posted July 30, 2006 12:57 PM            

The following are excerpts from an interview with Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar, which aired on Syrian TV on July 21, 2006. It is followed by an appearance on Syrian TV from November in which he again calls Jews "the descendents of apes and pigs," as well as another interview from last August during which he calls for the stoning of AIDS patients.

Syrian TV, July 21, 2006

Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar: "Jihad is now incumbent upon each and every Muslim, Arab, and Christian. The time has come for the duty of Jihad."

[...]

"Who occupied the Al-Aqsa Mosque? Who attacked the prophets? Who killed the prophets? Even the Koran depicts the people of Israel in a very sinister and dark way. Allah did not curse any people, not even the polytheists, not even the idol worshippers. The Koran did not curse any of these. The only ones who were cursed are those murderous criminals."

[...]

"The Koran used terms that are closer to animals than to humans only with regard to those people. Look at the bestiality they demonstrate in the destruction of the Arab, Lebanese, and Palestinian people. This is why the people who were given the Torah were likened to a donkey carrying books. They were also likened to apes and pigs, and they are, indeed, the descendants of apes and pigs, as the Koran teaches us."

Syrian TV, November 8, 2005

TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=914

Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar: "Syria now represents the opposition to the Greater Middle East plan. We've discussed this in the past. Syria represents the opposition, the last line of defense. All the forces of the Arab and Islamic nations everywhere must be mobilized to defend this last line of defense. The last line of defense is what guarantees that the values of this nation will endure."

[...]

"We must know that opposing the Zionist plots, which aim to put on the throne of the Middle East the descendants of... those whom the Koran called the descendents of apes and pigs, who raise... They are the ones who will sit on the throne of the Greater Middle East. There is no doubt about this. The Koran said this, not me."

Interviewer: "Yes."

'Abd Al-Sattar: "No one can say... This is a Koranic text. We don't want an American Koran or Islam. Islam is Islam, and the Koran is the Koran. One cannot change even a single letter in it."

Syrian TV, August 30, 2005

TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=846

Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar: "All the diseases that have to do with sexual organs, mainly AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and so on... When these diseases appeared, they killed millions. More people were killed by these diseases than by wars. The only reason for this is the straying from the divine way regarding fornication, and when I say fornication - 'Do not even approach abomination' - this means fornication, homosexuality, and all the sexual deviation it entails."

Host: "Everything that has to do with abominations."

'Abd Al-Sattar: "'Do not even approach abomination, surely it is a foul thing and an evil way.' When Islam set the punishment [for fornication]... Let's see now... What do they do now with people with AIDS? They put the AIDS patient in isolation. This patient... If you go to the dentist, you are afraid of the toothbrush.

"This is why there's a hidden desire in one's heart... If only we had stoned everyone who had committed this abomination - wouldn't it have been better than letting these diseases infect others, spreading to millions around the world?"

Host: "Most certainly."

'Abd Al-Sattar: "Most certainly. The entire world, from the U.S. to the most distant country, acknowledges that if they had stoned the fornicators, and prevented abomination, things would have been much better."

posted July 30, 2006 01:46 PM              

What I make of it is this:

He sounds like his American Christian counter part, Pat Robinson. Here he talks about the Jews and Pat Robinson talks about the Islamic people in the same way. This religious fanatic calls for a Jihad, Pat Robinson calls for Armageddon. Different religions, different names for their Holy War but basically they are cut from the same mold.

Neither man represents the truth of their professed religions as both the Islamic and Christian religion are based on the belief in one God, peace and love and caring for your fellow man.

posted July 30, 2006 02:33 PM            

You gave me some leftist moral relativism instead.

Save your Pat Robertson scarecrow for another argument.

As usual, you missed something Mirandee.

This Syrian minister says the Koran calls jews the decendents of apes and pigs.

"The Koran used terms that are closer to animals than to humans only with regard to those people. Look at the bestiality they demonstrate in the destruction of the Arab, Lebanese, and Palestinian people. This is why the people who were given the Torah were likened to a donkey carrying books. They were also likened to apes and pigs, and they are, indeed, the descendants of apes and pigs, as the Koran teaches us."

Now, I don't recall Robertson ever suggesting Muslims are a lower lifeform...and if he had, it would have been printed on the front pages of every leftist newspaper in America. That's about the only time Robertson ever comes to my attention.

BTW, are you still holding to your statement the Palestanians are descendents of the Philistines The 2 P's theory of descendents.

Or, did you take the correction Isis gave you to heart?

That wasn't very nice of you in any event Mirandee...considering the insult it is to call anyone a Philistine.

posted July 31, 2006 12:59 AM              

quote:

---

Neither man represents the truth of their professed religions as both the Islamic and Christian religion are based on the belief in one God, peace and love and caring for your fellow man.

---

Im surprised jwhop didn't start with "what crap"

Nowhere does it say the Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs. There are verses in the Quran that characterize people who don't follow God's laws and orders as apes and pigs though.

Yes, Muslims believe everything in the Quran is God's word, uncorrupted.

God, in the Quran, also states that Jews were God's favoured people.

The way this Syrian Deputy Minister labelled all Jews as descendants of apes and pigs is hurtful and a deviation of what is truly in the Quran. It appears he was mostly saying it out of anger and to instigate Jihad.

I think Pat Robertson's suggestions were far worse. He was saying that our religion is based on evil and killing.

In contrast, the Quran was only giving animal like qualities to people who dont follow God's commands.

Whether the Israelites or Palestinians were there first is not the point. Yes we know the Jews have lived there for thousands of years. But Palestinians have lived there for a long time too. Was it right for them to be kicked out of their homes? Or are they of lesser value compared to the Jews that displaced them? Im all for Jews, Muslims and Christians living together. However, that is not what the Zionists and Zionist supporters want. And that's what many Palestinians know.

Ok, now answer me this:

Who was it that persecuted, enslaved and dispersed them, as well as destroyed their temple?

