By Ted Belman
Shimon Peres, President of Israel, has, for the last thirty years, called for a New Middle East. In fact he wrote a book by that title in 1993, the year of the Oslo Accords. He believed that economic cooperation in the ME was the starting point for cementing ties and reconciling peoples. The Oslo Accords, of which he was the main architect and instigator, was intended to lead in that direction. It failed miserably.
In those days the main players on the Muslim side, were Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, all Sunni. And, of course, we cannot leave out Arafat, also a Sunni.
All this began to change with the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003. Talk about unintended consequences. The defeat of Iraq, created a power vacuum which Shiite Iran was salivating to fill. Although Iraq under Hussein was in the Sunni camp, its population was 60% Shiite. Luckily, the Iraqi Shiites prefer independence from Iran perhaps due in part to the fact they are Arab and not Farsi; at least for now but that could change.
Iran had aspirations of grandeur and imperialist ambitions. She began to plot a course which would lead to her dominance of the Muslim world and in the Middle East. No small task, since 80% of Muslims are Sunni and Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam, are located in Saudi Arabia.
This course had two prongs; the development of its own nuclear bomb and the confrontation with Israel, the Little Satan and the US the Big Satan on behalf of all Muslims everywhere.
Iran also had a natural advantage, her location. Egypt, with its population of 81 million is poor and on the periphery. It also made peace with Israel thereby taking her out of the race for now. Iran borders on Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian Sea. The US needs Iran to be cooperative in each of these theaters.
Iran’s first success was to win over Syria the most rejectionist Sunni state. Their alliance is constantly growing and seems to have no bounds. This is so notwithstanding that the US has attempted to wean Syria away from Iran. Syria is important because it borders on Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, with whom she has a casus belli for the return of the Golan.
Syria also has imperialist ambitions. She has visions of recovering all lands which were part of the Ottoman province of Syria. Britain and France entered into the Sykes-Picot Agreement during WWI in which they agreed that Britain would control Mesopotamia (Iraq) and southern Syria, (Jordan and Israel) and France would control the rest of Ottoman Syria (Syria, Lebanon and Hatay province of Turkey). The League of Nations formalized this agreement in 1923 when it created the British Mandate and the French Mandate.
In pursuance of these ambitions, in 1970, Syria invaded Jordan only to be repulsed by Israel. During the recent decades, Syria extended its influence over Lebanon. This was made easier with the growth of Hezbollah which was predominantly Shiite. It was natural for Syria and Iran to come together on this. Together they have armed Hezbollah to the teeth in order to have a proxy for the war against Israel. In truth there is no casus belli between Hezbollah and Israel.
Iran took Hamas under its wing after Hamas took over Gaza from the Sunni backed Palestinian Authority in 2007. It was natural for this to happen since they both are dedicated to destroying Israel.
This is a development which has put Egypt in the cross hairs. Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood has been a thorn in Egypt’s backside ever since. It believes that Muslim society is no longer Islamic and must be transformed by an Islamic vanguard through violent revolution. Thus, the Brotherhood and Iran are natural allies.
There is great concern that when Mubarak dies, Egypt will be vulnerable to a Brotherhood takeover. Hamas, with the backing of Iran, could greatly assist in this takeover.
Turkey was the last to join the Iranian axis. With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern state of Turkey. He ruled as President until his death in 1938. During this time he sought to transform Turkey into a modern and secular nation-state. The Turkish army maintained this orientation until the election of islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Prime Minister in 2003. This victory was made possible by the changing demographics of the country. The higher birth rates of the rural class in Turkey (and in Hezbollah in Lebanon) made possible the shift in power.
The US championed the admission of Turkey to NATO and to the EU. Turkey maintained a friendship with Israel to gain favor with the US and with the EU. She succeeded in being admitted to NATO but not to the EU. The EU was not in the mood to admit a Muslim state and set all kinds of preconditions. Erdogan decided to chart his own course rather than the one dictated by the EU. Turkey gave up on admission and turned increasing islamist and anti-Israel and, I might add, anti-American.
In Turkey’s MidEast Gambit, Sam Segev notes,
-
“Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has cautiously but consistently moved to reclaim Turkey’s “grandeur” of the Ottoman Empire era.
“This necessitated a slow but cautious distancing from Israel and the U.S. In 2003, it refused an American request to allow American troops to enter Iraq through Turkish territory. Then a Turkish diplomat was elected secretary general of the 53-member Organization of Islamic Countries and relations with Israel cooled.
“Erdogan ramped up his Islamic-oriented policy after his re-election in 2007. He reconciled with Syria, welcomed Hamas leaders in Ankara, hosted Sudanese President Omar Hassan el-Bashir, who is accused of war crimes, and began to undermine Egyptian and Saudi roles in the Sunni moderate Arab world. “
“[..] Turkey is the only NATO member to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and its alignment with Brazil to extricate Iran from stronger sanctions agreed upon by the five permanent members of the Security Council is a direct challenge to American influence in the region.
“Turkey’s attempt to break the blockade on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip was a direct affront not only to Israel, but also to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority”
And yet President Obama still believes “Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process.”
To make matters worse, the opinion makers in the US and the EU have come out in favor of lifting the blockade which in effect is in support of Hamas, a terrorist organization. And Obama is on their side.
The strengthening of Hamas effectively strengthens Iran, strangles the peace process and scares the bejeesus out of Egypt and Jordan.
As Obama stands astride the shifting sands what possible vision can he have?
You would think that as the U.S. is losing control of the Middle East and plans to bring most of the boys home before the end of next year, she would need a strong Israel all the more.
A metaphor is like simile.
Two evenings ago I was with some people who had not seen the youtube video “We Con The World” so I directed my computer and typed We Con The World into search. Up came many videos, all removed from youtub.
