Saudis Say No To Maccas Mo Mock
Saudi Muslims have found something else by which to be offended.
Besides Jews and women drivers, that is. (hat tip: Blazing Cat Fur)
Saudi Arabians are angry at a McDonald’s toy which they say mocks their prophet Muhammad. According to a report appearing today (5/27/12) on the Arabic news website, Kermalkom.com, the McDonald’s fast food restaurant “abused the Prophet Muhammad by placing his name at the base of a toy that is being distributed as part of the Happy Meal, a toy which steps on the name ‘Muhammad.’”
The toy consists of a blue superhero figurine (apparently a Power Ranger Samurai; click here for pictures). It stands on one leg, and, when the lever is pressed, it pounds on the base with the other leg. According to the Saudis, the designs that appear all around the base, where the figurine stomps its foot, is really the name “Muhammad” written several times in circles.
The toy had been distributed a few days before Saudi children and their parents began to take note of the name. Soon thereafter, Saudi Muslims launched several campaigns against McDonald’s in “response to the savage attacks on the noble Prophet,” under banners like “Help your Prophet!” and “Together in support of the Prophet.”
Saudis, “demanding the strongest possible punishment for the restaurant” and insisting that “they will not be silent until this is realized,” further complained how such an obvious insult could pass the supervision of the management at McDonalds.
In response, “Saudi McDonald’s” has withdrawn the toy from all its restaurants, “in order to safeguard against any accusations or misunderstandings.”
Here’s a closer look at the base, next to the name ‘Muhammad.’”
I’d say some people have had one too many “happy” meals. If you know what I mean.
Heck, if they really wanted to have a beef with McDonalds, they could have at least pointed out that the McDonalds symbol looks like the top part of the ‘Muhammad’” symbol upside down.
About the Author
An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.Filed Under: Aussie Dave
No to mention of course that the Power Rangers were originally created by Saban entertainment – Haim Saban and Shuki Levy: it’s all a Jewish plot!
To all the Pat Condell fans out there, here’s some more Saudi-Arabia information, at your service:
Hello Saudi Arabia
Can I say this?
[Language Warning]
I want to point out that the upside down ‘m’, is actually a Shadda, an Arabic diacritic sign similar to the Hebrew Dagesh used for consonant gemination, that is why you write the name Muhammad with 2 m’s.
What’s more, there are other, less calligraphical ways to write Muhammad’s name, like this, where it does have an uncanny resemblance to that little blue squiggle.
This reminds me of an anecdote related on an American chat show many years ago by the late British actress and wit Hermione Gingold. She was enjoying a quilting party with her friends when she suddenly stopped and put down her needle. “OMG,” she exclaimed, “I just embroidered a dirty word in Arabic!”
It’s just like in the conflict Israel has with its neighbors: Our problem is they want to hate. They get what they want by cooking up the most trumped-up pretext you could imagine. You stare in disbelief, but disbelief subsides into something else—determination if you’re a patriot, calls for appeasement if not—when you realize they’re perfectly willing to murder you and yours for those excuses.
Oh wait, it’s not even “like in the conflict Israel has.” That is the conflict: From the 1890s onward, Islamic imperialist aggression has been at its root, often masked under an Arab nationalistic or faux-Palestinian “nation” narrative of an “anti-colonial struggle” to better sell it to the outside world (not the other way round—a nationalistic struggle having a religious agenda grafted onto it—as far too many historians erroneously put it), but the real cause has always been Islam’s political doctrine that any land once under Islamic rule must never revert to a non-Islamic polity. And remember, Israel’s present conflict with non-neighboring, non-Arab, historically friendly nations like the Persian nation can only be explained by putting Islam in the picture. Any view of this conflict that doesn’t take Islam into account is deficient.
