The Zionist Interlopers
Posted September 30th, 2007 by Da King
As you can see from the above map, Israel, those ' Zionist interlopers', as Iranian president Ahmadinejad calls them, are really crowding the surrounding Muslim countries in the Middle East (Israel is the tiny sliver of yellow in the middle, next to the sea). It's getting so an Allah-fearing Muslim can barely breathe these days without a Jew fouling up the air in the neighborhood. I hear there is even a Jew in Iran. The nerve. On the plus side, it's said the Jew in Iran DOES know his place as a second class mud person infidel, descended from pigs.
If Israel's neighbors got their wish, the 'interloper' Jews, who, btw, have dwelt on current Israeli land in the vicinity of the holy city of Jerusalem since biblical times (and I'm talking Old Testament), would move their entire nation a few hundred miles west, smack dab into the Mediterranean Sea, or maybe to Europe, as the Iranian president suggested during his recent 'Feel The Love' speech at Columbia university. I imagine Ahmadinejad might recommend, oh, say, Germany as the ideal Jewish relocation spot, since he says nothing bad ever happened to a Jew there.
How did things get so screwed up between Israel and the Arabs ? That's a story too long to tell here, so let's just start in modern times with a thumbnail overview from 1948 forward, when the United Nations approved the partition plan dividing Palestine into two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian. The Israelis accepted the plan and were thrilled to finally have their own state, but the Arab League rejected the plan, violence started, war broke out, and has basically never stopped. So the reason the Palestinians haven't had their own state since 1948 is mostly because of the Arab/Muslim inability to accept peace rather than anything the Jews have done. They prefer war at all costs rather than peaceful coexistence. They have made that clear despite numerous attempts at reconciliation by the USA, the UN, and others. The rest is mostly propaganda. The next time you hear someone talking about Israel 'occupying Palestinian territories' , as I heard policy wonk/actress/clueless Angelina Jolie say the other day on the radio, remember that. The last Arab to strike a meaningful peace with Israel was probably Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. Remember what happened to him too. The Arab League suspended Egypt from the League for signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and in 1981, Sadat was assassinated after a fatwa approving the assassination had been obtained from Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the U.S. for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Peace with Israel just doesn't play in the Arab world. They start going all jihad-y at the very thought of it. Only the destruction of Israel plays in the Arab world. So, if anyone thinks the Israelis are going to be all eager to cede the high ground of the Golan Heights to their mortal enemies and become sitting ducks, think again, unless the Israelis suddenly become one of those Kool-Aid drinking suicide death cults like Jim Jones led in Jonestown.
But we have a whole crop of historical revisionists at work in the United States these days, working hard to discredit Israel for protecting itself against Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Iran, etc, etc. It's not just Mz Jolie. There are many useful idiots out there. You see, it is politically convenient at the moment to blame the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on Israel, because the USA supports Israel, which means George W. Bush supports Israel, so…according to the leftist doctrine that absolutely everything Bush does has to be wrong…, therefore ISRAEL MUST BE WRONG. As in all historical revisions of the left, the facts be damned. See, simple as pie. That's part of the very reason Ahmadinejad was at Columbia to begin with. That's why his 'free speech' rights were SO important, far more important than the rights of the Minutemen, or the ROTC, or some other vile conservative speaker could ever be. It's all about the ideological push, and right now it's pushing against those Zionist 'interlopers'. Not to worry, though. Everything will go back to normal once we elect a Democratic president.
September 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
King, do you really think some Democrat presidential candidate would do away with Israel by refusing any aid for a time? Which one do you think it would be? I don't think any one of them would have the guts to do that although any one of them is likely to promise the far left people to do that.
Your short history of Israel since its establishment by the United Nations at the behest of the United States and the Soviet Union was a very accurate one. I don't think that many of our leftists will ever accept it as the truth since they are more willing to support the Palestinians. Most of them refuse to believe that the main reason the Israelis and Palestinians haven't been able to get a peaceful settlement was the Egyptian who led the PLO for so long. What was his name? Oh, yeah it was Yassir Arafat. I always want to call him Yessir I am fat.
The Arab nations have used Israel so well to keep things stirred up with the United States all these years and maybe you are right about the Democrat President in that they seem ready to stop the war in Iraq to appease Muslims so maybe they would try to do so by cutting Israel off from our help.