They were up to millions of hits
I personally have a copy of the Video so we all watched mine.
The Next morning to see the results again I typed We Con The World into youtube again. This time there was no refrance to the original but there were several anti Israel responses to my search.\
I have put my video copy up.
Others have too
Give it a watch,,, to the end,,, there are some changes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ssNDgqN-Q
Narvey Teds spam blocker has my reply to you.
Narvey there are enough and many others will follow. The numbers game is only valid for for atheistic rationalists.
They would have at best chosen Uganda or Siberia instead of the Land of Israel or like most Jews then opposed the creation of a Jewish State.
3- 5000 hardcore Jewish Freedom fighters drove the British not your rational socialists and communists here, many like Ben-Gurion and kollek were British agents and turned many good Jews over to the British and were hanged or worse.
lets say that if a few thousand good Jews then could drive the British out today there are at least a half million to a million good Jews here and who will withstand them once they are unleashed.
60-70% of Jews in Israel today would find little to disagree with what I posted.
If I were You I would be concerned with the growing divide between American/Canadian and Israeli Jews. Today it is up to you there to move towards us or in another generation you will be left behind.
Thx Yamit. By your definition, I doubt there are very many real Jews in Israel or anywhere in the world.
Who ever leads Israel Must be a true believer in the G-d of Israel.
He thus would fear no mortal. No foreign nation and act solely in the interests of Israel and the Jewish people according to the precepts of the Tanach and Halacha.
He would: Institute/ initiate a wide ranging Jewish / Israeli Platform which would include the following actions:
The immediate revision of the Law of Return to ensure that it only grants citizenship to those who are Halachically Jewish, either from birth or through an authentic Halachic conversion.
An immediate end to all foreign aid from the U.S. Israel will act solely on the basis of self-interest (as all healthy nations do) and will not be an indentured servant to the U.S.
A strong military offensive to ensure that neither Iran nor the rest of the barbarians of the Arab/Muslim world obtain nuclear capability.
The annihilation of all terrorist groups within Israel. The death penalty for all terrorists.
A government led transfer of the hostile Arabs and other gentiles from Israel, similiar to the expulsion of 12 million ethnic Germans by the Poles and Czechs after WWII. A humane transfer (assuming it is not met with violence) that has nothing to do with “racism” or mindless hatred. A transfer based on survival and necessity, as required by the Halachah. A limited number of gentiles who accept the halachic requirements of “resident stranger” may be granted permission to reside in the land.
An immediate annexation of the liberated territories, with a declaration to the Arab world that future acts of aggression will result in Israel having larger borders. The creation of enforceable “treason laws” will prohibit any member of government from articulating positions of territorial compromise or concession, or engaging in discussion regarding the aforementioned with other countries or terrorist organizations such as the PA.
There are no synagogues in Mecca. A government led removal of the Al Aqsa Mosque & the Dome of the Rock, from atop Har Habayit. Additionally, a government led removal of all mosques, churches, and other non-Jewish houses of worship in accordance with the Halachah.
Missionaries & cults will be prohibited from entering the country. Prosletyzing will result in long term imprisonment and/or state sanctioned death.
The creation of an independant government agency to investigate the police precints throughout the country, with the purpose of rooting out all forms/manifestations of corruption, inefficiency, and negligence. The agency will be assigned the task of restructuring the force into a moral and effective entity, capable of enforcing the law and combating crime. Total warfare on every criminal organization that sullies the sanctity of the Land through violence, theft, and prostitution.
That is a real Jew Narvey.
Yamit, still dodging and ducking my questions?
As I said Yamit, you are the one who made simple bald faced assertions.
It is for you to explain what you are talking about and not for me or anyone else to guess as to whether you know what you are talking about!
My ans. weren’t flippant!!! Dead serious but if you need clarification ,,,?
So did I and having asked you first, you ans first.
Nice technique though trying to shift the burden of argument to me while ignoring my prior criticism of you. So you did learn something in Law School after all.
Yamit, why so churlish?
I asked you specific questions:
You provide a few flip meaningless answers and respond as to my request for specificity, by ducking the question, saying:
You are trying to use me as an excuse to avoid answering. Now that is rather childish of you Yamit.
It is you who made some bald faced assertions. Either you know what you are talking about, but too lazy to explain or you really haven’t got a clue as to why you would make those statements.
Which is it?
I am not asking for you to make your case to support those blurted out assertions, so I can argue with you.
I won’t know whether we have a disagreement or not until I understand what you are talking about.
So Yamit, are you going to answer my questions or leave me to assume that beyond some visceral vague sense of things, you really don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
So what’s it going to be Yamit?
Caroline Glick writes:
…stay tuned for our next video next Thursday night.
If someone is in fact trying to silence our voices, they will soon discover that they are messing with the wrong Jews
Ted Laura check this out”
YouTube silences Latma, removes We Con the World
YouTube silences Latma, removes We Con the World
As Israel went offline for the Jewish sabbath, YouTube removed most versions of Latma’s hit parody song We Con the World. If you try to access the song on YouTube you receive the notification:
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner/ Chappell Music, Inc..
Copyright experts we advised with before posting the song told us in no uncertain terms that we were within our rights to use the song because we did so in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine. The Fair Use Doctrine, copied and pasted below from the US Copyright Office stipulates that it is legal and permissible to use copyrighted material under the fair use doctrine for purposes of parody.
Copyright attorneys also warned us that given our clearly lawful use of the song We are the World, if anyone wished to silence our voices, they wouldn’t target us. Instead they would target YouTube. It is YouTube’s standard practice to remove any material that they receive even the flimsiest threat for because the company wishes to avoid all litigation.