Who is it that slaughtered them like cattle not even a century ago?

posted July 31, 2006 01:12 AM              

Jews As Apes and Swine
Filed under: Islam — eteraz @ 1:23 am

When I was a child in Pakistan my mother and I hired a religious tutor, a “maulvi,” to come to our house and help us do exegesis (tafsir) of the entire Quran. I was nine. It was fun being a student alongside my mom because she did all the work and knew all the answers and I could zone out. The maulvi would come on his bicycle, guzzle down a gallon of butter-milk and shove down the requisite two or three potato-filled parathas and then proceed to go through the Quran with us, verse by verse, and reference the works of exegetes like Mawdudi and Ibn Kathir to tell us what each verse meant. It was an enjoyable experience until my mother told my dad that the maulvi hit on her. My mother dropped out and I had to go to the maulvi at his dingy mosque in the commercial section. A week into my solitary lessons we were discussing Moses and his people that the maulvi told me the astounding fact that once upon a time the Jews were turned into monkeys. Of course at first I didn’t believe this, but he told me it was right there in the Quran. As I was leaving he told me that some of the Jews were actually pigs (the word he used was the Urdu word “khanzeer” which is closer to “swine.”) A few days later I too stopped going to the maulvi because I found I could use the money my father gave me to pay the maulvi and instead spend it in the toy market. The whole idea of Jews as apes and pigs was forgotten.

Many years later in America, I started noticing, especially in light of the rhetoric coming out of Palestine, that an astounding number of Muslims ascribed to the notion that Jews were the descendants of apes and pigs. On the grapevine I heard that Shaykh Tantawi, head of the Al-Azhar University, the purported fount of Sunni learning, had made public statements about the Jews being descendents of apes and pigs. I then found confirmation that other leading Muslim scholars were propounding this view, including none other than the designated Imam of the Holy Kaba in Mecca: Shaykh Sudais (who strangely weeps through his entire prayers). An uneducated, sexually frustrated maulvi in Pakistan was one thing; heads of the house of learning (Azhar) and worship (Mecca) in Islam ascribing to such ideas were quite another. I decided it was time to see for myself what was going on. I told myself, surely this is not Islam. We cannot really believe that people are descendents of animals. So I turned to the Quran, hoping that those three words “Jews,” “apes,” and “swine” were not in the same paragraph.

Much to my disappointment, they were. Verses 5:60, 2:65, and 7:166. [Following are the Yusuf Ali interpretations].

5:60

quote:

---

Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”

---

2:65

quote:

---

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

---

7:166

quote:

---

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

---

They were right there, staring me in the face. I was deflated. After a long-standing stand-off against God due to fashionable collegiate atheism, I had only recently affirmed Allah in my heart. Upon seeing the verses I felt how I felt when I saw the second plane hit the tower (because the second one confirmed premeditation). I remembered a particular scene from Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” where Gibril and Chamcha see a group of snakes, lizards and reptiles in a jail and they wonder what has happened to them, and the reptiles reply something to the effect of, “they [jailers] described us.” Rushdie’s point is that language can dehumanize, and if language is our primary tool for knowledge, then a person described as less than a human might as well be turned into what he has been described as. There is power in words, to put it mildly.

I have a lot of respect for the Jewish tradition (whatever that is). To me, it is Moses and Maimonides and Spinoza and Marx and Levinas and Buber and Brandeis and Derrida. I have taken in as much Bellow in my life as I have Bukhari (the hadith scholar). As much Itzhak Perlman as I have Rumi. These verses represented something more than just a bump on the road to reconciliation with Islam and thus I found myself faced up against an edifice of Islamic tradition I never intended to be opposed to. Much of the tradition, on the authority of Ibn Kathir, believed that when the Quran said the Jews turned into apes and swine, that, in fact, is what happened. Literally. This view, taken to its logical conclusion led other commentators such as Qurtubi (though memory fails me at the moment), to wonder how those turned into apes and swine could have off-spring. Even the monist mystic Ibn ‘Arabi got in on the debate and concluded that those turned into animals are what gave us the animals of today.

My mother tried to give the verses a spin but when I showed her the translations cited above, she shook her head and shrugged her shoulders. A friend tried to point out that at least the animals the Jews were turned into (apes and pigs) were those with whom humans had the most genetic similarity. I appreciated his effort but this was not enough for me. It became compulsion and I decided that it was time that I stopped looking around for answers and read the Quran myself. So, instead of looking on the web for translations I went and purchased a copy of the translation of the Quran as performed by Leopold Weiss, a man who had been a Jew and then converted to Islam, eventually becoming the first citizen of Pakistan and the close friend of the late Kind Saud. Not only that, but I recalled that Leopold Weiss (Muhammad Asad as he was later called) stated in his biography that the biggest hurdle in his acceptance of Islam had been that he could not accept that Muhammad was divinely inspired. Until a few months ago, this had been my particular problem as well, and so I thought, surely a man who had the chutzpah to state openly his doubts in the Prophet and then found a way to resolve them, could be considered a serious scholar.

I started with verse 5:60 in his translation.

quote:

---

Say: “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? They whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into apes and swine because they worshipped the powers of evil:” these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers].

---

The first thing I noted, that I had missed the first time around when looking at this verse, was the fact that there was no mention of Jews. “They whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned” were the ones turned into apes and swine “because they worshipped the powers of evil.” Of course, that did not mean this verse didn’t refer to Jews; oh no, it did refer to them. Except, it turned out, that this verse not only referred to Jews, but also to Christians. A subsequent pharse refers to “Men of God” and “Rabbis” - with the Men of God being a reference to Christians (especially in light of the fact that in verse 66 the Gospel is mentioned explicitly). My headache wasn’t gone, but I felt a little better. A book that did not discriminate in its epithets seemed a lot more palatable than a book that seemed to single out the most persecuted group in the history of mankind. Of course, it was not exactly a relief because now I was confronted with the fact that even more people were being referred to as descendants of apes and swine!

The other two ape and swine verses were limited to Jews, but thankfully they offered a way of resolving the issue.

