Muslim (and Obama administration) antisemitism

If you want a good lesson in the depth, breadth and virulence of Muslim antisemitism, Andrew Bostom provides it.  Then think long and hard about the fact that the current administration is siding with these Muslims at the United Nations.  I’m still struggling to come to terms with the appalling nature of the administration’s decision, and can’t quite decide what to write.  Others, though, have written about it:

Omri Ceren

John Podhoretz

Abe Greenwald

Rick Richman

Rick Moran

Guy Benson

Maetenloch at Ace of Spades

Jennifer Rubin (twice)

Jay Nordlinger

Bryan Preston

Bottom line:  the Obama administration is engaging in a noxious blend of appeasement (and we know how well that works) and the wonderful opportunity to slam Israel for the “disgust” it feels towards that nation.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    I have never understood the settlements and would appreciate any explanation anybody can give me.  Here is my quite limited and perhaps incorrect understanding (but one that I will bet is shared by the vast majority of Americans).  In the end, Israel will have to give up land for peace.  The settlements are on part of the land that they will have to give up.  It seems unlikely that Israel would allow settlements on the land unless it intends to keep the land.  If it intends to keep the land, then it intends never to agree to terms necessary for peace.  The settlements are, therefor, essentially a statement by Israel that they are not willing to doing what it takes to achieve a peaceful resolution of the perpetual conflict with their foes. 

    Okay, granted, the “Palestinians” will never truly agree to a peace that allows Israel to continue to exist so the entire land-for-peace idea is pretty much a sham anyway.  But doesn’t Israel have to at least keep up the appearance of being willing to trade land for peace and don’t the settlements absolutely fly in the face of that?  And, insofar as America continues to support the land for peace idea, don’t we have to oppose the settlements?  What am I missing? 

  2. Charles Martel says

    I’m not quite clear on your reasoning, Quixote. It’s acknowledged that there is nothing Israel can ever do that will make the Palestinians sign a peace agreement short of having every Jew in the Middle East slowly walk into the Mediterranean with a millstone around his neck. So the idea that Israel “will give up land for peace” makes no sense because there will never be peace when the Palestinians’ fondest hope is for the extinction of the Jewish state.

    And for whom is Israel supposed to keep up appearances? A feral Palestinian population that wants to murder all of its citizens? The “Muslim street,” that invention of the media wherein simple, peace-loving followers of Allah just want to live quietly in a prosperous, Judenfrei world? The kleptomaniacs in China and Russia? The savage minds that govern Iran? The legions of self-hating American Jews?

    Israel’s in the position of a good neighbor surrounded by gangbangers. The bangers love to trespass on his property when they’re not shooting at his house. “We wouldn’t have to trespass and snipe if you’d just give us that back yard you won from us in that card game. When you do, don’t mind us sitting right next to your children’s bedrooms  kicking back. Now some of the boys might drink a little too much and aim their pistols at every frickin’ one of you bastard Joos, but at least you’ll feel a lot better knowing that we have a truce with you.”

    As for America opposing settlements in “occupied” territory, Israel won the land fair and square in war. If brave Arab warriors ever think they’re good enough to take ‘em back, I’m gonna cook up one big tub of popcorn and sit back and watch yet another Muslim trainwreck unfold.

  3. Tonestaple says

    We saw what happened when Israel gave up its legitimately obtained territory in Gaza:  destruction of property by the Arabs and a constant rain of missiles on Israeli territory.  Since Israel won the West Bank fair and square in a war Israel didn’t start, there’s no logical reason for them to give it up.  Holding the West Bank makes Israel a little more defensible instead of being stuck with that tiny little neck.

    These Arabs are never going to give Israel a real peace.  It is Muslim doctrine that land that was once part of the Dar al Islam can never ever be anything else and this land was once part of the Ottoman Empire. The fact that there have been Jews there for as long as there have been Jews is not of interest to any member of the Ummah.

    It would be so much better for the world if the Arabs could just be booted back to Jordan (which won’t have them).  Then they could no longer keep trying to destroy Temple Mount and remove the evidence of the Jews’ priority there.

  4. says

    Well, sure, that’s why I called the whole thing a sham.  Nevertheless, it seems to me the Israelis should either state flat out they aren’t going to give up the land or, if they are going to leave the possibility of giving up the land open, they shouldn’t settle on it.  Their current position seems inconsistent to me.  I suppose the answer to your question, CM is mostly the self-hating American Jews who want to believe that land for peace is possible. 

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    I imagine that, should the new Egyptian regime decide that the peace treaty with Israel is null and void, Israel should feel quite justified in reoccupying the Sinai and keeping it.

Leave a Reply