At the same time, this is not YouTube’s first move to silence Israeli voices. During Operation Cast Lead, the IDF Spokesman’s Unit established a YouTube channel and began posting combat footage on its channel to bypass the anti-Israel media and go directly to news consumers.
Shortly after the IDF channel began making waves, YouTube – which is owned by Google – removed IDF videos from the website. After the move evoked a storm of protest, YouTube restored them but flagged the videos in the same manner it flags pornography. People trying to access the videos received a screen saying, “This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community. To view this video or group please verify that you are 18 or older by singing in and signing up.”
Here’s a link to the write-up of the YouTube move.
If YouTube didn’t already have a track record for censoring pro-Israel material, I would say that despite the obviously frivolous and unsubstantiated nature of the copyright claim against We Con the World, the company was simply erring on the side of caution.
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/
email rec’d
You think I care about praise? ” I don’t need no praises”
I’m not about monopolizing I try to interact, to pull your chain, to rain on parades, sometimes to learn something from other as well. And you?
Who stops you from commenting as much as you like? Not me.
Considerate went out the window when the last Kassam hit a few miles from my home. But you would know nothing of that Mr. Letter Writer.
Narvey you don’t know who is trying to get rid of us? Where have you been these past months in some black hole?
You rationalists will strategise us to death. They never work anyway. Why bother.
One of the major differences between us is, I know who my enemies are. You are still formulating in your mind strategies to determine who they are. So I’m light years ahead of you.
I’ll do a random survey of our local white pages.
Well anyone not like you for starters.
security is an ephemeral concept and peace the only real peace we will all attain in the grave.
Mostly due to dysfunctional corrupt political system.
Partly because I have been writing and sending out my articles (about 17-18 now), responding to reactions to my articles and engaging in discussion and debate via e mail on the issues, wrote an article for the Jewish Tribune out of Toronto – circulation 60 thousand plus, got involved in playing tennis about 5 times per week, but weaned back a few weeks ago to 3 X’s per week, been away a few times in the last 3 or so months to see my kids and grandkids and then they came up to be with us for 10 days last month, etc., etc. etc., all of which contributes to taking me away from my usual Israpundit haunt.
It had nothing to do with you or Ayn. I started back to Israpundit because I am a little less busy now, though I will probably be writing another article or two in the next week. Also have a few other things, unrelated to writing and pro-Israel advocacy to deal with.
Hope that satisfies your curiosity.
If you and others want to ignore what I have to say here, that’s fine by me. I still have my say.
You don’t Narvey why should I ?
Narvey you disappeared from Israpundit for most of the last 3-4 months with only an occasional comment that were for the most part ignored by everyone including me. As soon as ayn reagan is no longer with us you have returned to your old self…. Can you explain this apparent anomaly ?
Yamit, do you think monopolizing this and other discussion threads is going to convert readers to your point of view?
No one can get a word in edgewise and when they do, unless they praise you, you put them down.
Not very considerate Yamit. You stated:
That is quite an emotional statement. Common sense says it is imperative to know what nations trying to get rid of you, want. How else can Israel mount a proper and effective strategy to defend against and overcome her enemies. The old Shakespearean adage, “know thine enemy” was good advice back in the 16th century and still is today.
As for suggesting you figure Israel’s best hope is for “real Jews” to replace BB and Ehud Barak, why do you not consider them “real Jews”?
What is your definition of a “real Jew”?
Who do you say epitomizes your definition of a “real Jew” who you believe can lead Israel to peace and security?
Why have these “real Jews” not been able to rise, get elected and to lead Israel to peace and security?
In discussing or debating things with you Yamit, it is most helpful if you could give specificity to the opinions you lay out on these pages.
Theoretically I’ll wager that I can have a consensus for what I’d like to do to you HYMIE at least 1000%
Theoretically If I could lay my hands on you I’ll bet I could get a census for what I would do to you PESKIN In fact I sure 1000%
Theoretically 100 percent correct
In practical terms 1000 percent wrong. No Israeli consensus for such a draconian measure. No American consensus, No Canadian consensus, no European, the overwhleming opinion is Zilch.
That excuse ” I didn’t vote for him or them” doesn’t cut it.. He governs in your name whether you voted for him or not. You are equally responsible as any who voted for him. A majority of those who did vote is all that counts in the American system. Last time the Liberals hated Bush and complained just as you are over Hussein.
ronAmerica is not a democracy it is a Republic. You only get to vote for representatives. Because they needed vast amounts of capital to win the primaries and then elections they all sell out for the money. call it venture politics. Capital is invested in politicians for ends gained to the investor. If he guesses right he can reap massive Government aid or contracts. Sometimes favorable legislation.
Republicans and Democrats are equally corrupt, incompetent, and populist. Their programs are equally murky. No wonder US voters split between the Republican and Democrat electorate randomly, approximately half in each camp. In a democracy, when major forces are more or less equal, minor swing groups become decisive. Religious parties in Israel and swing districts in the US hold disproportional power over the countries’ policies.
The US, accordingly, fluctuates between pro-business and welfare policies, militancy and pacifism, moral conservatism and permissive nihilism. No policy is implemented, no end achieved, no constituency satisfied.
The ancient Greek democracies never debated such basic issues. All agreed on values: family, plunder, and trade are good. The democratic process determined how to reach those goals.
Americas enemies need not fight the US but only wait for the democratic reversal. A war that drags four or eight years changes the US public mood, unseats the ruling party, and ends up with an American retreat.
Maybe democracies should require a supermajority vote to change an existing policy.
Rongrand, in a sense yamit is correct. It doesn’t mean that the majority think like or agree with either Bush or Obama [evidence: both have “enjoyed’ approval ratings below 50% and Obama has much further down to go], it means that the fact either were elected reflects on the majority. Our government is a product of society, it reflect it even if it is from the apathy of not voting or choosing ignorance by wishing to be entertained or pleasured every moment of your life.
