17 replies »

  1. Excellent! This captures the Islamist mindset to a T, played out again and again and evidenced most recently by the reaction of Turkey to the trouble their “peace activists” got into on the Mavi Marmara.

    And a very apposite portrayal of the Arab proverb, which translated reads, “He strikes me and cries, and then he goes before me weeping and saying that I struck him.”

  2. Hawkeye

    I have issues with the sense of scale .The giant Hamas is actually a couple hundred guys with albeit deadly.. but antique weaponry . The tiny star has a quarter million soldiers, 200 bombs ,3K tanks , a world class airforce and a gung ho, well trained army of unimpeachable esprit de corps.

    Painting Israel as a victim maybe does work as a cartoon .

  3. The cartoon is true, in a sense.

    ‘The giant Hamas is actually a couple hundred guys with albeit deadly.. but antique weaponry’

    There are 1.5 million Gazans, and likely millions of other Palestinian supporters, and tens of millions local Arab and other Musilm supporters, including millions of MB supporters, and two states, Iran, Syria and Turkey that are prepared to furnish whatever it wants to prosecute its jihad.

    ‘The tiny star has a quarter million soldiers’

    If the entire reserve were called up at any one time.

    The tiny star is tiny: 6-7 million Jews surrounded by 100s of 1 000 000s of hostile Arab and other Muslims, including 1 000 000s of Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians.

    If Israel were weak and Hamas were strong, Israel would not exist. If Israel were strong and Hamas were strong, it still would constitute a short, medium and long term existential threat, given its eliminationist goals. That is why Israel keeps it weak.

    Hamas cannot complain so long as it reserves the right to eternal jihad until the extinction of any Israel.

    But its supporters and sympathisers, in the west and elsewhere, do do endlessly on its behalf.

    The cartoon is an apt metaphor of the Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian national movement, however much Brian Whitaker seeks to censor it, with regard to a presence of Jews in the land in other than tiny numbers: it has consistently pursued a policy or exclusion, dispossession and elimination, and, failing, has never stopped complaining.

  4. ‘If the entire reserve were called up at any one time.’

    Including women and men in their late middle age.

  5. For the most part, and not necessarily in Berchman’s case, I question the sincerity of those who observe the relative scale of standing army, age and quality of equipment etc for the simple reason that one must also take account of express intent: I do not consider someone who wants to eliminate me, with many more friends in the region than I, weak in a virtuous or innocent because of the fact that he has a club but I have a gun.

    The equation in the west is that weak = innocent, non-threatening, non-dangerous. That is manifestly not the case. And all too often those who would arm Hamas to a degree comparable to Israel have murder in their hearts, even though they would deny the fact. And I include many participants of CIF in this.

    The ‘peace’ activists on the Mavi Marmara had murder in their hearts. That they did not have guns does not diminish the fact.

    Israel has no reason to trust to the good intentions of such “peace” makers.

  6. ‘The ‘peace’ activists on the Mavi Marmara had murder in their hearts. ‘

    And, as far as I am concerned, some one who denies the fact, such as Robert Fowke, has de facto murder in his heart too, because it is a wilful blindness to the deadly threat to Israel and Israeli Jews that such people constitute, given half the chance.

  7. However,

    if Hamas can demonstrate that its rhetoric is just that, if other parties, such as the EU, prove to be willing and able to censor Hamas’ military capability, then I would not necessarily oppose a lifting of the blockade.

    I thought at the time that imposing the siege in 2005 was a mistake, because it showed fear and weakness. Sharon’s idea was that, having disengaged from Gaza, and with Hamas behaving aggressively, Israel could attack it with little regard for the effect on its electorate.

    The blockade actually made that policy more difficult, and led to the ridiculous humanitarian incursions of Cast Lead et al., for which the world in its craven hypocrisy gave Israel no credit. The trouble is Israeli politicians since Sharon are weak: they are not prepared to wipe out Hamas regardless of the consequences to its electorate, so they imposed a blockade instead.

    A blockade is a sort of half way house between doing nothing and wiping Hamas out. In a sense it is the more humane option. But, again, the world gives Israel no credit for it.

    If Israel ties its hand behind its back, OIC and its useful idiots, seek to tie the other hand.

  8. What do you do with a group like Hamas that tells you, to your face, if you do not eliminate us, we will eliminate you?

    In a sense it is testing your resolve. In a sense it is a gamble, a gamble that you will not eliminate it i.e. show mercy instead. It is a piece of cheek.

