media with many people being reminded of the grim horrors of the Holocaust (the Prince was wearing a replica Nazi uniform).
    Along with the reaction, there were calls for the symbol to be banned (on the grounds of being racially offensive).
    Thankfully, the Hindu Forum of Great Britain got into the act (see, “HFB launches national campaign to reclaim swastika”) and decided to start a campaign to create awareness amongst the general public about how an ancient Hindu symbol had been misappropriated by the Nazis.
    As I watched this controversy unfold, I realised that I was myself not fully aware of the significance of “swastika” and how it had come to be associated with the Nazis.

    Below is a summary from my research on the subject.


    The word “swastika” originates in Sanskrit. It is composed of “su”, meaning good/well and “asti” meaning “to be”; svasti thus means “well-being”; “-ka” forms a diminutive, and svastika/swastika might thus be translated literally as “little thing associated with well-being”. In ancient Indo-European cultures, it was put on objects to symbolise good luck. In geometric terms, the swastika is an irregular icosagon or a 20-sided polygon.

    More @ here.

  33. http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_070224.htm

    "The major difference between the Nazi swastika and the ancient symbol of many different cultures, is that the Nazi swastika is at a slant, while the ancient swastika is rested flat."

    - No, not that confusing clockwise or counter clockwise thing. ;)

  34. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  35. Approximately a thousand Arab Israelis marched in the Arab town of Umm el-Fahm on Monday evening chanting slogans such as "With spirit and blood we will liberate you, o Palestine," "Israel is the mother of terror," "Israel is a terror state" and even "Stop the Zionazi" in protest of the IDF's Operation Hot Winter in the Gaza Strip over the weekend.


  36. Headlines: IDF kills infant, top Islamic Jihad militant in southern Gaza

    And in the details we learn:

    A two-week-old Palestinian infant was killed after nightfall on Tuesday in a brief Israel Defense Forces ground operation in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials said, just a day after Israel ended a bloody offensive in northern Gaza against Palestinian rocket squads.

    A senior Islamic Jihad operative, Yussuf Samiri, was also killed. Israeli defense officials said that Samiri had been the intended target of the operation.

    …Witnesses said IDF tanks fired shells and fighter helicopters fired missiles. A 1-month-old baby girl, Amira Abu-Assar, was killed by a ricocheting bullet, medical officials said.
    How exactly do the Palestinian Arab “medical officials” always know that Israeli bullets are the ones that invariably kill civilians whenever there is a firefight? One would expect to see some Palestinian Arab casualties from “friendly fire,” but for some reason those incidents are never reported.

    Palestine Today (Arabic) reports that “fighters from the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad Movement, fought in violent armed clashes with automatic weapons and anti-tank missiles” during this battle. So clearly there were bullets flying from both sides.

    Do Gaza police have forensics labs that can identify bullet fragments, perform some metallurgical and chemical tests, look at the trajectories and ricochet angles, and definitively identify their source within minutes of the fatality?

    In every single incident of civilian death, Israel is blamed, and so-called “news” organizations - including Israel’s major pro-Arab newspaper - report the Palestinian Arab claims without skepticism or question.

    It all points to the Arab Nazis genociding their own.

  37. yapchongwee's comments on Chandra Muzzafar deleted as Yap has already posted same at the appropriate (another) post - posting same comments here, which is about a different subject, is spamming.

  38. It appears that the Arab News is considering the roughly 110 Palestinian Arabs killed since last Wednesday to be some sort of a record of deaths in a week.

    Of course, they don't want to remember that this particular record belongs to Palestinian Arabs themselves, who managed in the seven days between June 10 and June 16, 2007 to kill 148 of each other.

    So if Israel's actions are a "holocaust" - which is now the word being used universally in Arabic media to describe the events of the past week - then Hamas and Fatah must really be guilty of self-genocide.

    Even the Arab News knows enough to limit the idea of PalArab suffering to "in the territories" which allows them to not compare the current Israeli actions with, say, Black September, 1970 when 3400 Palestinian Arabs were killed by Jordanians in an eleven day period. Or even January 18, 1976 when Lebanese Christians killed 1000 Lebanese and Palestinian Muslims in a single day.

    Is the death of some 75 terrorists and 35 civilians over seven days (estimate based on PCHR listings of the circumstances of death) worse than the expulsion of 400,000 Palestinian Arabs from Kuwait in 1991 - also in a single week? After all, if expulsion is considered "ethnic cleansing" and tantamount to genocide - which is the Arab definition when applied to Israel - then Kuwait might win the prize.

    It's so tough to compare which has been the worst week in Palestinian Arab history, but what seems clear is that however you slice it, this week doesn't come close.

    Not that the Arab media would ever admit it.

  39. Kuwaiti authority expelled Palestinians from "Kuwait".

    Israelis on the other hand expelled Palestinians from Palestine.

  40. What Palestine. Since when was Palestine a sovereign nation?
    Stop your Palestine bullshit will you.

  41. ha ha ha, running out of breath? ;-)

  42. Since when Ktemoc, tell me please.
    After the Muslim conquest 1,200 years ago who ruled Palestine until the present day. Explain yourself here. No balls to face the truth here?

  43. More trhan 24 hours and he cant answer that even. Must be flying high.

  44. The deputy minister use the word 'shoah' (שואה)in his statement, which simply means disaster in Ivrit. But since the phrase HaShoah (השואה)has been used to describe the Nazi-engineered Holocaust during WW2, many jumped the gun and concluded that he was threatening to unleash a Holocaust on the Arabs.