When Americas are informed, the majority usually get it. However, too many rely on the MSM to inform them, if they are informed at all—many aren’t. They are lazy in that regard.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good American people, but America would not be in the place it is now if there weren’t and great number of lazy, drugy, pleasure-holics who don’t have a clue. They don’t vote, or they get hyped-up and vote wrong.
Rongrand, in a sense yamit is correct. It doesn’t mean that the majority think like or agree with either Bush or Obama [evidence: both have “enjoyed’ approval ratings below 50% and Obama has much further down to go], it means that the fact either were elected reflects on the majority. Our government is a product of society, it reflect it even if it is from the apathy of not voting or choosing ignorance by wishing to be entertained or pleasured every moment of your life.
When Americas are informed, the majority usually get it. However, too many rely on the MSM to inform them, if they are informed at all—many aren’t. They are lazy in that regard.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good American people, but America would not be in the place it is now if there weren’t and great number of lazy, drugy, pleasure-holics who don’t have a clue. They don’t vote, or they get hyped-up and vote wrong.
Uncle, shame on you. As an American you are well aware a majority of Americans (sadly) did not an still do not vote. The minority who do vote are driven by the political machines and the liberal left media.
Hopefully the Tea Party movement is getting Americans to think about taking control of their government.
When ever a friend or foe complains about the government I ask if they voted and in most cases they say no and I reply “your the fucking reason for bad government” you have no reason to bitch.
The word ‘fully’ does not belong in the sentence if you wish accuracy. Support for Bush was more a rejection of the far leftists alternative. We see on the left today in Obama’s policies, a move away from sovereignty toward internationalism. With Obama at the helm of the US, Israel is now the chief obstacle to a world order. Jews do not mesh well with Islam and most Israelis demand Israel be a Jewish State. This is in direct conflict to the elitists conception of a multicultural global society—there are relatively few Jews compared to a billion Muslims, so Islam gets a free pass.
Flawed analysis. Saddam was financing international terrorism. Regardless of what the MSM says, there are plenty of docs to back this up. He also sent nuclear scientists to Libya and financed work there; he had out-sourced nuclear and WMD programs to Libya due to the inspections in Iraq. Qaddafi opened up and gave up the programs as soon as Bush went into Iraq. Coincidence?
In order to say things are worse, we have to know what things would be like if Saddam was left alone. Can you say Saddam would not have nukes, that Iran would not have a nuke program, that there would not have been thousands more killed by terrorism, that Iraq and Iran, though not friendly would not have turned against Israel together? Remember, during the Gulf War Saddam sent all his aircraft to Iran to keep them from being destroyed so it may not be unreasonable to imagine that they would attack Israel militarily or diplomatically at the UN.
Saddam is dead. Good riddance, Bush did the right thing IMHO. Besides, what would Saddam do to stop Iranian nukes? Get some for himself? How would that be good for Israel or the US?
What happened after Iraq with Iran is simple to explain, and it is not totally Bush’s fault.
With the public being brow beaten by liberals and the MSM daily with gloom news about Iraq, and everything, Bush eventually lost all political capital. If, when he went into Iraq, a majority of UN nations had enough moral conviction to support the action, the MSM could not have done what they did. Bush likely would have done something about Iran also if UN nations would have joined in and supported it. As it turned out, he acted almost alone and was basically politically bankrupt when he left office. You can’t do this stuff alone, but inaction was not an option; Bush probably did about as much as he had political power to pull off.
For Iran, I blame the UN, European nations, liberals, the MSM, and ignorance [but I repeat myself]. Iran could have been dealt with under Bush but there was not the will for it so GW was hung out to dry.
Get this strait, I’m no big fan of GW’s politics either, but he got some things partly right. Now, everything is wrong.
The idea that Saddam needed to stay in power so Iraq would equalize Iran is flawed. It is a ticking time-bomb. Any ‘stability’ would have been deceptive and the cost to humanity no small matter, even the time were prolonged.
The correct thinking would have been to take out Saddam and proceed to Iran as soon as they began threatening other nations with destruction and nuclear ambitions were apparent. But the world community didn’t have the morality or guts for that, so the world will now pay the price.
What’s better for the world, a nuclear Iraq and and a nuclear Iran each as weights in the world balance, or two nations of angry goat farmers? because from what I can tell, those are the choices.
Bush was and still is an idiot. Gore and Kerry were even bigger idiots. Therein lies the Problem Americans or should I say too many Americans are idiots as well. They will produce presidents that I would never hire in any of my businesses.
In the American political system truth is an endangered commodity and to be elected a candidate must reach out to the broadest and the lowest common denominator. Seems to me in America that common denominator is very low especially when affirmative action norms are transcendent.
At least Bush had and ran his own businesses, even if into the ground. He was a 2 time governor from a major state and therefore had a public record by which to appraise and evaluate. Hussein? His election proves that America and Americans are not worthy of keeping their once great country.
America has become mediocre 2nd rate and chasing 3rd rate.
It was never Bush or even Obama it is Americans. Those leaders only reflect a majority of other Americans.
Not very pretty after so much promise. pity!!!
All of you are dealing in intellectual masturbation.
The only solution is reconquest of the whole Gaza strip and depopulation of all it’s inhabitants.
Any other proposed solution involves not only gross violation of Halacha, but an advanced step in the dissolution of the third Jewish Commonwealth.
Narvey I am sick and tired of hearing what Those nations trying to kill me or eliminate me want. Get rid of BB and Barak, replace them with real Jews and we would not be having this conversation.
Sorry Sarahsue I dozed off last night in front of my computer screen woke up suddenly by my dog nudging me to let her out. I saw your comment and started to answer through a lot of grogginess. I inadvertently pushed post button and couldn’t see enough even to edit so I will try again while I’m still lucid.
