Oh, we get some doozies here on JoshuaPundit, indeed we do.
Last week, I published this article voicing my surprise on a real flying pig moment - an article by the BBC on the `controversy' over Israel doing some excavations and repairs on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem that was actually balanced and relatively unbiased.
That sparked the following comment by one `ZionistNot'(forgive his spelling):
"The British had no legal commitment to create a homeland for an undesired European minority in the Middle East.
The British who colonized the area by the use of force had no right, legal or otherwise, to hand a part of that land to a bunch of fundamentalists who believe God promised it to them exclusively 4000 years ago.
Israel, that ceased to exist for a continous 2000 years (except in the minds of fundamentalists), is a historical anomoly that was imposed by force, injustice and a system of apartheid.
Jerusalem will be taken back by people who relatively recognize the faith of others as valid. Sharing Jerusalem among the 3 faiths is an Islamic idea not a Jewish/Christian one.
As to cleansing Eastern Jerusalem from Jews/Zionists, I believe it was an unfortunate situation that was done for security reasons. The Zionists were plotting to take over all of the city (which they finally did in 1967) to fullfil their messianic beliefs (so some messiah show up from some imaginary gate...it has been 5000 years and still waiting). For the record, that the US government rounded up all Japanese-Americans in camps with the approval of the supreme court when no Japanese-American was threatning to take over America."
I originally was simply going to let this nonsense go by, but ZionistNot does something useful in illustrating the talking points of `anti-Zionists'(we used to simply call them Jew haters) like him or her who are willing to manipulate historical fact and indulge in myth to justify their prejudices.
Let's dissect ZionistNot's screed in full and present the actual truth of the matter.
"The British had no legal commitment to create a homeland for an undesired European minority in the Middle East."
This conveniently leaves out that the entire basis for the British mandate for Palestine in international law came from the League of Nations, in sync with Britain's own Balfour Declaration...and, as one of President Wilson's 14 points, this was an integral part of the Versailles peace conference.
As for `undesired European minority', undesired by whom? ZionistNot leaves out the leetle facts that the Jews had a continuous presence in Israel throughout all recorded history, and that the Ottoman government actually encouraged Jewish settlement in Israel and sold them land because the Jews created prosperity there and renewed what was essentially a depopulated backwater.
Israel, that ceased to exist for a continous 2000 years (except in the minds of fundamentalists), is a historical anomoly that was imposed by force, injustice and a system of apartheid.
Jerusalem will be taken back by people who relatively recognize the faith of others as valid. Sharing Jerusalem among the 3 faiths is an Islamic idea not a Jewish/Christian one."
Now here's some real deep thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if ZionistNot was the fruit of one of our elite universities. Based on the fact that Israel was conquered a long time ago, its national legitimacy is in question? Fair enough. I'm sure the Irish, the Poles, the Latvians and Lithuanians, the Armenians, India and Pakistan, the Ukrainians, Spain, Egypt and a whole slew of other nations are willing to give up their national sovereignty and go back to being ruled by others on that basis.
Sure they are.
As a matter of fact, the idea of an Arab nation in all of Palestine (or most anywhere else) doesn't make any sense using ZionistNot's logic...since Palestine was taken from the Arabs over 500 years ago by the Ottoman Turks, who ruled it until the League of Nations and Britain came into the picture!
I also have to chuckle at ZionistNot describing the most racially diverse and free country in the Middle East as `apartheid', while in his next sentence talking about `taking over Jerusalem' for Islam so that the city can experience the well known Islamic tolerance for other faiths.
Unfortunately for ZionistNot, the world has had ample recent examples of how Islam treats other faiths in the areas it controls....I cited a few of them in the Holy land in my article.
He also forgot that the original UN plan approved in 1947 that voted Israel into existence called for Jerusalem to be an international city open to all faiths...and that it was the Jews who agreed to it and the Arabs who rejected it.
Whoopsie.
Sorry, ZionistNot...you'll have to peddle that manure somewhere else.
As to cleansing Eastern Jerusalem from Jews/Zionists, I believe it was an unfortunate situation that was done for security reasons. The Zionists were plotting to take over all of the city (which they finally did in 1967) to fullfil their messianic beliefs (so some messiah show up from some imaginary gate...it has been 5000 years and still waiting). For the record, that the US government rounded up all Japanese-Americans in camps with the approval of the supreme court when no Japanese-American was threatning to take over America."
Hoooo boy!
Well, at least ZionistNot admits that the Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs..though of course it was `justified'.
Ya think he might have a different opinion if the Jews ethnically cleansed the Arabs out of Jerusalem `for security reasons?' Certainly the Israelis would have a lot more justification for doing so, since I don't recall any Jewish homicide bombers detonating themselves in Arab markets, buses and pizza parlors.
As for his other howler about the dreaded `Zionists plotting to take over the city', he conveniently ignores that both in 1948 and in 1967, Israel was attacked by the Arabs. As a matter of fact, had King Hussein of Jordan back in 1967 not believed what Nasser was telling him about the Jews being in full retreat and resisted the temptation to attack Israel to get a slice of the pie, East Jerusalem would still be in Muslim hands...and no Jew would be permitted there to this day.
I really owe ZionistNot thanks for allowing me to punture some of the more common talking points used by `anti-Zionists'....particularly on the Angry Left.
While ZionistNot obviously knows very little about the Middle East, what's scary is how many like him there are out there, and how lies, repeated often enough take on the substance of fact.
3 comments:
i stumbled onto this little tidbit this past weekend:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:
That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[2]
my point is, their hostility has nothing to do with israel/jerusalem/joos. it simply has to do with murder, as this bozo from tripoli has stated. and the date is interesting as well. we were not the united states at the time of this interview. that formation did not come about until sept. 17, 1787.
they are simply nihilist.
It's strange how the Ottoman Empire is neither an Empire nor a colonizer in these types of "histories."
The Ottoman's entered WWI against the British, who had every right to carve up the Empire into a checkerboard pattern if they so wished.
Thomas Jefferson did not misunderstand the intent of Adja's statement. He acquired a copy of the Koran, which he studied, to know for himself what sort of people he was dealing with. The end result was the marine invasion of Tripoli, to put down raids by the Barbary pirates. The idea that the US should play the dhimmi in our relations with the muslims did not sit well with him.
Post a Comment