The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

You're welcome. One day you'll even understand his comments, like many well-regarded moderate, democratically muslims do.

Pipes is saying that the palestinians will keep fighting a terrorist and annihilist war until they surrender hope of defeating Israel. he argues, convincingly, I believe, that germany and japan were, as they needed to be, utterly defeated and exhausted, in order to accept their reality. Out of that they became democracies. the palestinians, he reasons, need to undergo the same experience, in order to accept a land for peace deal. There is nothing angry, mean-spirited or vindictive in his reasoning, whether one agrees with him or not. Personally, i think when the western world regains its moral compass, i.e., the EU quits tacitly supporting the palestinian terror campaign for reasons of immediate cynical self-interest (like having geopolitical influence, big business deals with Arab oil producers, and mollifying their Muslim voters, of whom they're afraid), then that will be a vital first step. If Arab nations truly democratize, that will be the final step to induce the palestinians to finally surrender hope. That is, without international support to destroy Israel, they'll give up. Which means Israel won't have to defeat them as thoroughly as the Allies beat Germany and japan - as if the world would ever allow Israel to do that anyhow.

I've provided you with dictionary definitions of anti-Semitism.The self-interest includes the following:isalmic nations will support another islamic nation.Most non democracies, including Islamic nations, are deathly afriad of a democratic revolution, so despise Israel for that reason.Arab oil means big, big business deals. Most nations want to be in on them, whether legal or illegal. That includes Europe.European politicians vie for Muslim votes. They're also afraid of their Muslim population, as we see why in france right now.Europe, especdially Old Europe, wants geopolitical influence. By siding with Islamic nations, they get varous favours which include influence vis a vis the US.

Most of those nations have a substantial Muslim population, whose votes are wanted, and whose potential violence scares governments into appeasement policies, such as supporting islamic nations at the UN against Israel. All want to avail themselves of Arab business. being a a part of the EU, they support one another with respect to geopolitical influence vis a vis the US.Yes, Blair, being the true principled democrat he is, supported the war in iraq. he also was tired of the endless costs and military tie-up in maintaining the no-fly zone protecting the Kurds from Hussein. nonetheless, GB, like others, has self-interest in voting against Israel.the simple truth is that israel has nothing to barter for UN votes. the Un is not a moral institution. Nations vote out of cynical self-interest, and Israel, being tiny, with no oil, with little business to offer others, and opposed by the islamic world, is a very convenient and expedient target. as said before, to the eternal shame of this world.

We appear to be in agreement that nations vote according to self interest at the UN, rather than according to principle, and that voting for Israel is seldom in other nations' self interest. (But I think democracies are making a huge long-term self-interest error in voting for and supporting tyrannies against a western liberal democracy.)Good Night.

well, we also both fervently wish for peaceful coexistence. Presumably you, like me, support the Israeli government's decision to withdraw from gaza (also supported by western governments) - even if, maybe, for different reasons.

As long as the palestinians think they can wipe out ISrael, there will be no peace. Successful suicide bombs embolden them in that aim. Insofar as the barrier deters, as it does, successful suicide bombs, and weakens palestinian dreams of wiping out ISrael, it contributes to peace - as well as to the safety of israelis, jews and palestinian both. The japanese were prepared to fight on, even when they were clearly destined to lose, because, somehow, they deluded themselves into believing they might win. It was also about a macho culture in which pride often meant more than anything else. Only the 2nd atomic bomb, the first being insufficient, convinced them that their cause was, truly, lost and desperate. There is an analogy in that with respect to the palestinians, one which includes, somewhat, the security barrier (it's 95% very sophisticated fence).

For sure Israel only has the ability wipe out the other, yet it hasn't. But the palestinians don't plan on doing what they cannot, wiping out ISrael in a few blasts - much as they salivate at the thought. Instead, they intend to do it through some combination of assistance from other nations and a terroist war of attrition.Isreal never signed the non-proliferation treaty and is therefore not bound to it. It may well have been Israel's nuclear weapons that have kept her alive. But we know perfectly well that had her adversaries exclusively the bomb, they wouldn't have kept it under wraps; Israel would be gone and yet another genicide committed against the Jews. Indeed, iran, which hasn't yet got it, has been saying for years that it intends to nuke Israel dead in a flash - and that's despite Israel possibly being able to launch retaliatory bombs before she goes up in radioactive smoke.The scientist to whom you refer is Israeli, not English. He was arrested, charged and convicted. Israel is a country that was attacked at its very birth by 5 invading nations, several times since, and is constantly under siege. She has every right, indeed obligation, to arrest traitors. The UK and every other democracy holds military trials in secret, because military and national secrets are exactly that: secret.The world creates an impossible moral code for israel, one which if she abided, she'd be dead. In effect, the world demands, over and over, that Israel commit suicide and her people be destoyed. It is hypocrisy only explained by, again, that Israel has nothing to barter for influence, and plain old ancient anti-Semitism.

Let's play this arbitrary date game: If the US now has a moral right to exist on what was native land, in what year did that right arise? 1776? 1865?

Must be tough for a moral relativist and profound leftist to argue against MLK's moral authority.

truth is telling, isn't it?

What in the world are you talking about? You might want to go back and re read what i wrote. You have evidenty entirely misread it.

what are you talking about? the Palestinians want to destroy Israel and that makes me a racist?

I said they want to destroy Israel, as they do, and as they have persued rather than accept a land for peace deal (read Bill Clinton's book). Does that mean every single last one? Of course not. Do you use the English language than do others?And tell me: If I accurately say that palestinian men abuse women (no, not every single one), does that make me a misogynist?If I accurately say that the Nazis (no, not every single one) wanted to kill all Jews, does that make me a genocidist?

When did the Anglos get a moral/practical right to England after pushing out the Saxons? When did the Arabs get a moral/practical right to israel after pushing out the Jews?As for atrocities, they are committed against Jews by arabs, not the other way around. No nation, not one, not ever, has shown the resolute moral resolve in the face of those who would "throw them into the sea" or the gas chambers, that Israel has. The allies firebombed Desden and used nuclear weapons aginst the japanese. Israel would have every right to do likewise against no less implacable, crazed, murderous enemy. Yet Israel hasn't even responded in equal measure. It is absolutely incredible, and will be so recorded by history - just as history will record the lies about Israel for what they are: yet another round of ages old vile anti-semitism. And those who subscribed to those lies will be condemned.