Mr. Auster’s article describing the chain of possession of Israel is valuable in debunking the Arab/Muslim land grab claim.

Too many people view this conflict in terms of territorial concession, but this is not the case. It is clear the conflict can only be resolved by the confiscation of Israel by Arabs, the conversion, acceptance of dhimmitude, expulsion or death of Jews under newly instituted Shari’a law.

That’s when the global jihad will seek a new cause celebre.

PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas has met with the leaders of militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad for talks. A Hamas spokesman who attended the talks said the group would not participate in the upcoming elections for Palestinian Authority chairman, which have been set for January. He said that the elections had been announced without consulting Hamas.

A spokesman for Islamic Jihad, Khalid el-Batch, said his group would not participate in the elections for a new chairman or for the parliament.

Abbas has already survived one assassination attempt. There is the possibility of a bloodbath among the Hamas, Islamic Jihad & PLO factions. Happy house-cleaning!

I would comment on this, but apparently trying to approach this topic from a rational standpoint (i.e., acknowledging the strengths of your adversaries, but not using the approved party-line terms of approbation when describing their failings) earns the label “moral relativist” on this site.

Oh, go on, Mr. Copold, give it a shot; I expect you can survive being called a moral relativist. I’ve been called worse.

Mr. Copold (Got it now),

You descriptive language of Arafat was not one of objective logic and rational analysis. It betrayed a certain sentimental admiration that perhaps you are simply unaware of. Based on your comments, your were in fact engaging in moral relativism. Either stand by your position, reject it or evolve.

Does anyone else listen to Bob grant? He was just talking about the 1965 Immigration Act.

His caller just described encountering a Muslim woman in a Patterson New Jersey Social Security office. She was clad from head to toe in beautiful silk and wearing a mask. The caller ruefullylamanted the loss of his country. Bob started singing the old song “That was my country…” and explained the make-up of the act. He said only 15 percent or the total immigration is allotted to Europeans.

You can listen live via internet stream as I am doing now in Germany (thank God for modern Technology). You will need real one Player, a snap to download.

http://www.wor710.com/listen.shtml

lamanted=lamented…sorry.

Andrew,

There was no sentiment. Just simple facts. Rebut those, please, and then we can talk about my “position.”

Mr. Copold,

I’d rather not continue this. Thank you.

I basically agree with this article by Mr. Krauthammer, but I feel obliged to make a couple of remarks,
- Arafat did not invent “modern” terrorism, the one that is aimed not only to politicians and military but to civil population too. Sorry for the example, but think of the israeli terrorist group, Irgun, lead by Menahem Begin, who was later going to become prime minister of Israel. This group killed more than 90 persons, most of them civilians, by blowing up a bomb in the King David Hotel, in Jerusalem. I am aware that some readers may not like this to be said, and I want to clearly state that I am not against anybody, including the Jews and the State of Israel, but for the sake of the truth and for the “quality” of this discussion these background cannot be just forgotten.
- It is probably right that the Palestinian people, and by extension, also the arab and Muslim people all over the world, are convinced that this war, the one for the Holly places, must be fought till the end. For the Westerners and the Israelis this is to “poison the well”, as Mr. Krauthammer so graphically describes it. For Muslims and arabs it is a “sacred mission” that justifies any sacrifice. Sorry if it looks like “moral relativism” to some readers, but in my opinion it is just a fair acceptation that in a fight each side has its own viewpoint, and that both may be legitimate, each in its own environment, in its own world. Different worlds with different understandings and values.