Here is how Asad had rendered the two verses:

7:166

quote:

---

and then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said unto them: “Be as apes despicable!”"‘

---

2:65

quote:

---

for you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, “Be as apes despicable!”

---

That “as” I knew quite well: “So am I as the rich, whose blessed key can bring him to his sweet locked up treasure” said Shakespeare. It was the “as” — the blessed “as” — of metaphor! I rejoiced a hundred times over. A metaphor means that the finality of language is absent. Being “as” something is not the same as being something. Could it be that the Quran was engaged in metaphor-making? If references to apes and swines were metaphors, it meant that the people being referred to had expressed the qualities of an “ape” and the qualities of a “pig.” Given the fact that in classical Arabic an ape was someone impulsive and a pig was someone stubborn, the metaphors seemed almost innocous (Especially since in all languages animals are used as referrants for certain qualities. Once we could learn what qualities classical Arabic invoked when referring to those animals, we could understand what the metaphor was referring to.

Before I got too excited I wanted to be certain this “as” was not a mere blip on the radar. I had too many feelings hurt to risk hurting them again. So I went and consulted another translation, this one by Shakir.

7:166

quote:

---

Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

---

2:65

quote:

---

And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

---

Granted that the other two famous English translations (Yusuf Ali and Pickthall), did not have the metaphorical “as” in them the presence of the “as” in two of the more famous translations was enough to get my mind churning, and this time I was not reliant upon any authority except that of my God given reason. Suddenly I started to see patterns in the Quran that further cast light on these questionable (and certainly questionably used) verses.

First, I noticed that 2:65 was part of a flashback sequence beginning at 2:47 where the Quran was addressing the Jewish and Christian communities in the time of Muhammad and asking them to revisit their own theological histories and their relationship with God. In other words, the addressees were the Jews and Christians of that time (those alive in the life of Muhammad). This is an important distinction because the Quran treats the time during which Muhammad was alive, different than all other times. Things that were allowed, or done, during the life of Muhammad, were often not allowed, or done, after his passing. Consider: Muhammad was allowed to have nine wives, but all other Muslims can, at most, have up to four (and even there the Quran question whether one can act favorably). Muhammad was required to stay up and pray all night; all later Muslims are not so required. Muhammad was the one allowed to exact jizya from the dhimmis; after his passing the distinction was to be abolished (but sadly was not — more on this some other day). Thus, the fact that the Quran directly addressed only those Jews and Christians alive in Muhammad’s time, was significant.

Then, far more astoundingly, I noticed that the sequence starting at 2:47 actually opened with the incredible assertion:

quote:

---

“O children of Israel! Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favoured you above all other people.”

---

Pardon? This seemed to me like the clearest case of the Quran picking favorites, and the presence of verses that spoke favorably of Jews and Christians at the opening of the passage soothed me somewhat further. It more firmly established the conversational nature of the discussion in the Quran. I also recalled the hadith of the Prophet which stated that of all the Prophets, Moses was God’s favorite.

At this point, I wondered whether there were other cases of “animalization” in the Quran. Whether one could truly conclude that the verses that bothered me were metaphors. While others may be aware of more, I found a couple of astounding ones.

In Surah Fil, the Chapter of Elephant, in reference to an attack made upon Mecca before the birth of Muhammad, the Quran says, referring to those that fought the invading army from Yemen:

105:3

quote:

---

let loose upon them great swarms of flying creatures

---

Some Muslim commentators, the same ones that thought that ape and pig were references to literal transformation, have interpreted this verse to mean that a swarm of flying creatures, literally, were let loose upon the invaders. However, when considered in light of classical Arabic, we realize that the idea of a “great swarm of flying creatures” was a metaphor popular among the poets in the day to refer to the state of utter decimation wrought by a group of brave warriors (the metaphor was likely popular because birds (kites and vultures) often hung out near battle-fields).

Another metaphor about animals was popular among poets of pre-Islamic Arabia. Although not in the Quran, this was the notion of the hamstrung camel, which was a metaphor for exile and loneliness. While the hamstrung camel does not appear in the Quran, the pregnant, kneeling, camel does (in the thirtieth Juz), and refers to a feeling of alienation.

In any case, in the Chapter of the Elephant, in a non-Jewish/Christian context, the Quran had animalized a group of people (namely, the Quraysh which included the Prophet’s grandfather). This gave me further proof that the reference to apes and swines was a metaphorical representation of the qualities that certain group of historical people exhibited which were like the qualities exhibited by certain animals familiar to the Arabs and was not a suggestion that Jews or Christians were the descendants of such animals, nor was it meant to read that they were animals to this day. Under classical Arabic, anyone could be an ape (if they were stubborn) just as anyone could be a hamstrung or pregnant camel (if they were lonely).

However, we must not stop here. We must not make theoretical arguments and then be satisfied. Anti-semitism is rife in the Muslim world. It is rife in European Muslim youth. In Iran and Pakistan. Muslims have to take accountability for this. They have to excavate and upturn their tradition to rid it of the strangehold of the maulvis who do not have the intellectual facility, or interest, to assure that Islam conforms to its humanistic impulse. Free it from those who turn metaphors into literalism. The Jews are the most persecuted race on the face of the earth. Yet, that has not stopped the Jews from extending a helpful and supportive hand to all other races. I freely admit that part of the impetus in writing this article has been the friendship of Jewish people such as Annie. In my opinion, no people have had more moral clarity than the Jews. While Muslims are free to disagree with Jews upon matters of politics and policy, they must not compromise their integrity, nor compromise the humanity of the Jews. As I have demonstrated, a little use of one’s mind, will show one a clear path out of the stultification of the intellectual night. The fact that the interpretation of the verses I have set forth is not popular is not an indictment of the Quran; it is an indictment of all Muslims everywhere who have perpetuated dangerous literalism. There are men and women in the tradition who have read these verses as I have. The jurists Mujahid, Asad and Ghamidi being some of them. But it is insufficient for a handful of scholars to believe such things. Our aunts and uncles, neighbors and maulvis, must be taught better.

posted July 31, 2006 01:12 AM              

*********

Middle East Media Research Institute

MEMRI redirects here. See also the Michigan Electronic Medical Record Initiative

The Middle East Media Research Institute, abbreviated MEMRI (Hebrew name המכון לחקר התקשורת המזרח התיכון, abbreviated ממר"י ), is a non-profit organization located in Washington DC, with branch offices in Jerusalem, Berlin, Brussels, Moscow, and London, and a Media Center in Jerusalem. MEMRI provides English translations of Arabic, Persian, and Hebrew media as well as original analyses of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

MEMRI was founded in February 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser. The organisation became more prominent after the September 11, 2001 attacks, due to increased Western public interest in Arab and Iranian affairs. At that time, it expanded its staff considerably, setting up new branches abroad in early 2002. More growth and expansion of focus was experienced during the Iraq war, as media activity increased in that area.