Ted’s spanner blocked my reply if he posts it soon fine if not I woll redo it again
Many deepest apologies for being sloppy
Sorry Sarahsue I dozed off last night in front of my computer screen woke up suddenly by my dog nudging me to let her out. I saw your comment and started to answer through a lot of grogginess. I inadvertently pushed post button and couldn’t see enough even to edit so I will try again while I’m still lucid.
I agree that Sam seems not to like Christians. I don’t know what his personal life experiences were or what might have influenced his thinking. He never gets personal beyond his comment. He just may have a different life experience than you or others here. He might read history different. He might view Judaism differently than you and Ted even me.
I showed I believe that the word goy is a perfectly proper Hebrew and Yiddish noun. Yes it has and can be used in a pejorative sense and Fistel probably meant it that way. That’s his opinion if so. I don’t think Christians need any special protection or special consideration from us if any here feels a need or has a compelling reason to criticize them. unless you can defend or counter such criticism by substantiated or convincing argument then his opinion stands with equal weight against any other opinion.
In politically correct America it would be rare for your friends and neighbors to say anything to you or within ear shot, any references to Jews or Israel in the nature of Jew hatred. There are hundreds and thousands of Christian Sites on the web check out some of the more well known’ it was an eye opener for me at least.
A Christian friend recently suggested to me “A simple, inexpensive solution: pulverize Jerusalem. Think of the problems that would solve.” After a few seconds of shock, I realized the suggestion as the quintessence of messianic attitude toward Israel. Christians have exterminated the Jews for fifteen centuries, and neither the Christian religion nor mentality has changed.
Most Christians don’t care about the Jews and would rather see the nasty nation disappear. The survival of Jesus’ murderers challenges Christian doctrine; if Judaism is right then Christianity is wrong. Jews try to understand why the good American or British Christians refused to bomb the Nazi death camps. The answer is simple: the Nazis did the thing most natural to Christians. Germans viewed the extermination similarly: many detested the gruesome rumors about the death factories, but most Germans recognized that they had to do the aesthetically unpleasant thing and finally solve the Jewish problem.
American newspapers dwelt on the unaesthetic aspects of the genocide. Little attention was paid to the annihilation of Jewish culture.
Messianic churches don’t want a secure and prosperous Israel. Many rational leaders and compassionate Christians side with the Jews, but the core attitude toward Israel views her as a springboard for the eventual triumph of Christianity. To that end, Israel should not be secure. Jews who fit the messianic description must suffer, shrink, fall into (leftist) idolatry, and eventually be annihilated. Few Christians subscribe to the alternate concept that the Messiah comes on a wave of peace and prosperity.
The world did not pressure Russia over the immense atrocities commited against Chechnya, or China over the Uighurs. The world cares nothing about the Basques, Bretons, Red Indians, and scores of other oppressed minorities. The United States is built on occupied land. But the entirely insignificant tribe of Palestinian Arabs reaps international attention.
The same media provides no coverage of other suffering Arabs: Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Christians in Egypt, Palestinians in Kuwait, etc. The only conceivable reason for the world’s passion for the Palestinians is anti-Semitism. Most anti-Semitic canards hold a bit of distorted truth, and so the Palestinian canard is true to an extent: Palestinians are much better off under Israeli rule, but they are less free, and most importantly, non-sovereign. But the screams in support of the Palestinian Arabs are not meant to support them, but rather to condemn Jews.
Jews have never felt comfortable in any Christian country; even the US was deeply anti-Semitic until the mid-twentieth century at least. Israeli problems with Arab nationalists stem in large measure from Christian actions. Christian nations pushed Israel into indefensible borders by carving Jordan and Palestine out of the land of Israel. Arabs might not fight a relatively large Israel in the borders of the Promised Land, but a beach-strip Israel is provocatively indefensible. The Christian state of America, rather than Muslim Egypt, forced Israel to give away the Sinai. Christian powers finance the Arabs’ wars with Israel by oil purchases, and enable those wars by selling Arabs advanced weapons. Whatever the liberal rabbis are saying now, the Rambam declared in the Laws of Kings, chapter 11, “Jesus of Nazareth… caused Israel to perish by the sword and to have their remnant scattered and degraded. He replaced the Torah and led astray most of the world to serve a god besides the Lord.”
Christian support for Israel is exaggerated. A two-thousand-year-old anti-Semitic mentality cannot change in a few years. Israel enjoys support from several messianic movements, but these are no more than the fringes of Christianity. Even for those churches, Israel is only an instrument for the messianic event. Should the Jewish state perish in an apocalyptic war, messianists will only see that as furthering their aims.
There are many sensible Christians who like the Jews, and still more of those who hate Muslims and view Jews as useful allies. But Israel can’t ever count on the Christian mainstream. Curious indifference is the best attitude among Christians the Jews could hope for.
Christianity wants a specific Israel—the lamb of Isaiah.
Those who suggest Egypt take over Gaza, forget that Egypt does not want that. Hamas has links to the Muslim Brotherhood that in Egypt has always been seen by Mubarek and Sadat before him, as a security threat to their governance.
2ndly, David is right that so long as Israel maintains some control over Gaza, the Muslims and their Western sycophants will continue to say that Gaza is not free and will turn to blame Israel.
David is wrong however to have stated that Israpundit fully supported Bush. Bush policies that weighed against Israel’s immediate and longer term interests, were not supported at all.
Compared to Bush however, Obama is proving to be an abomination as regards Israel. Others have dealt with Obama’s anti-Israel stance in great detail, so I needn’t expand on that those views, save to reference them.
