Caliphate on its way?

Here is a video clip trailer for a Glenn Beck show…this is true and scary…

posted 22 Jun 11 by Glenn Beck

Not Stealing Palestine but Purchasing Israel

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
June 21, 2011

Print

Send

Comment

RSS

Share

 Translations of this item:

Hebrew

Zionists stole Palestinian land: that’s the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance, as Palestinian Media Watch explains: “Presenting the creation of the [Israeli] state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA’s non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” The accusation of theft also undermines Israel’s position internationally.

Palestinian imagery: A Star-of-David-shark devours Palestine.

But is this accusation true?

No, it is not. Ironically, the building of Israel represents about the most peaceable in-migration and state creation in history. To understand why requires seeing Zionism in context. Simply put, conquest is the historic norm; governments everywhere were established through invasion, nearly all states came into being at someone else’s expense. No one is permanently in charge, everyone’s roots trace back to somewhere else.

Germanic tribes, Central Asian hordes, Russian tsars, and Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors remade the map. Modern Greeks have only a tenuous connection to the Greeks of antiquity. Who can count the number of times Belgium was overrun? The United States came into existence by defeating Native Americans. Kings marauded in Africa, Aryans invaded India. In Japan, Yamato-speakers eliminated all but tiny groups such as the Ainu.

The Middle East, due to its centrality and geography, has experienced more than its share of invasions, including the Greek, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Seljuk, Timurid, Mongolian, and modern European. Within the region, dynastic froth caused the same territory – Egypt for example – to be conquered and re-conquered.

Many wars over Jerusalem: Emperor Titus celebrated his victory over the Jews in 70 A.D. with an arch showing Roman soldiers carrying off a menorah from the Temple.

The land that now makes up Israel was no exception. In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: “No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history.” He backs up that claim, counting “at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past four millennia.” He calculates Jerusalem to have been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The PA fantasizes that today’s Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, but they are overwhelmingly the off-spring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities.

Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, as mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael; in contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.

Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine “to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry,” was the key institution – and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.

Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.

Only when the British mandatory power gave up on Palestine in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

This history contradicts the Palestinian account that “Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people” which led to a catastrophe “unprecedented in history” (according to a PA 12^th-grade textbook) or that Zionists “plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people” (writes a columnist in the PA’s daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.

Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine; merchants purchased Israel.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

---

June 21, 2011 update: For additional points that did not fit this column, see the weblog entry, “Extras about Zionists Purchasing Israel, Not Stealing Palestine.”

Posted in:  Daniel Pipe’s

SO REFRESHING to see the pro-Palestinian leftie activist on the panel get castrated

And nobody does it better than Michael Coren. I just love this guy. Maybe I’ll move to Canada.

Posted in:  Bare Naked Islam

MUSLIM-IN-CHIEF will ignore advice of generals because appeasing the left is more important than the safety of the troops

 

Posted: June 21, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam | Filed under: Military stories | 17 Comments »

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election.The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013.

UK GUARDIAN – The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives.

Obama’s nationally televised address, the sixth he has given since becoming president, is intended to mark the beginning of the end of American military deployment in Afghanistan, from a present high of almost 100,000 troops. The White House confirmed that the withdrawal will be “significant”.

Obama’s decision is aimed at placating an American public tired of a 10-year war that has cost 1,522 US lives. The killing of Osama bin Laden added impetus to calls to pull out.

Nato commanders led by General David Petraeus have set out the risks of withdrawing too many troops too soon, and warned Obama there has been no noticeable dividend from the death of the al-Qaida leader. They had urged him to keep in place the bulk of the extra 30,000 troops he committed to the “surge” until the end of 2012, so a drawdown can begin in 2013. That would give the military another full “fighting season” to attack Taliban strongholds and target insurgent leaders.

“They say they need another full year of this,” one official told the Guardian. “They want as much as possible for as long as possible.”

This year’s fighting season, which is now underway, has shown that the Taliban is still strong, despite the
pounding given to them over the winter by ISAF forces. In the first week of June, there were 701 security incidents across Afghanistan.

The withdrawal has created deep divisions in Washington. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued for a modest reduction – at one point as low as 2,000 – citing the advice of US commanders in Afghanistan that they need to protect gains made during the winter against the Taliban.

But senior White House staff, conscious that the president has an election to fight next year, argued in favour of a reduction that would send a signal to the US public that an end to the war is in sight.

The Associated Press reported that Obama could announce 10,000 troops to be brought home by the end of the year, and a further 20,000 next year – all of the 30,000 extra troops he ordered to Afghanistan as part of the “surge” in 2009. That would still leave about 70,000 troops, with all combat troops scheduled to leave by 2014, provided that Afghan forces are ready to take over.

The US military could fill some of the gaps by keeping combat troops in place and pulling out mainly support staff.

The US drawdown is a compromise that will not satisfy Democratic party doves seeking a quick end to US involvement.

When Obama first became president, he lost out in his first major battle with the Pentagon. But, as he has grown in confidence, he has been more willing to take them on, ignoring Gates’s advice to avoid US military involvement in Libya and now again on Afghanistan.

Gates, who, along with secretary of state Hillary Clinton, was scheduled to meet Obama at the White House to finalise the details, acknowledged on Tuesday that US political considerations as well as conditions on the ground in Afghanistan contributed to the decision.

He said the war’s unpopularity in the US and with Congress had to play a significant part in the president’s thinking.

Posted in:  Bare Naked Islam

The Key to Jihad is Money

Wednesday

MONEY IS THE POWER behind jihad. This has been the case since Muhammad began his raids on caravans. Look at the graph below. Before Muslims started gaining plunder, their numbers hardly increased for 13 years. Once the money started coming in, Islam’s success rate skyrocketed.

Plunder from raids was only part of the cash flow. They also confiscated goods from the Jews they expelled from Medina (and the Jews they slaughtered, taking their women and children as slaves).

The other very crucial part of the Islamic cash flow was the jizya they took from the dhimmis.

All of these forms of income were parasitical. They took wealth from non-Muslims and added it to the cause of Islam.

And it is happening today. The non-Muslims of the world paid OPEC nations three and a half TRILLION dollars last year. That number should make you sit down to catch your breath. It is a literally incomprehensible sum of money. Much of it is now in the hands of orthodox Muslims.

Just like the use of jizya in Muhammad’s time, orthodox Muslims drain the wealth of non-Muslims, keeping them weak and struggling, while strengthening and enriching Islam’s prime directive.

The world is now in a severe and prolonged recession. Why? We’re paying a rapidly growing percentage of our income to Islam.

Do you want this to stop? We need to all become flex fuel fanatics. Petroleum must get competition. It must get so much competition that its strategic status is reduced to just an ordinary commodity like any other (rather than the indispensable commodity everyone must have). This can be done. It MUST be done if we have a hope of stopping the third jihad from succeeding. The key to jihad is money. The key to stopping jihad is stopping the money.

Posted in Citizen Warrior