    If Israel were to say to the world, Hamas wants to eliminate us, but, for the sake of mercy, we are not prepared to inflict the casualties necessary to eradicate it, Israel might get some credit. Might. Would showing mercy to Hamas and Gazans mean they would reciprocate i.e. leave Israeli Jews in peace, permanently i.e. give up its or their reserve to eternal jihad?

    Maybe. But the whole world and The Guardian is egging them on to do the opposite. So much for ‘peacemakers’.

  9. zkharya, it is brinkmanship, no doubt about it. Hamas before Cast Lead was sure that Israel would not attack it if it hid behind children. Often the IDF did not but there were unavoidable casualties.

    The bloody nose given to Hamas by the IDF was totally unexpected by Hamas.

    The renowned Israeli Islamic Studies scholar, Prof Moshe Sharon, is vociferous about meeting Islamists on like terms. He says that Israel cannot hope to win if it remains firmly wedged within the western mindset. He writes at

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/MosheSharon40214%20.htm

    “… In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

    “Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice

    “What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing – when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

    “Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It’s allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That’s what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg. When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, “What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don’t understand the mechanisms of politics.”

    “Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing – we haven’t seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

    “Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power….

    “Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?

    “The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

    “The answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future.” What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

    “But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

    “And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

    “I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.”

  10. zkharya

    “Hamas cannot complain so long as it reserves the right to eternal jihad until the extinction of any Israel. ”

    This is so mush part of the narrative that it is never queried here. The idea that Israel is under threat from these people who they are killing at the rate of 100 to 1 ….

    My take is that like 1984 the country needs permanent war. The entire world would support Israel if she moved to the 67 lines ..moving a few hundred thousand folk. This would be easy and would be paid for by cutting the ludicrously gigantic military budget.. instead we have ” they want to destroy Israel! ”

    You want to hear yourselves..as an outsider it seems cloistered, paranoid hateful and silly. However as I keep saying I must visit to find out for myself.

  11. ‘ The idea that Israel is under threat from these people who they are killing at the rate of 100 to 1 ….’

    That is because Israel keeps it that way.

    ‘The entire world would support Israel if she moved to the 67 lines ..moving a few hundred thousand folk.’

    Israel cannot surrender Jewish Jerusalem, old or new. The 67 lines were offered 40 years ago. Now there have to be border adjustments. For all this the US already supported Israel.

    ‘This would be easy and would be paid for by cutting the ludicrously gigantic military budget.. instead we have ” they want to destroy Israel! ”’

    But Hamas does.

    ‘You want to hear yourselves..as an outsider it seems cloistered, paranoid hateful and silly.’

    Well, anyone who denies Hamas’ eliminationist goals is no friends of ours.

    ‘However as I keep saying I must visit to find out for myself.’

    Hopefully you’ll enjoy a long stay, in Ben Gurion airport.

  12. ‘This would be easy and would be paid for by cutting the ludicrously gigantic military budget’

    What do you know of Israel’s military or security needs? To the insider you have the casual English imperiousness of the bigot accustomed to knowing what is best for the natives.

    ‘.. instead we have ” they want to destroy Israel! ”’

    So does Hizbullah. So does Iran’s nutty president. So does the MB. So does Al Qaeda. So does a considerable Islamist element throughout the world.

  13. ” they want to destroy Israel! ”’

    And, by turning a wilful blind eye to all that, so, to all intents and purposes, do you.

  14. Once again ‘Heres to Davy’ repeats his call for a return to 67 lines.
    How strange that Lord Caradon, the chief architect of Resolution 242, does not agree with him. This is what Lord Caradon said;
    “We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
    Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong.”

    Lord Caradon is far more persuasive in his opinion because of his greater knowledge and years of experience as a Diplomat.

  15. Mitnaged

    I believe Professor Sharon’s assessment is wholly true. I am reading a book written in 1972 concerning Palestine Papers to 1922. In that book it is said how delighted the Arabs were to find out how successful they were at manipulating the British.

    No-one has found and not many people seem to look for a way to stop them from doing this. And now it isn’t just Arabs, it’s all the other Muslims, and now SWP/”Respect”/ISM et al too. And Britain isn’t the only object as your quote makes clear.

  16. Lord Caradon is far more persuasive in his opinion because of his greater knowledge and years of experience as a Diplomat.
    @Gerald

    Do you mean to say that Lord Caradon is a bit!! more persuasive/knowledgable than our postman/ex socialworker/altarboy,pervy
    HtoD/Berchmans?
    Just asking