3rdly, if an independent Palestinian state were to emerge, the West speaks of linking Gaza and the West Bank by some kind of land bridge. It seems the world is calling for a contiguous Palestinian state between the two areas and it is fine with them that for these Palestinian state areas to be contiguous, Israel must cease to be.
4thly, Palestinian dreams for self determination are bound up in Israel’s eventual destruction and Palestinians will take all of Israel for themselves. Even maps of the region distributed by Palestinians show no Israel and I believe there is such map permanently hanging in some area at the U.N.
It is naive to think that by enabling an independent and prosperous Palestinian state to emerge, that prosperity per se will wean Palestinians from their culture of Jew/Israel hatred and replace that with a culture that sees value in their own peaceful lives, rather then the value of their lives being increased with the death of Israelis and the destruction of Israel.
Enabling an independent Palestinian state without making it conditional on Palestinians giving up their culture of Jew/Israel hatred which fuels intractable dreams for Israel’s ultimate end, will not bring peace. Rather it will bring a peaceful hudna until the Palestinians using their prospertity, will ultimately strengthen themselves sufficiently to believe they can again launch another genocidal effort against Israel on both the military battlefield and in the war of words and ideas.
Finally, there is a real question as to whether the Palestinians, should they get their own independent state will be allowed to keep it or will Egypt, Syria, Jordan or other Arab/Middle Eastern states allow for Palestinians to be independent of their hegemony?
This site fully supported Bush when he ran for office. Now we see the result: he initiated a war with Iraq and toppled Saddam, the only counterveiling force against Iran. With Iraq out of the picture, Iran went on to become a major power in the region, with the result of now threatening Israel and obtaining nukes.
Gaza: clearly Israel does not occupy that area but it does control what goes in, and so it is the “guardian,” which for many world-wide is viewed as gate keepers to a prison. Give up the area and control of it. With one stipulation: any rocket, each and every one, will be met with the same number in return, an eye for an eye.Let Gaza begin to flourish, nor not, and let them look to the West Bank to see what options they have for rebuilding. Israel is strong enough to chance this and to regain the heating up propaganda war as well as getting out of this demoralizing situation. So long as Israel lets the world know that they will free up those thugs but will do everything at every turn to hit back when necessary, there is little to lose.
My oversight apologies Ted, Sarahsue I second your congratulations to Ted.. Ted is a good person, maybe even too good.
I read this second and replied specifically to this: I am with SarahSue and Calvary. The use of the Yiddish word “goyim” reflects an earlier era and ignores that many of the goyim are our best friends.
I agree that Same seems not to like Christians. I don’t know what his personal life experiences were or are that might have influenced his thinking. He never gets personal beyond his comment. He just may have a different life experience than you or others here, He might read history different. He might view Judaism different than you and Ted. All individually or combined shapes his and our views.
I showed I believe that the word goy is a perfectly proper Hebrew and Yiddish noun. Yes it has and can be used in a pejorative sense and Fistel probably meant it that way. That’s his opinion if so. I don’t think Christians need any special protection or special consideration from us if any here feels a need to criticize them. unless you can defend or counter criticism by data or sources. His opinion stands with equal weight against any other opinion.
I will answer # 3 in general:
Sarahsue depending where we grew up and may live today in America, who are parents were and are we an all have different experiences than another that’s a given. I too had Christian friends and a number of Christian girlfriends at least one that was serious. So my opinion vis a vis recent past is out of date I do read and I do observe and I still have and maintain friendships and business relationships in the States as well as my whole family.
In politically correct America it would be rare for your friends and neighbors to to say anything to you or within ear shot any references to Jews or Israel in the nature of Jew hatred. There are hundred and thousands of Christian Sites on the web check out some of the more well known
You should see and then know what is said behind closed doors.
According to every poll I’ve seen in the past 2-3 years, Jewishish hatred
Unfortunately, there are probably a quite a few. The World Council of Churches, and churches that have been institutionalized for hundreds of years promote a Marxists agenda which by nature will foster antisemitism. These are represented by the long established liberal mainstream denominations which tend to oppose Israel. The ideological divide between churches over Israel, liberties, and social moral values, comes down to conservative vs. liberal—usually, the institutionalized church vs. the independent church. Independent churches by far and away support Israel and are outspoken in regards to moral values. The old religious institutions attempt to influence and fit into pervading worldviews and the current political system.
First, kudos to you Ted, for being published in The American Thinker. And kudos to them for publishing you.
Second, Yamit, why are you picking on Ted when I was the one who first objected to goyim? It just seems that rather than using a word that reflects an ‘us’ verses ‘them’ attitude, it would be better to call a spade a spade.
Third,
I also lump all Christians in the friendly category.
Let me explain why.
All my live I have been surrounded by Christians, Catholics and agnostics. They were my neighbors, friends, co-workers and enemies. Right now I am living among people so ignorant of the Bible, that I have to explain what the Sabbath is. They are shocked and surprised when I tell them the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments! When they found out I was a Jew, they showed no animosity whatsoever.
In all my years, I have never heard one single word against Israel or Jews for that matter. When jokes were told, they were Polish jokes, never Jewish jokes. Whenever Israel was brought up, they all agreed with me, that Israel needs to be unconditionally supported.
The only time I have ever heard criticism was on TV or the radio. When I when on-line some years ago, that was my first taste of anti-Semitism. And what a shock it was.
Yamit, I know that you have shown headlines and articles of churches with a bellicose attitude towards Israel. I contend that they speak for a very few. They may get the headlines, but the silent majority do not agree with them.
Right now, as I watch primaries around the country, Israel is part of most campaign platforms. The anti-Israel candidates, by and large, are being voted out. The reason is simple. If you have strong, conservative values and believe in democracy, then you unconditionally support other countries with these same values.