Controversy

High-profile critics of MEMRI include the academics Dr. Juan Cole and Dr. Marc Lynch who have criticized MEMRI on their non-academic blogs; Mr. Brian Whitaker, a former graduate student in Middle Eastern studies and the Middle East Editor of the British newspaper The Guardian, who has criticized MEMRI in the newspaper he edits; and Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London. Discussion of salient points in the controversy is detailed below.
Selectivity of focus

Dr. Cole has accused the institute of "cleverly cherry-pick[ing] the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials," and "selecting the Arabic equivalent" of the likes of Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell or outspoken conservative columnist Ann Coulter. He offers the following as support: "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."[3] Professor Marc Lynch, on his blog "Abu Aardvark", expressed agreement with Cole: "MEMRI routinely selects articles which show the worst of Arab discourse, even where this represents only a minority of actually expressed opinion, while almost never acknowledging the actual distribution of opinion". He added, "it is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your [MEMRI's] service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges. (note: Dr. Lynch did not provide sources substantiating this consensus he mentioned on his blog).[4] Brian Whitaker quotes Dr. William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, describing MEMRI as a service which, "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. Its owners are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue." [5]

In response to concerns of selectivity as posed in an email debate between Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, and Mr. Brian Whitaker published in the Guardian, Carmon replies:

"We aim to reflect main trends of thought and when possible general public opinion. We feature the most topical issues on the Middle Eastern or international agenda. As you might expect, we are now publishing articles from the Iraqi media. We also translate discussions on social issues, such as the status of women in Egypt (Special Dispatches 392, 393, January 2002) and debates on Al-Jazeera TV which reach an estimated 60 million viewers. When controversial matters are aired before such a large audience, Memri does not need to fight shy of translating their contents.
Are the examples chosen extreme? While some of the topics covered do seem extreme to the western reader, they are an accurate representation of what appears in the Arab and Farsi [Persian] media.
If mainstream papers repeatedly publish the Jewish blood libel; accuse Jews and Americans of deliberately spreading Aids or the US of dropping genetically modified foods with the intention of harming people in Afghanistan (the latter allegation made by no less than the editor in chief of the most important government daily in Egypt) Memri is entitled to translate these articles.
There are even more extreme views - like those expressed by most Islamist organisations - which we rarely translate."[6]

In a written response to Cole, Carmon points to MEMRI's Reform Project[7], identifying it as "one of the most important of MEMRI's projects, and which receives much of our energy and resources. The Reform Project is devoted solely to finding and amplifying the progressive voices in the Arab world." Dr. Juan Cole criticized the reform project saying, "MEMRI...highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light. That it also rewards secular Arabs for being secularists is entirely beside the point (and this is the function of the "reform" site)".[3] In another point of criticism of the Reform Project, Mohammed El Oifi wrote in the monthly review of international political affairs Le Monde Diplomatique that MEMRI

"...[takes] hostage Arab liberals by creating the strange category of 'liberal or progressive Arab journalist'. In order to belong to this category, one must pronounce himself against any armed resistance in the Arab world, in particular in Palestine and Iraq; denounce Hamas and Hezbollah; criticize Yasser Arafat; plead for 'realism', that is accept the power structure of foreign domination; be favourable to US projects in the Middle-East; incite Arabs to make self-criticism and renounce the 'conspiracy mentality'. He must also demonstrate a strong hostility to nationalism and political Islam, or even despise the Arab culture. His criticisms must target in particular religious people, and, more generally, societies which would lag behind enlightened Arab leaders. He must praise individual liberties, without insisting however on political liberties and even less on national sovereignty." [8]

The Reform Project has also been praised. Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times credits MEMRI with helping to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears" and "presenting the voices of the...courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist (who) publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers' words also need to be disseminated globally." Friedman quotes Husain Haqqani, author of the book 'Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military':

"The rulers in these countries have no interest in amplifying the voices of moderates because the moderates often disagree with the rulers as much as they disagree with the extremists...You have to deal us moderates into the game by helping to amplify our voices and exposing the extremists and their amen corner." [9]

MEMRI includes this support for the reform project from Richard Holbrooke, the former US Assistant Secretary of State, on their Web site. "Through its Reform Project, MEMRI includes the newly-emerging liberal voices of reform and hope, as well as disturbing echoes of ancient hatreds. Without the valuable research of MEMRI, the non-Arabic speaking world would not have this indispensable window. MEMRI’s Reform Project monitors advocates of reform and liberalism in the Arab and Islamic world, the issues they contend with, as well as the obstacles they face."[10]

Brian Whitaker has made the more general criticism that, "The stories selected by Memri...reflect badly on the character of Arabs." In his 2002 Guardian article entitled, "Selective MEMRI"[11], Whitaker presents several examples where he feels this has taken place. In MEMRI's translation of an article from Saudi Arabia describing how, "Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival", Whitaker objected to MEMRI's claim that "al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" because this "impl[ied] that the article had some form of official approval" and stated that al-Riyadh was a privately owned company. Yigal Carmon, in a follow-up Guardian piece, responded that the Saudi [Arabian] paper al-Riyadh daily is, "identified as government-controlled by the Saudi government's website, by the BBC and by news agencies such as Associated Press."[12] Continuing, Whitaker did not object to MEMRI's choice to translate the article, which he notes, "demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories". Carmon noted that although "Whitaker implies that this was a marginal case...the major Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram follows a similar line... The government-appointed editor-in-chief is currently facing prosecution in France (and possible prosecution in the UK) for incitement to anti-semitism and racial violence." Concerning MEMRI's characterizaation of a poem about a young woman suicide bomber by Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London Al-Qusaybi entitled "The Martyrs" as "praising suicide bombers". Whitaker argues that the poem actually should read as "condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders". Carmon responded that the author "has authored several articles expressing the same political position"[13].