Something I wanted to write on that post but forgot (happens often):
All the scenarios of a win-win peace agreement like Jim from Iowa clamors for (I’m not faulting him for this—I’d have wanted them myself) would be possible—if Islam weren’t at the root of this conflict. If this were a dispute over this land with Christian or atheist Arabs or Druzes, with no Muslims involved, I don’t think it would even have reached the situation of 1947–9. Without the Islamic doctrine of perpetual Islamic land ownership, the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 would have been happily accepted by all parties. There would have been problems—it doesn’t take religious doctrine to create strife between nations—but not an intractable, existential conflict as now.
The idea that Israel should concede lands for peace is not my #1 bugbear (though it is grating to be told by people living in states bigger than Israel that Israel needs to get smaller), but the persistence of this idea, fueled by the refusal to see the radical, major, overwhelming role of Islam in this conflict. When confronted with a form of imperialism, whether religious (Islam), socio-economic (Marxism) or racial (Nazism), the gentlemanly assumptions just plain break down. Chamberlain’s assumption that Nazi Germany just wanted to reunify the Germans in Czechoslovakia with those of Germany would have brought “peace for our time” if he had been right; instead, the imperialistic program that anyone reading Adolf’s book could have gleaned meant that one concession only led to another. Then as now, the Islamic imperialists habitually make their intentions crystal clear—I don’t think you can get any more explicit than “Israel Will Be Destroyed” and “Islam Will Dominate The World”—but the world chooses either appeasement or the mistaken notion that mere democratization (Bush Jr.’s Iraq Experiment) could defuse that imperialism.
Your description of Israel as the focal point of sweeping historical events is, well, breathtaking. I’m not saying you’re wrong, mind you. Your narrative places the state of Israel as some sort of Forrest Gump figure unwittingly thrown into world events at breakneck speed. But if you take up long distance running, I’m afraid I’m going to have to excuse myself.
My views are more pedestrian. I’m concerned with practical solutions. I’m more concerned with Israel’s future than it’s Arab neighbors (an admitted bias on my part). How do we get back to those days where Israel was viewed more favorably in world opinion? Is Judea and Samaria land given by God to the Jews or part of some land-for-peace negotiated settlement proposed by the Israeli government? Israelis really can’t seem to decide on this fundamental issue which has a profound impact on their future. How can you expect anything more from a goy from Iowa?
“Your description of Israel as the focal point of sweeping historical events is, well, breathtaking.”
You’re reading something that is nowhere in my post. I’ve said time and again that the intractable enemy Israel is confronted with besets many countries far away from Israel: India, Thailand, Nigeria, Kenya, France, Italy, Russia and the United States of America, to name just a few. Israel’s fight may not be your fight (you know I disbelieve in alliances), but our enemy is the same as yours, and our mistakes in dealing with that enemy would be equally erroneous for you to carry out.
“Your narrative places the state of Israel as some sort of Forrest Gump figure unwittingly thrown into world events at breakneck speed.”
If so, then that applies as equally to the other countries I just listed. Israel may have the distinction of being the first victim of Islamic imperialism in modern times, but that’s about it. For one thing, the greatest victims of Islamic imperialism to date have been the Hindus (at least 90 million of them murdered in the Middle Ages by the Islamic invaders). I may sound severe, but a Hindu version of me would sound far more severe.
“My views are more pedestrian. I’m concerned with practical solutions.”
I’m more practical than you. I take reality as my guide in devising practical solutions. That’s why I quoted Rabbi Ovadyah Yosef, remember: As an example of what it truly means to take reality as your guide. In contrast, you seem to be stuck on misconceptions that should have been abandoned decades ago.
“How do we get back to those days where Israel was viewed more favorably in world opinion?”
Criminalize Marxism, for starters. That Israel is now viewed less favorably in world opinion is because of the Marxist, Islam-sympathizing takeover of the media throughout the whole Western world. No, I’m not saying it’s within Israel’s power to criminalize Marxism outside its own jurisdiction; what I’m saying is Israel is not blame for the lessening of its stature in “world opinion”—the anti-nationalist (therefore, anti-Zionist as a special case), Islam-aiding attitude of the Far Left principally.
