The “Palestinians” are not the victims of colonialism. They are its perpetrators. - by Daniel Greenfield

...“Palestine” is a twisted colonial fiction. The name reflects Greek colonization of the region. And its use by the modern Islamic colonists shows their lack of any actual historical connection to Israel. After all the agonized wailing about the deeply meaningful “Palestinian” connection to “Palestine”, they still haven’t come up with their own name for the place.

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
24 January '18..

Palestinian boss Mahmoud Abbas recently declared that Israel is "a colonial enterprise that has nothing to do with Jewishness". Moses, King David and thousands of years of Jewish history would disagree. Israel and the Jews are part of the story of human civilization. Over 50% of the human race has a holy book that tells of the Jewish journey to Israel. That includes Mohammed’s own copy of the Koran.

Israel isn’t a “colonial enterprise”. Palestine is.

Anyone who wants to find out where the name Israel comes from can open the Book of Genesis 32:29. The story even appears in Islamic hadiths. But where does “Palestine” really come from?

Palestine isn’t a Hebrew or Arabic word. The Greeks used it to describe the area. And when the Romans and their Arab mercenaries repressed the indigenous Jewish population, they renamed it all Palestine.

Palestine, after the Philistines: but why did the Greeks and Romans name the area after the Philistines?

The Philistines were one of the Greek origin sea peoples who had originally invaded and colonized the area. The Jewish resistance to Philistine colonialism is chronicled in the histories of Samson, King Saul and King David. It was natural for the Greek and Roman colonies that the Jews of the Second Temple era clashed with to use “Palestine”, the name associated with earlier colonies, to refer to their new colonies.

That latest phase of Greek colonialism led to an extended conflict between the Persian Empire and Greco-Roman civilization. The Romans made extended use of Arab mercenaries and rulers to secure their dominions. One such ruler was Herod, the son of an Idumean father and a Nabatean Arab mother, (according to the Greek historian Strabo they were both Arabic peoples), who repressed the Jews.

The eventual decline and fall of the Roman and Persian empires made way for the Islamic conquests of the region. But the Islamic bandit hordes had no original ideas. Their religion was a hodgepodge of Judaism, Christianity, assorted pagan beliefs and Mohammed’s violent fantasies. The rest of their culture they took wholesale from the Greeks. This game of historical Idiocracy ended with a collection of Arab colonists who call themselves “Palestinians” and claim to be descended from… somebody.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Oh, how cute! "Palestinian" Cartoons

...According to the Bible, Goliath was a giant Philistine warrior and David was a kid, but the future king of Israel, and they fought a millennia before the birth of Jesus, and almost two before the birth of Muhammad. David defeated Goliath with his sling, of course. Today we are supposed to believe that the great Arab nation, around 400 million strong, represent "David" and that the tiny Jewish population in the Middle East, around 6 million strong, represent "Goliath." This is what you might call an aspect of the Big Lie.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
29 January '15..

We have to somehow make it clear that the malice within the Arab-Israel conflict is not equivalent on both sides.

That is, there is no morally equivalent "cycle of violence" between Arabs and Jews.

The far larger Arab nation, which gobbled up the entire Middle East shortly after the death of Muhammad, has kept its imperial boot on the head of the Jewish people - thereby keeping our numbers artificially low - in that region for fourteen centuries, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and the seemingly phoenix-like establishment of Israel in 1948.

Arab and Soviet propaganda, since at least the 1960s, has slowly convinced well-meaning western liberals that the children of Holocaust survivors are the bad guys and, weirdly enough, use an inversion of a biblical story to do so.

Everyone knows the legend of David and Goliath.

According to the Bible, Goliath was a giant Philistine warrior and David was a kid, but the future king of Israel, and they fought a millennia before the birth of Jesus, and almost two before the birth of Muhammad.

David defeated Goliath with his sling, of course.

Today we are supposed to believe that the great Arab nation, around 400 million strong, represent "David" and that the tiny Jewish population in the Middle East, around 6 million strong, represent "Goliath."

This is what you might call an aspect of the Big Lie.

The Big Lie, of course, is that the Jews are persecuting the Arabs when the exact opposite is obviously the case. Jewish Israelis want nothing more than for Arabs to stop throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at them so that they can get on with the business of living their lives.

It is not the Jews who are the victimizers here, but the supposed Arab victims, themselves.

Look at the cartoon above.

The UN Vote on A Palestinian State

Herbert I. London
Hudson New York
19 May '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2131/un-vote-palestinian-state

The United Nations this September will attempt to create a Palestinian state through political mandate. This, as is par for the UN, is not merely an attempt to justify the political aspirations of Palestinians, but rather to punish Israel.

This initiative should be seen against a backdrop of Muslim imperial ambitions.

Israel lies directly on the fault line of Islam's territorial aims. This tiny nation of six million is the bulwark in the war with jihadists. Facing close to 300 million enemies in nations nearby, Israel stands between the survival or the defeat of the West. Those Israeli eighteen year olds who are sent into battle allow parents in the United States to sleep safely in their beds at night as their eighteen year olds go off to college while Israeli eighteen year old go off to war. Israel is the defender of our interests, the first line of defense in our "long war."

Israel, of course, is a thin reed on which to rest a civilization, but it is a steel reed that time and again has demonstrated its mettle. Many in Europe and a growing population in the United States contend that Israel should be abandoned to "redress" Muslim grievances, whether caused by Israel or by their own neglectful and corrupt governance. But should abandoning Israel gain traction, it would not bring solace to the West. A world without Israel would not be a safer place; it would usher in a tide of aggression as Islamists saw the West bend to their will. If Israel goes, the fragility of the West will appear as provocatively apparent.