On the core issue of selectivity, in an email debate between Whitaker and Carmon also published in the Guardian, Carmon notes the following: "Memri has never claimed to 'represent the view of the Arabic media', but rather to reflect, through our translations, general trends which are widespread and topical. You accused us of distortion by omission but when asked to provide examples of trends and views we have missed, you have failed to answer."[14]
Accuracy

Minor criticisms of the accuracy of MEMRI's translations have sometimes been raised; for example, Brian Whitaker, in an email debate with Yigal Carmon, accuses the institute of making "annoying, dishonest little tweaks" in its translations and presentations thereof.

In a post on his personal blog[15], Professor Halim Barakat of Georgetown University objected to MEMRI's translation of excerpts from a piece he had written for the Arabic language Al-Hayat newspaper. Responding to the uproar the translation of his polemic produced, he wrote that the translation takes excerpts out of context and, "[translates them] in such a way as to intentionally misrepresent my views, such as replacing the phrase the "Zionist Leadership" with "[Israeli Jews]." In the translation, entitled The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction, the phrase "Israeli Jews" occurs only once in the form Barakat states was mistranslated: "The Israeli Jews are no longer strong in and of themselves; [they are strong] with the strength of their airplanes, missiles, tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, and tractors that uproot trees and destroy homes...[The Israeli Jews] have turned into an instrument; their humanity has shriveled."[16] Dr. Barakat stated that the MEMRI translation had, "...the effect of erasing a distinction between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political movement, hence the impossibility of criticizing Israel without being exposed to the risk of being branded as an anti-Semite." Barakat however, did not provide evidence of specific mistranslated words, or provide a complete translation of the disputed article in English.

Mohammed El Oifi quotes London mayor Ken Livingstone in an article in the French monthly magazine Le Monde diplomatique criticizing a MEMRI report on the Islamic Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. El Oifi quotes Livingstone as saying MEMRI "systematically distorts not only al-Qaradawi's statements, but what many other Muslim scholars say. In most of the cases, disinformation is total." In the same article, El Oifi underlined other errors he has found in MEMRI reports including misdentifying the Lebanese reporter Abdel Karim Abou Al-Nasr, who writes for a Saudi newspaper, as being a Saudi national, and, in another article, misidentifing the branch of the Saudi royal family that Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud comes from. [17]
Staff backgrounds

Brian Whitaker, in a Guardian article critical of MEMRI, has noted that three of the original six founders of MEMRI were former members of Israeli military intelligence.[18] Yigal Carmon stated in response that "...staff include people of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths and they hold a range of political views".[19]

At the time of MEMRI's founding, some of its staff included (quoting from MEMRI's website)"[20]:

* Col. (Res.) Yigal Carmon' — MEMRI's President. He served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988. From 1977 to 1982 he was the Acting Head of Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria and the Advisor on Arab Affairs to the Civil Administration. Following Col. Carmon's retirement from the IDF he was Advisor to Premiers Shamir and Rabin for Countering Terrorism from 1988 to 1993. In 1991 and 1992 he was a senior member of the Israeli Delegation to peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington.

* Dr. Meyrav Wurmser — MEMRI's Executive Director until 2002. She received her Ph.D. from George Washington University in Washington, D.C on Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement. She has taught at Johns Hopkins University and the United States Naval Academy. She has written numerous articles about Israel, the Arab World, and Zionism. Her most recent article on the status of women in the Palestinian Authority was published in Middle East Insight. She is also a "Contributing Expert" for the Ariel Center for Policy Research, or ACPR, a non-profit, non-partisan organization, committed to stimulating and informing the national and international debate concerning all aspects of security policy - especially those stemming from the Oslo Peace Process.[21] Dr. Wurmser joined the Hudson Institute in 2002.

* Aaron Mannes — MEMRI's Director of Research until 2001. He earned an MA in Liberal Arts from St. John's College and a BS in Speech from Emerson College. He has been a stand-up comedian, an Equal Employment Opportunity Investigator, and an Associate Writer for The Hotline.

* Yotam Feldner — MEMRI's Director of Media Analysis. He was born in Kibbutz Gazit, Israel, served in the IDF in Military Intelligence, and is fluent in Arabic. He earned a BA in History and English Language and Literature from Hebrew University.

* Aluma Solnick — a Research Associate with MEMRI. She was born in Jerusalem and served in the IDF in Military Intelligence. She earned a BA in Arabic Language and the History of the Middle East from Hebrew University, and is pursuing an MA in Arab Language and Literature there.

* Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli received a Ph.D. in development planning from the University of Michigan. He spent most of his professional career at the World Bank, and has consulted for the International Monetary Fund. Dr. Raphaeli joined the Middle Media Research Institute (MEMRI)as a senior analyst in 2001."[22]

* Prof. Menahem Milson (Academic Advisor), is a professor at Hebrew University in Arabic literature, and has served as head of the Department of Arabic Language and Literature and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities. He has published extensively on modern Egyptian writers. His book on Egypt's great humanist, Najib Mahfuz - Najib Mahfuz: The Novelist-Philosopher of Cairo - appeared in 1998.