“Is Judea and Samaria land given by God to the Jews…”
I think so, but you’re again bringing up a point I never mentioned in my post you’re responding to. This doesn’t reflect well on you, Jim.
“…or part of some land-for-peace negotiated settlement proposed by the Israeli government?”
My words are simply wasted on you. What part of “Islam as the root case” and “Islamic imperialist aggression” do you fail to understand? How can ceding land to the Sudeten Arabs (the faux-Palestinian “nation”) bring peace any more than the Munich Agreement in 1938 could have? You simply don’t stop to think, that’s the problem with you. You’re set on an idea like it were a solid wall.
“Israelis really can’t seem to decide…”
More and more of them have reached a decision. It’s their government that can’t decide—for being stuck on the same misconceptions as you are.
“How can you expect anything more from a goy from Iowa?”
I have not stooped to any ad hominem against you—at least not in my moments of calmness, as is the case right now. Your being a goy, or a gay, or both, from Iowa or Mauna Loa or Wladiszawowa or wherever, has no bearing on this. What I’m faulting you is for your tenacious misconception that an imperialist enemy such as Israel has—as do a host of other countries, again see partial list above—can be dealt with in a gentlemanly way. It’s nothing about you as a person, it’s about you being factually wrong.
How did we stray so far from the Saudis and McDonald’s marketing of Power Rangers action figures? If Iran gets the bomb, the Power Rangers will be the least of the Saudis concerns. Finally, if I actually were a Power Ranger myself, I would use my powers to do good in the world, like restyle Donald Trump’s hair to make it more presentable and less cartoonish.
“How did we stray so far from the Saudis and McDonald’s marketing of Power Rangers action figures?”
I’m to blame on that one. I shall accept full responsibility for this and apologize personally to Aussie Dave. “Apology accepted, Captain Ziontruth.” /muhahahaha
“…if I actually were a Power Ranger myself, I would use my powers to do good in the world, like restyle Donald Trump’s hair to make it more presentable and less cartoonish.”
But then you’ll be destroying one of the few man-made structures available from space! (MAD Magazine once quipped this of Don King’s hair. Probably applicable to Geert Wilders too.)
I agree 100% with your assertion that Islam and Islamic imperialism is the core of the problem, the rest being spin of its tennets. However, your claim that you are practical lost me. Mass deportation? To where? (don’t get me wrong, it’s such a nice dream to just push the buggers into the sea, but I wouldn’t call it practical or realistic). Which democracy these days doesn’t have nearly as many detractors as supporters? That Israel is a melting pot of religions, cultures, nationalities, and is vibrant, successful, driven, is one of its many achievements to be celebrated. Realistically, which democratically elected government is going to criminalize an ideology or deport its detractors? If only it could be so simple.
What should be achievable is to improve Israel’s image by constantly reminding the world that the Islamists are such a dangerous force. If they really just want to live in peace, the Western world should support Israel in assisting them to settle in the land Israel apportions them (why is Israel’s right to determine what to do with land they acquired in the course of 3+ defensive wars never recognized?) on the condition that they are de-militarized. After all, who would be a threat to them? Rather than deporting them, they should constantly be discredited, and shown up for the 2 faced liars they are.
One of the problems is that the Arabs (or their morphed term, Palestenians) are at once declaring war and seeking help from anyone who will listen to their whining. You can’t declare war and simultaneously negotiate what you hope will be the outcome? If you declare war, you take a risk on the outcome. They know this historically. As long as there are groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad (the clue is in the name), Israel should be within her international legal right to treat their actions as an act of war and respond with as much force as necessary. The negotiations can take place after the war is finished. The reality is that the moderate, peace loving Palestenians, and those not so keen on the honour of martyrdom,will be the ones to suffer. But this is the reality of war, and it is the reality of letting a group of murderous thugs, no matter how small, stand up as you representatives. I’m sure that most people in Afganistan are properly sick of war, poverty, destruction, losing life and limb, but they couldn’t curb the Taliban, and that’s the result. Oh, and no right of return. It’s not just Jewish refugees from the Arab countries who have no right of return. If the other half of Israelis had right of return reinstated to them or their descendants, most of them would have the EU passport, with no visa required and no problems with living or working in Europe. It’s almost impossible to reinstate a Russian passport, it is impossible to reinstate a Ukrainian passport, and forget about restitution. I could go further back and ask that the millions of descendants of Jews expelled from Spain be reinstated too.