As a consequence, it is time for a wake up call. Liberty is in the cross-hairs and the defender of that liberty, of our liberty, are the children of Israel. They are our chosen people sacrificing their blood so we may remain immune to the incursions of Islamic imperialism.

Islam is more than a religion; it is a religion qua political movement. Through sharia law, there are rules for the society and for the behavior of every individual. As presently constituted, Islam is not compatible with democracy. The pillars of democratic capitalism – individual rights, the rule of law, the preservation of private property, equality of women – are not part of Islamic tradition; they actually run counter to it.

Like many other religions, Islam conceives of the world through the lens of good and evil. Islamic theology has two spheres in perpetual conflict: the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where sharia is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al-harb) comprises the rest of the world. According to the Koran, the House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the House of War is permanently assimilated into the House of Islam. While this war is sometimes hot and sometimes cold, it is, according to Islam, timeless and permanent until sharia reigns over the globe.

This is what Samuel Huntington understood to mean the "clash of civilizations." Most religions, of course, distinguish between believers and non believers, but Islam goes further, drawing a distinction between political and legal regimes: those in submission to Islam and those in rebellion. As the West is largely in rebellion, it is the challenge to be overcome.

That UN vote in September should be understood in this setting. Here is a systematic effort to vanquish Western civilization, using the Palestinian question as a tactical instrument. Fifty-seven Muslim nations have raised the stakes in this ongoing struggle, and if there were ever a time for the Western nations to mobilize their influence and assert the Judeo-Christian tradition that is the foundation stone of our way of life, this is it. Israel may be on the front-line in this struggle, but what is in question involves every person in the West.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The lesson of a Jewish cemetery

The ‘sanctity’ of this burial ground in Tangiers speaks volumes


Mark Steyn
macleans.ca
17 June '10
Posted before Shabbat

Thanks to the wonders of globalization, I’m writing this in a fairly decrepit salon de thé off the rue de la Liberté in Tangiers, enjoying a coffee and a stale croissant grilled and flattened into a panini. What could be more authentically Moroccan? For some reason, the napkins are emblazoned with “Gracias por su visita.”

Through a blizzard of flies, I can just about make out the plasma TV up in the corner on which Jimmy Carter, dubbed into Arabic, is denouncing Israel. Al Jazeera doesn’t so much cover the Zionist Entity as feast on it, hour after hour, without end. So here, at the western frontier of the Muslim world (if you don’t include Yorkshire), the only news that matters is from a tiny strip of land barely wider at its narrowest point than a rural Canadian township way down the other end of the Mediterranean.


Notwithstanding saturation coverage of the “Massacre In The Med” (as the front page headline in Britain’s Daily Mirror put it), there are other Jewish stories in the news. This one caught my eye in Canada’s Shalom Life: “No danger to the Jewish cemeteries in Tangiers.” Apparently, the old Jewish hospital in this ancient port city was torn down a couple of months back, and the Moroccan Jewish diaspora back in Toronto worried that their graveyards might be next on the list. Not to worry, Abraham Azancot assured Shalom Life readers. The Jewish cemetery on the rue du Portugal is perfectly safe. “Its sanctity has consistently been respected by the local government that is actually providing the community with resources to assist in its current grooming.”

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Jews Won’t Go Back Because They’re in Their Own Country

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
10 June '10

Despite Helen Thomas’s apology and resignation, the controversy over her call for Israel’s Jews to be thrown out of their country and “go back” to Germany and Poland isn’t quite over. Not to be outdone by the anti-Semitic octogenarian scribe, radio talk-show host Rosie O’Donnell defended or at the very least rationalized Thomas’s slur on her radio show, the audio of which can be heard on YouTube. The comedian and her “friends” on the show think Thomas’s remarks are merely “politically incorrect.” O’Donnell claims that in 2010, no one could possibly believe that Thomas thinks Jews should go back to Auschwitz (as one of the Gaza flotilla “humanitarians” allegedly told the Israeli navy) and that her main point was justified because “What she was saying was, the homeland was originally Palestinian and it’s now occupied by Israel.”

O’Donnell’s rants are not particularly significant, but her assertion about whose land the Israelis currently occupy is important because it represents a common misconception about the Middle East conflict that often goes without contradiction.

Indeed, even those pundits that reacted appropriately to Thomas’s remarks, such as the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, who wrote an admirable column about what happened when some Jews did, in fact, attempt to go back to Poland after the Holocaust, failed to point out that Jewish rights to historic Palestine predate the tragic events of the 1940s. Cohen described the Kielce massacre, in which Poles slaughtered returning Jews, as well as the hostility of even some Americans, such as General George Patton, toward displaced survivors. He rightly noted that the plight of these homeless Jews helped galvanize support for Zionism at that crucial moment in history in the years leading up to Israel’s independence.

But as with President Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world, which posed a false moral equivalence between the sufferings of Jews in the Holocaust and the displacement of Palestinian Arab refugees, the idea that Jewish rights to the land are merely a matter of compensation for events in Europe is a pernicious myth that must be refuted at every opportunity. Jews need not be required to leave Israel for Europe not only because to do so would be insensitive but also because the place Arabs call Palestine is the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Despite the dispersion of the Jews, the Jewish presence in the land was never eradicated. For example, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority in the 1840s. Palestinian nationalism grew not as an attempt to reconstitute an ancient people or to solidify an existing political culture but strictly as a negative reaction to the return of the Jews and does not exist outside the context of trying to deny the country to the Zionists. That is why even moderate Palestinians find it impossible to sign a peace agreement legitimizing a Jewish state, no matter where its borders might be drawn.

The idea of Jews as colonists in the Middle East is a staple of anti-Zionist hatred, but it surfaces even in respectable forums and in the work of writers who are nominally sympathetic to Israel.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.