Claims of political affiliation

MEMRI describes itself as nonpartisan and independent. However, Juan Cole has accused MEMRI of being part of a conspiracy to serve Israeli interests:

"MEMRI was founded by a retired Israeli colonel from military intelligence, and co-run by Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser. David Wurmser is close to the Likud Party in Israel and served in Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, where he helped manufacture the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to al-Qaeda. David Wurmser, who wants to get up American wars against both Iran and Syria, then moved over to Vice President Dick Cheney's rump national security team. MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year by someone."[23]Cole also wrote that MEMRI is "a sophisticated anti-Arab propaganda machine...and...one of a number of public relations campaigns essentially on behalf of the far right-wing Likud Party in Israel."

Wurmser may not have respondrf to Cole's comments, since she had left MEMRI more than four years earlier at the time of Cole's writing. In a letter to Cole, Carmon objected to the above statements of Cole's, saying that they went,

"beyond what could be considered legitimate criticism, and which in fact qualify as slander and libel....While we respect your right to argue the veracity of our translations, you certainly may not fabricate information about our organization....MEMRI is totally unaffiliated with any government, and receives no government funding. While I was formerly an Israeli official (and retired more than a decade ago), I have never been affiliated with the Likud Party, or any other party."

Carmon responded to similar suggestions by Brian Whitaker as follows, "You continually refer to my supposed "political background" as if I had something to hide, and I wonder if I am your real target here. As a civil servant and adviser on counter-terrorism to both Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, prime ministers from opposing camps, my role was not a political appointment." Ken Livingstone has also criticized MEMRI on the basis of Carmon's previous Israeli military career.

MEMRI posts praise from US Government Congressmen and other officials affiliated with both the Republican and Democratic parties on its Web site.[24]
Source of funding

posted July 31, 2006 01:51 AM              

quote:

---

Yes, I asked the question and wanted an answer. You gave me some leftist moral relativism instead.

---

No, what I gave you was my sincere opinion and what I make of it, Jwhop. Which is what you asked for in your post title. They are both religious fanatics. That's my sincere opinion.

Couldn't avoid the insults, could you, Jwhop? It's just not in your nature.

In your mind you actually have religions sorted out and labeled and categorized as leftist and rightist as well? Now that's really sick. I take it that the leftist religions are the ones that you don't agree with.

posted July 31, 2006 02:18 AM              

I think you're correct. Categorizing everything, even religion, as left and right is an illness.

posted July 31, 2006 03:06 AM              

quote:

---

BTW, are you still holding to your statement the Palestanians are descendents of the Philistines The 2 P's theory of descendents.

Or, did you take the correction Isis gave you to heart?

That wasn't very nice of you in any event Mirandee...considering the insult it is to call anyone a Philistine.

---

It's only an insult to those with closed and narrow minds, Jwhop.

Oh, I was corrected by Isis? I did not see that post. Well, gee, Jwhop if I was corrected by Isis then she must be right since she is on your neo-con team. Tell me, what seminary did Isis study at?

I know that Israeli zionists disclaim that the Palestinian peoples are descendants of the Philistines mentioned in Scripture but the Palestinian people claim they are. They claim that they were there before the Jews. I know a lot of people who support the Israeli occupation of Palestine also disclaim that the Palestinian people are descendents of the Philistines. They give lots of arguments in favor of their beliefs. Mostly it is due to the numerous occupied forces taking over Palestine throughout history. Therein lies the whole gist of the dispute between Palestine and Israel. Who was there first.

This is from Catholic sources and is what leads me to believe the Palestinian version of the story while the Israeli zionists claim that what is stated in Scripture in the Old Testament was added on later. Hmmmm. A convenient argument I would say.

In the Biblical account the Philistines come into prominence as the inhabitants of the maritime plain of Palestine from the time of the Judges onward. They are mentioned in the genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:14; cf. 1 Chronicles 1:11-12), where together with the Caphtorim they are set down as descendants of Mesraim. It is conjectured with probability that they came originally from Crete, sometimes identified with Caphtor, and that they belonged to a piratical, seafaring people.

They make their first appearance in Biblical history late in the period of the Judges in connection with the prophesied birth of the hero Samson. The angel appearing to Saraa, wife of Manue of the race of Dan, tells her that, though barren, she shall bear a son who "shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines" (Judges 13:1-5); and we are informed in the same passage that the domination of the Philistines over Israel had lasted forty years. In the subsequent chapters graphic accounts are given of the encounters between Samson and these enemies of his nation who were encroaching upon Israel's western border.

In the early days of Samuel we find the Philistines trying to make themselves masters of the interior of Palestine, and in one of the ensuing battles they succeeded in capturing the Ark of the Covenant (I Kings 4). The coming of a pestilence upon them, however, induced them to return it, and it remained for many years in the house of Abinadab in Cariathiarim (I Kings 5; 6; 7).

After Saul became king the Philistines tried to break his power, but were unsuccessful, chiefly owing to the bravery of Jonathan (I Kings 13; 14). Their progress was not, however, permanently checked, for we are told (1 Samuel 14:52) that there was a "great war against the Philistines all the days of Saul", and at the end of the latter's reign we find their army still in possession of the rich plain of Jezrael including the city of Bethsan on its eastern border (1 Samuel 31:10).

They met with a severe defeat, however, early in the reign of David (2 Samuel 5:20-25), who succeeded in reducing them to a state of vassalage (2 Samuel 8:1). Prior to this date the power of the Philistines seems to have been concentrated in the hands of the rulers of the cities of Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus (Ashdod), Accaron, and Geth, and a peculiar title signifying "Lord of the Philistines" was borne by each of these petty kings. The Philistines regained their independence at the end of the reign of David, probably about the time of the schism, for we find the Kings of Israel in the ninth century endeavouring to wrest from them Gebbethon, a city on the border of the maritime plain (1 Kings 15:27; 16:15). Towards the close of the same century the Assyrian ruler, King Adad-Nirari, placed them under tribute and began the long series of Assyrian interference in Philistine affairs. In Amos (1:6, 8) we find a denunciation of the Philistine monarchies as among the independent kingdoms of the time.