“Mass deportation? To where?”
What do I care? Are we Jews the problem here, the interlopers, that we need to be concerned about this? No. So, maybe to Egypt or Syria, where a lot of them came from in the early 20th century to Palestine (suddenly changing from a near-desert to greenery, guess because of who), or to their actual indigenous territory, the land they face five times a day in prayer. It’s none of my concern where, and it’s not my problem if their oil-rich brothers refuse to help them (to remind, we had very little help from outside when we resettled the Jewish refugees from Arab countries in the 1950s).
“That Israel is a melting pot of religions, cultures, nationalities, and is vibrant, successful, driven, is one of its many achievements to be celebrated.”
The cultures are and should be as many as the Diaspora countries Jews have returned from, and the vibrancy of inventiveness and free-market initiative are things I’m definitely for, but Israel is principally the nation-state for one and only nation, the Jewish nation, just as the Greece is the nation-state for the Hellenic nation. Multiculturalism, or more exactly the idea of mixing multiple nations (note: nations, not races) under the same political roof, has been a failure just above everywhere tried; therefore, I’m not interested in Israel becoming a state of all its citizens. The right to a nation-exclusive state is a right every real nation has, and it’s better for every nation’s long-term survival.
“Realistically, which democratically elected government is going to criminalize an ideology…”
I brought that “Criminalize Marxism” bit as a refutation of the idea that Israel is to blame for its stature in “world opinion”—it is the largely Marxist-owned worldwide media that is to blame. Practically speaking, I think Israel just needs to tell the owners of those media outlets that they have the choice between stopping their anti-Israel biased reporting or being denied any access to information about Israel except what Israel agrees to provide. Those are measures against an external enemy, which the worldwide media is as much as the Islamic terrorists.
“What should be achievable is to improve Israel’s image by constantly reminding the world that the Islamists are such a dangerous force.”
I agree, but how do you get that message past the worldwide media’s Marxist, pro-Islamic, anti-Israel gatekeepers? Without the Jewish State applying a forceful hand against their owners, you can’t. The best message is the world is useless if it can’t reach the public.
“If they really just want to live in peace, the Western world should support Israel in assisting them to settle in the land Israel apportions them … on the condition that they are de-militarized.”
This is a treaty-based solution, and like all such solution there are many creative ways to break it. Besides, I don’t trust the Western world (at least not its leadership) to be an honest broker of such a treaty. And I don’t want them butting in.
“Rather than deporting them, they should constantly be discredited, and shown up for the 2 faced liars they are.”
The anti-Zionists like them just the way they are, as two-faced liars. Far too many in the Western world believe the Jews have no right to any land in the Middle East—not even the pre-1967 Israel. To draw a sharp line between pre- and post-1967 Israel is to be out of date with respect to the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism today.
“As long as there are groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad (the clue is in the name), Israel should be within her international legal right to treat their actions as an act of war and respond with as much force as necessary.”
That would be fair. However, fairness is not the way of the world; a Jewish state even the size of the Tel-Aviv region would be castigated for “aggression” in the anti-Zionist media.
“I’m sure that most people in Afganistan are properly sick of war, poverty, destruction, losing life and limb,…”
I’m sure most people in Afghanistan are Muslim believers that take the Islamic duty of installing shariah law worldwide quite seriously. If not in action, then in support. And so it is with our local Muslims. I’m not wedded to the unJewish idea of humanity having a basic tendency toward good. This sounds cynical, but the truth often is.