I suspect that it is the loud voices that are making Christians look bad. These loud voices are a small minority, and just like the gays and liberals, out-shout the majority. They will not have the last word.
To attribute human emotions to the creator places anthropomorphic attributes on the deity thereby negating his incorporeal essence. That essentially is paganism.
As a mature Jew I support any Christians right to exist and to self defense.
Christian friends. I can’t know who is a friend or an enemy until such a time when that friendship is tested. What ever your personal feelings in this matter I would not want to put my life or survival in the hands or dependent on those who you elevate without an iota of justification as friend. I am speaking here of course in the collective sense and not in the singular personal.
Long before Christians adopted this commandment as their major tenet, Jews were told, “You shall love your fellow [man] just as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Not to the extent that you love yourself, but in the way you do. Your love for your fellow man should be in the likeness (cmo) of your love for yourself. An alternative reading is that you should love a man who is like you, your fellow man.
The common translation of r-y-h as “neighbor” does not relate the word correctly. In Psalm 45:15, for example, the virgins in the king’s wife’s train are definitely not her neighbors. The translation friends also falls short, as Leviticus 19:13 won’t prohibit trampling upon one’s friend. The r-y-h sense has to do with following, going in the same direction. That sense makes for the double meaning of r-y-h: evil (to bend someone, to steer away) and friend (to bend together with someone, to have a common path unlike the others’).Thus, r-y-h is not an abstract neighbor, but someone sufficiently close that you “bend the rules” together, and deviate from the others’ road. For example, the builders of the Tower of Babel are described as r-y-h, fellows. The proper translation of r-y-h is compatriot, rather than neighbor (which co- relates the sense of sticking together) or fellow.
The critical difference between us and the Christians is whom we consider a fellow man. Modern Christians unrealistically pronounce all people fellows, and surely fail to treat them as such. But their own parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive: even a despised Samaritan could be one’s fellow if the Samaritan helped him.
A fellow Therefore is one from whom help is expected. Such a definition surely excludes the Canaanites and Palestinian Arabs from the commandment to love your fellow. It also excludes those who hate the Jews and act in ways to diminish and endanger the Jew in a physical as well as spiritual sense.
Ma Yomru Hagoyim?
WHO GIVES A DAMN!
Ted it is you who misuse,misunderstand both Hebrew and context. It is you who Lumps Christians into a generalized concept and only will criticize the most extreme form of Christian antipathy towards Jews. This attitude is ingeniousness, as it ignores facts and truth, not to mention history. It is you Ted who lump all Christians into a generalized friendly category when all the evidence runs in contradiction to that perception.
In the Torah/Hebrew Bible, goy and its variants appear over 550 times in reference to Israelites and to Gentile nations. The first recorded usage of goy occurs in Genesis 10:5 and applies innocuously to non-Israelite nations. The first mention in relation to the Israelites comes in Genesis 12:2, when G-d promises Abraham that his descendants will form a goy gadol (“great nation”). While the earlier books of the Hebrew Bible often use goy to describe the Israelites, the later ones tend to apply the term to other nations.
Some Bible translations leave the word Goyim untranslated and treat it as the proper name of a country in Genesis 14:1. Bible commentaries suggest that the term may refer to Gutium. The “King of Goyim” was Tidal.
In Rabbinic Judaism
One of the more poetic descriptions of the chosen people in the Old Testament, and popular among Jewish scholarship, as the highest description of themselves: when G-d proclaims in the holy writ, ‘Goy Ehad B’Aretz’, or ‘a unique nation upon the earth!’.
The Rabbinic literature conceives of the nations (goyim) of the world as numbering seventy, each with a discrete language.
On the verse, “He [G-d] set the borders of peoples according to the number of the Children of Israel,” Rashi explains: “Because of the number of the Children of Israel who were destined to come forth from the children of Shem, and to the number of the seventy souls of the Children of Israel who went down to Egypt, He set the ‘borders of peoples’ [to be characterized by] seventy languages.”
The Ohr Hachayim maintains that this is the symbolism behind the Menorah: “The seven candles of the Menorah [in the Holy Temple] correspond to the world’s nations, which number seventy. Each [candle] alludes to ten [nations]. This alludes to the fact that they all shine opposite the western [candle], which corresponds to the Jewish people.”
Modern usage
As noted, in the above-quoted Rabbinical literature the meaning of the word “goy” shifted the Biblical meaning of “a people” which could be applied to the Hebrews/Jews as to others into meaning “a people other than the Jews”. In later generations, a further shift left the word as meaning an individual person who belongs to such a non-Jewish people.
In modern Hebrew and Yiddish the word goy is the standard term for a gentile.
In English, the use of the word goy can be controversial. Like other common (and otherwise innocent) terms, it may be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews. To avoid any perceived offensive connotations, writers may use the English terms “Gentile” or “non-Jew”.
In Yiddish, it is the only proper term for Gentile and many bilingual English and Yiddish speakers use it dispassionately or even deliberately.
The term shabbos goy refers to a non-Jew who performs duties that Jewish law forbids a Jew from performing on the Sabbath, such as lighting a fire to warm a house.
In our everyday colloquial Hebrew Most Israelis use the term freely to denote non Jews, gentiles and Gentile Nations.
Ted, Black in Hebrew is What? Black in Yiddish is what? The use of either term can be taken and meant pejoratively or not.
How do you know that Fistel used a perfectly legitimate term as pejorative?
My article was published by American Thinker. For obvious reasons I wanted to share a comment that was made there.
I kid you not.
I am with SarahSue and Calvary. The use of the Yiddish word “goyim” reflects an earlier era and ignores that many of the goyim are our best friends.
Samuel, get real. If Israel turned her back on Gaza, Iran would move in.