During the latter part of the eighth century and during the whole of the seventh the history of the Philistines is made up of a continual series of conspiracies, conquests, and rebellions. Their principal foes were the Assyrians on the one side and the Egyptians on the other. In the year of the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.) they became vassals of Sargon. They rebelled, however, ten years later under the leadership of Ashdod, but without permanent success. Another attempt was made to shake off the Assyrian yoke at the end of the reign of Sennacherib. In this conflict the Philistine King of Accaron, who remained faithful to Sennacherib, was cast into prison by King Ezechias of Juda. The allies who were thus brought together were defeated at Eltekeh and the result was the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib (IV Kings 18; 19). Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal in their western campaigns crossed the territory of the Philistines and held it in subjection, and after the decline of Assyria the encroachments of the Assyrians gave place to those of the Egyptians under the Twenty-sixth Dynasty.

It is probable that the Philistines suffered defeat at the hands of Nabuchodonosor, though no record of his conquest of them has been preserved. The old title "Lords of the Philistines" has now disappeared, and the title "King" is bestowed by the Assyrians on the Philistine rulers. The siege of Gaza, which held out against Alexander the Great, is famous, and we find the Ptolemies and Seleucids frequently fighting over Philistine territory. The land finally passed under Roman rule, and its cities had subsequently an important history. After the time of the Assyrians the Philistines cease to be mentioned by this name. Thus Herodotus speaks of the "Arabians" as being in possession of the lower Mediterranean coast in the time of Cambyses. From this it is inferred by some that at that time the Philistines had been supplanted. In the ebb and flow of warring nations over this land it is more than probable that they were gradually absorbed and lost their identity.

It is generally supposed that the Philistines adopted in the main the religion and civilization of the Chanaanites. In I Kings 5:2, we read: "And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it into the temple of Dragon, and set it by Dragon", from which we infer that their chief god was this Semitic deity. The latter appears in the Tel el-Amarna Letters and also in the Babylonian inscriptions. At Ascalon likewise there was a temple dedicated to the Semitic goddess Ishtar, and as the religion of the Philistines was thus evidently Semitic, so also were probably the other features of their civilization.

So basically what I said is that the Palestianian people today are descendents of what used to be called the Philistines. If they were mentioned in the genealogy of nations in the book of Genesis that does suggest that they were a nation before the Jewish exodus from Egypt. Face it, we are all descendents of those ancestors who came before us.

posted July 31, 2006 03:17 AM              

You sure do know the scriptures well

I wasn't 100% sure myself who inhabited the area first because Ive heard too many different things, without reference to any, (or only a few) scriptures.

posted July 31, 2006 01:12 PM              

quote:

---

Tell me, what seminary did Isis study at?

---

After rereading it I thought it sounded kind of arrogant of me to say that so I apologize. Especially when there are so many conflicting arguments and articles concerning who occupied the area first. I still have not read what Jwhop was referring to Isis's "correction." Only due to lack of time.

Thanks, DD. But I am no Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I just know what I was taught in 4 years of theological studies and of those four years I only had a year of Scripture studies. Though of course everything else that you learn in theology comes from Scripture. It takes a lot more years of studying the Scriptures than one year to be any kind of scholar on the Bible.

There are conflicting thoughts on who inhabited the area first so it is confusing to everyone, including me. Regarding the Islamic religion, I know what I was taught in theology classes about it and what I was taught about the Islamic religion is all good. They are recognized by the RC Church as a mainline religion because in the RC Faith the belief in Jesus as the Christ is not a requirement for getting to heaven. Just that it helps enormously. It is my understanding that Islam does recognize Jesus but in the Muslim faith he is considered just a great prophet.

The conflicting articles and thoughts regarding who occupied what is now largely Israel is based on the same things everything else regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is based on, misinformation. It also gets confusing based on the fact that the area was occupied throughout history by different nations. So I am not saying that in all cases it is diliberate misinformation. Once the Roman empire occupied the area, then later the Ottoman empire, then a lot of others including the Greeks, then it was later occupied by the U.K. who after WWII gave a portion of the area to the Jewish people. Since that time there has been a lot of land grabbing going on in various wars by Israel. The latter is the aspect of the whole situation that I question.

In my belief that what the Palestinian people say about their descendency is accurate, I go by the reference in the Old Testament to the fact that Philistine was recorded as an existing nation in the book of Genesis, the book of "in the beginning." Most of the OT was by Oral tradition or the passing on from generation to generation by the word of mouth. It was not written down until after the Jews were taken out of Egypt occupation to the "promised land." Even after being taken out of Egypt the Jews wandered around in the desert for another 40 years before occupying the land. The first Gospel, written by Mark, was not written until some 70 years after Jesus was crucified. The eyewitnesses, or desciples, did not have tape recorders either, they went from memory of what they saw and remembered Jesus saying. That's why we get into dangerous territory when we take everything in Scripture, OT and NT literally.

It's clear from Scripture and history that not only the Philistines but the Jewish nation itself throughout history was under constant occupation by one conquering force after another. In fact a lot of what is written in the OT of the Christian Scriptures was "borrowed" from their pagan neighbors during times of occupation. The early Christians did some of their own "borrowing" from the traditions of the Roman Empire and the Greeks.

posted July 31, 2006 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Mirandee - no the Philistines and the Palestinians are not the same peoples. The Palestinans do not predate the semitic peoples of the area.

While their origins have been debated, the Philistines are thought to be what the Egyptians referred to as the "Sea Peoples", possibly immigrants from Aegean or Anatolia. They invaded Egypt and were defeated by I think Ramses III or Merneptah.

They settled on what is now the northern coast of Israel, but Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of the Kingdom of Judah as well as what is Syria, and the Philistine cities were absorbed into the Babylonian empire.

According to several academic sources, all traces of the Philistines as a people or ethnic group disappear after this period. The former Philistine cities were subsequently under the control of Persians, Jews (Hasmonean Kingdom), Greeks (Seleucid Empire), Romans, and subsequent empires.

So the term "Palestine" does ultimately come from the world "Philistine", however "Philistines" disappeared as a distinct ethnic group by approximately 500BC.