Great job, sir.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Maybe next time there's some kind of genocide in Africa, the UN can give the persecuted people's survivors a slice of the U.S., merely a tiny sliver of land along the coast from Maine to just south of, and including, Boston. I'm sure the good Americans living there, and their grandchildren, will be happy to go along with the UN plan and share as good neighbors.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:21 am
Not a valid comparison Larry. Giving Israel to the Jews would be more like the UN giving Ohio to the Ohioans. They were already there, and for much longer than any Ohioans have been in Ohio too. Thousands of years.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:13 am
That's a ridiculous comparison, Da King, the kind a crackpot might use.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:31 am
I'll give it another try:
Due to untold riches from casino profits, much of the Mohegan tribe of Delaware (I don't know if there is such a thing, I doubt it) is able to relocate to France where the Native Americans prosper and multiply. After a century or so, the dirty French start a war with Germany and simultaneously begin to slaughter Mohegans because they've become too powerful in the gambling capital of Monte Carlo.
The rest of Europe, also fearing the Mohegans' capitalist ways, ignores the genocide.
After Germany defeats the French, the UN decides the Mohegans should be able to return to their native homeland. Of course, there are now way too many Mohegans in Europe to be able to live on the small reservation in Delaware.
The UN decides to give the tribe members their own country, a tiny sliver of land along the mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S., stretching from southern New Jersey to just south of, and including, Washington D.C. It's the range of their historical tribal lands.
How would that go over?
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 am
You really want me to comment on an imaginary scenario ? Especially when it doesn't parallel the Israel/Palestine scenario ? Okay. Your scenario probably would not go over very well.
But….
The Israelis have the same right to the land as the Palestinians do. They never left that land. They've been there for thousands of years. It is their home, the same as it is for the Palestinians. The most important point is that both sides could have their state if not for the racist attitudes of the Arabs. Your mistake is in thinking the Palestinians have more right to the land than do the Jews. That is not true.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The Native Americans have been in the "Americas" for 10 thousand years.
Larry D. makes a valid point. If a foreign government said that New York and most of New England or better yest, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado belonged to the Navajo and they are entitled to having their own country. Despite the fact that the US killed, maimed, and treatied the group for that land. How would the US take it.
The argument that you have is that the Jews have lived in Israel all along. Well Israel was not a country for quite sometime. Not until the reformation of it following WWII. A concession that was made in a country that had no involvement in the war.
The scenario is the same as if Iran told us we need to give the Navajo the southwest. They have no standing, nor does the US in telling Palestine it must allow the Jews to have a country.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
It wasn't the US that told Palestine they should allow the Jews to have their own country. It was the League Of Nations, which was followed by the approval of the UN.
Redneck, you are making the same mistake that Larry made. Your comments assume that the land belonged to the Palestinians and that the Jews somehow stole it. That is not true.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I'm not making the presumption that Jews stole land at all.
The imaginary scenario I painstakingly created includes a people (the mohegans) who could quite convincingly argue that the land in question was always theirs. They (Mohegans/Jews) would be in no way to blame for all the ruckus that would ensue.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 am
I was going to write a reply here but the discussion has become so ridiculous that I don't want to get involved in it.
When some of these guys get carried away with their make believe scenarios they can really sale for days and days.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:21 am
Wise choice, Roy. Wise choice.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist but we're not going to get too far in that area of the world until the U.S. recognizes that my silly scenario is closer to the truth than the idiotic "giving Ohio to Ohioans" analogy.
What's "they can really sale for days and days" mean?
October 5th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Larry, forget about analogies. You took things into the realm of analogies. I prefer to stick with realities.
If you recognize Israel's right to exist, then you have taken up Israel's cause against the Arab extremists in the Middle East. Welcome to the Great Satan. There really isn't any middle ground there. That was pretty much the point of my post. The Arab extremists want Israel destroyed. Period.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
You sound about as flexible as they do, Da King.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Who me ? I'm flexible. I can touch my toes and everything.
But seriously, explain to me the compromise position of the Arab side then.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
If you mean the Palestinian side, I'm sure many would say they've compromised quite a bit over the last 50 years, many to the tune of permanently living in refugee camps. I'm sure there are also many who simply live and work in Israeli society.
Somehow the West needs to make it so the Palestinian problem can't be a rallying point in the Arab world. It's the only complaint terrorist groups have that smacks of any validity at all, and I doubt they would get nearly the support they do among general populations without it.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
"Somehow the West needs to make it so the Palestinian problem can't be a rallying point in the Arab world".
That would be nice, but it seems like the only way to do that in the Arab world is to erase Israel. The Israel/Palestine two state solution would work if the Arabs would let it.
And the terrorists would still find lots of things to hate the USA over. It was the fact that we had an airbase in Saudi Arabia that drove Bin Laden to declare war on us.