If we only had Hamas to worry about, that would be one thing. But my concern is that when war breaks out Israel will have to contend with rockets not only from Gaza but also from Lebanon and Syria and Iran. She will have her hands full. So I view it as a tragedy that she has stood by and allowed both Hamas and Hezbollah to rearm.
SaraSue, as a Christian supporter of Israel, I second that notion. To underscore your point, the church I go to (most would label it ‘evangelical’) distributed the following flier last Sunday:
Many of the churches in our family of churches (a couple thousand world-wide) will also open their doors for a live webcast of the event.
Samuel’s attitude plays to the worst stereotypes of Jews and is self-defeating. I cringe to use the word – it makes me feel like a politically correct leftist, ick! – but it’s also bigoted. But, hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he loves ‘goyim’.
No matter. Mature Christians aren’t swayed by personal insults. We fully support Israel’s right to exist and its right to self-defense.
There’s this propaganda video out being floated around which needs to be refuted. Does anyone have information to debunk this?
http://uruknet.com/?p=m66882&hd=&size=1&l=e
Samuel,
Gaza is already unoccupied by Israel. There is only one Israeli left, Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit captured by terrorists in June 25, 2006.
The liberals keep pushing this ‘occupier’ canard. Trying to disprove a lie over and over again, will not change their minds. They will just come up with more new lies.
Why should Israeli turn their affairs over to any entity, especially the EU? The EU wants what is best for the muslims, not Israel.
Israel is more that capable of managing her own affairs. That she is not is another lie by the left.
This has already happened. The hamas and the fatah cannot agree on anything except that they want to destroy Israel. They kill each other over the slightest pretext. They accuse each of as many things as they accuse Israel.
Who are these goyim you keep referring to? If you mean muslims, say muslims. To use an all encompassing term such as goyim, is to lump good guys and bad guys together. It is a fact that the Christians that support Israel greatly outnumber the liberal Jews, whose support is tepid at best.
Seems to me, that pushing bad ideas is as harmful as pushing lies. What difference does it make to Israel if she is destroyed by murderous muslims or well meaning ‘friends’?
Let my gazans go:
1. Hizbolla in Lebanon stocked up with missiles. They unleashed them at Israel. Israel retaliated massively. Hizbolla has restocked with more missiles than ever, but is now reluctant to use them. This is known as deterrence. Israel must be willing to make the goyim pay a massive price for attacking the Jews.
2. Hamas in Gaza got some missiles, and shot them one at a time at Israel, a few every week. Israel showed restraint. Hamas was emboldened, and increased the rate of fire. Israel finally retaliated massively. Hamas is now restocking with missiles, but is reluctant to use them.
3. As long as Israel is willing to use massive force against the goyim, they will be reluctant to attack the Jews.
4. Currently, Israel supplies Hamas with free gasoline, electricity, water and food. The goyim still consider Jewish Israel to be an occupier.
5. If Israel closes its gates entirely to Gaza, and hands Gaza over to the EU and Egypt, then it can claim that it is now truly no longer an occupier.
6. This also splits “palestine” into two separate halves, which will probably never come back together.
7. Israel will have to be willing to retaliate massively against Gaza for any rocket attacks, whether Egypt and the EU are there or not.
I wish I had thought of this plan myself. I don’t see any significant flaws. Am I missing something?
Sara Sue is definately correct; however, Israel will not have the oportunity to throw them out unless Hamas attacks them again seriously. When they do, Israel must toos them out for good.
Yea, Sarahsue is so correct.
The main reason I suppose is FEAR.
Samuel,
The land is not the problem, the people are the problem. If Israel gives Gaza over to the control of others, only more problems will arise.
If what Ted predicts comes true, and there is no reason to doubt this, than turning Gaza over to Egypt will be handing it over to enemies worse than the Hamas.
Have we learned nothing from the past? Did giving Gaza to the hamas reap any rewards? If not, then why is giving Gaza up again seen as a solution? To suggest that the EU is part of the answer is naïve in the extreme. Lebanon anyone?
Since anything Israel does results in condemnation, then Israel needs to do what is good for her and her only. The muslims in Gaza need to be kicked out and the land reclaimed for the Israelis. The muslims were given a chance, they failed, now is the time to declare the experiment over.
There seems to a worldwide mindset that Israel needs to work with the muslims. Why? Have we learned nothing from sixty years of rejection? Their goals are to remove Israel from the map. They reject peace at every turn. Why then to we continue to promote them as peace partners?
Nope, the only solution is for them to go. Why is this so hard to understand?
Thanks for reminding me that the Alawites are Shiite.
Another take on the new middle east:
1. Obama’s ultimate intention is the destruction of Jewish Israel. Because of his implacable hatred of Jews and love of muslims, he considers Israel a liability to America. (In fact, Israel is pretty insignificant on a global scale. Its value is purely symbolic.)
2. Syria is predominantly sunni. But it is ruled by a tyrannical tribe of heretical shiites (the alawites). So it is a natural ally of Iran.
3. Egypt will sooner or later fall to radical sunni islam. Israel should get ready to deal with that. In the meantime, Israel should totally sever itself from Gaza, and hand it over to the EU and Egypt. If nothing else, this will permanently split muslim palestine into two separate entities which will never unite.
4. Jordan will sooner or later fall to radical sunni islam, and will form a federation with the west bank palestinians.
5. That will leave Israel facing militant Jew-hating sunnis in a southern alliance, and militant Jew-hating shiites in a northern shiite-turkish alliance. Hopefully the shiites and suniis will be more interested in destroying each other before they get around to Jewish Israel.
6. The northern alliance has some weak links. Israel should consider supporting the Syrian sunnis against the alawites, and the kurds against the turks, arabs, and iranians.
6. Sooner or later, America will abandon Israel. Israel had better get ready for that, too.