---

Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned the issue is Ancient History. Not Theology. I don't need to have gone to a Seminary and dissected the Bible to know this. I'm an Ancient History major. I'm no "expert" to be sure, but the time period about which we're speaking happens to be my focus (approximately 3500BC - 400 BC [the Greek Golden Age]).

posted August 01, 2006 02:36 AM              

Actually the Bible is history and much of what is recorded in the Bible has been proven to be accurate historical events through archaeological discoveries and ancient records. So the two studies do go hand and hand. Not too long ago archaeologists uncovered Solomons stables.

I do agree with what DD said in one of her posts, my wish is that Israel and Palestine can one day live peacefully as neighbors with justice and fairness for both nations.

Assimilation is a lengthy process and doesn't really apply when it comes to people. To assimilate means to be absorbed into a cultural tradition. Not to be absorbed as people. The Native Americans were in some respects assimilated into the traditions of their culture but they were not absorbed as a people and still practice and hold onto the traditions of their ancestors. I would imagine that the same thing applied to the Philistine people and others whose homeland was taken over by an occupying nation. They may have been assimilated into another culture but that does not mean that they forgot who they were as a people and where they came from and what their own traditions were.

Also conquerors have a way of renaming a people. For instance, my people, the Cherokee Nation, was renamed Cherokee by the White Man. Their original name, what they called themselves, was the Aniyunwiya. The same applies to all Indian tribes and nations. They were renamed. The Sioux Nation does not even like that name given to them by the White Man because it is a French word which means "enemy" or "little snake." They simply called themselves the Lakota and Dakotah.

Not only do the conquerors have a tendency to rename the peoples they conquer, they are also the ones who write the history. In the case of Native Americans the history that the White Man wrote has now been proven to be very inaccurate. Their history painted the Native American victories in the battles for their land and their existence as massacres while the White Man's actual massacres of the Native Americans were depicted as victories. There has throughout history been the good guys and the bad guys way of thinking and recorded by the conquerors as such.

Just something to think about because we see this today when it comes to the Muslim and the Arabic peoples. We see it especially when it comes to the Palestinian people who do claim to be the ancestors of the Philistines and who claim to have occupied the land before Israel did. I take their claim into consideration because I know how history can be depicted by conquering nations. It really depends on who records the historical events doesn't it? And normally a conquered people have little say in what is recorded.

People are not absorbed. They do not just disappear and cease to exist and they DO remember who their ancestry was, where they came from and who they are as a people.

Actually, the Jewish people were throughout their history a conquered people. They were dispersed all over the world prior to WWII. Yet throughout their dispersement and their history the Jewish people did not forget their ancestry, where they came from and who they were as a people. That being the case why do we assume that the Palestinian people do not know who their ancestry was, where they came from and who they are as a people?

posted August 01, 2006 05:13 PM            

Palestinians and Philistines are not the same people.

Jews survived the diaspora because of a cultural glue that kept them connected (Judaism and it's related customs). They are an exception rather than a rule.

Populaces can be assimilated. It happens all the time throughout history. Three thousand years of interbreeding with various populations and three thousand years of cultural exchange, and what you have at the end hardly resembles what you started out with.

No, the Philistines didn't go away, I'm sure their descandents live today in multiple populations throughout the world. However, as a distinct ethnic and cultural group , they no longer exist.

From my perspective the Bible is as much a historical document than Homer's Illiad is. Both contain some likely historical accuracies, but neither are history books. It shouldn't be disregarded as a historical guidepost, but at the same time I don't feel it's academically valid to quote the Bible in and of itself as proof of anything historical.

I've yet to hear Palestinians themselves claim to be descendants of the Philistines.

posted August 01, 2006 10:57 PM              

quote:

---

From my perspective the Bible is as much a historical document than Homer's Illiad is. Both contain some likely historical accuracies, but neither are history books. It shouldn't be disregarded as a historical guidepost, but at the same time I don't feel it's academically valid to quote the Bible in and of itself as proof of anything historical.

---

Exactly and I stated that in one of my posts where I talked about the dangers of taking everything the Bible says literally. I personally was not quoting the Bible here on this thread. What I stated is that reference in Genesis along with other things I have read have lead me to at least consider what the Palestinians say regarding the land. I never said it was true or that I firmly believe it. I used the phrase, "take into consideration."

However, many things that are stated in the Bible have been proven to be historically accurate as I said. Being an ancient buff maybe you read the book, "The Bible as History?" Certainly you have read or heard of the archaeological discoveries that support some of the accounts of the Bible. I did not state that all that is contained in the OT or the NT is literal historical fact. I am not a fundalmentalist. Nor did I state that the Bible or the Torah for that matter are "history books." Neither were ever intended to be that.

quote:

---

And as far as I'm concerned, who was there first is irrelevant anyway. Both parties need to pull their collective heads out of their ***** and quit being belligerent teenagers about things. Someone having been there first lends zero legitimacy IMO to a land claim like that. We'd have to redraw the entire geopolitical map if that were the case, because everyone has been conquered and supplanted by some other group.

---

posted August 02, 2006 02:52 PM            

Actually the Palestinians want more than just Gaza. I think the two sticking points in the peace process several years ago was the right of return for the Palestinians and keeping Jerusalem. Neither side was willing to compromise on those two issues.

posted August 02, 2006 03:34 PM            

One of their talking points is permitting the right of return...to Israel proper of all displaced..so called Palestanians. That would serve to make Arab Muslims the majority of inhabitants in Israel proper and bring about the destruction of the nation of Israel as a jewish state.

Neither one of those scenarios is going to be permitted to occur.

Soon after the Palestanians elected the terrorist organization Hamas to power, I said to look out...meaning the Palestanian people who now had endorsed and bestowed political power on an organization dedicated to the destuction of Israel.

They are getting a taste of war now. If the terrorist acts continue against Israel...now that Hamas is in charge of the government, there isn't any possible excuse they can make that it isn't them but rather other elements committing the terrorism.