You might not care where they would theoretically be “deported” to, but the fact that there isn’t a country which would absorb them is the reason that the solution is impractical. This isn’t Israel’s fault, and this is one the root issues of the Islamic imperialism, in that it is an ongoing demonstration that they hate us more than they love their children. Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc don’t give equal rights to theirPalestinians and don’t absorb them, rather they use them to cause continual harassment of Israel, to fulfill their imperialistic notions.
Israel was never established as a nation exclusive state, but as a nation majority state. It might be a country’s right to seek a nation exclusive state (though I’m not sure it is a legal right, currently), but it’s a different thing entirely to seek it after it has been multicultural. Whichever way you look at it, what you’re suggesting would be ethnic cleansing, and for a Jewish state, this would be unthinkable for obvious reasons, before even getting to the fact that Israel is a democracy etc. Worse still, I do believe you are thinking of one particular group to expel – there could be a problem or two with this plan. Also, there would be ramifications for world Jewry (as in worse than there are now) and although you might feel that all Jews should be zionists, there are probably a few self hating anti-Zionist Jews you wouldn’t want to be lumped with, when they get kicked out of their countries. Unfortunately, your solution really would have Israel become all those things it’s not, but is being libelled as being (apartheid, racist etc)
Also, another issue is the elephant in the room of determining who belongs to this nation – do you go according to Halacha, or the accepted definition which seeks to mirror hitler’s definition. If it’s the latter, then there are many people who belong to more than one nation. I hope you’re not suggesting that they become second class citizens or perhaps that Israel gives them a choice of converting or leaving? Hmm, now Zionism really would be tantamount to racism and worse. I understand that the frustration of the unending barrage of hate-filled enemies of Israel would make the thought of a simple solution tempting, but it is not practical or realistic.
“…but the fact that there isn’t a country which would absorb them is the reason that the solution is impractical.”
That doesn’t follow.
“Israel was never established as a nation exclusive state,…”
I know that. But it’ll have to become one if it is to stay the Jewish sanctuary.
“…ethnic cleansing, and for a Jewish state, this would be unthinkable for obvious reasons,…”
What obvious reasons? Judaism? Judaism is on my side. Contrary to the common misconception, ethnic cleansing most certainly is a Jewish value. The Torah and its authoritative commentaries show that quite clearly.
“Unfortunately, your solution really would have Israel become all those things it’s not, but is being libelled as being (apartheid, racist etc)”
Ethnic cleansing prevents apartheid, that’s one reason why I call for it. Apartheid can’t hold, our enemies including those within pre-1967 Israel want nothing less than our destruction, so that’s what’s left.
“do you go according to Halacha,”
Yes.
“…would make the thought of a simple solution tempting, but it is not practical or realistic.”
I still differ, especially as I have yet to encounter any alternative solution that isn’t in the “tried and failed” category.
The obvious reason is that Nazis ethnically cleansed Jews.
“do you go according to Halacha,”
Yes.
But then you’d have to kick out many Israelis. Sochnut actively campaigned to bring many of the Russian Jews in, and many of them aren’t halachadly Jewish, and there are many non Jewish spouses.
I forgot to mention that I agree with your comment regarding the 1967 lines. It should be entirely upto Israel to determine the specific borders. This is one of the glaring examples of the anti-Israel duplicity. “Naqba” is from 1948, but then they have been “occupied” from 67. It’s kind of laughable except for the fact that the West has, by and large, lapped up this rewriting of history.
Firstly, to Dave – you worked *really* hard on that headline, didn’t you?
Secondly, to ZionTruth – I rarely agree with you 100%, but you are spot on with your analysis of the role of Islam in the ME situation (and wider geo-political situation). I don’t understand the deep desire of so many people, including (perhaps especially) people who consider themselves part of the “Left”, to racialize what is very clearly an ideological issue.
“I don’t understand the deep desire of so many people, including (perhaps especially) people who consider themselves part of the ‘Left’, to racialize what is very clearly an ideological issue.”
What else do they have? In the case of the Far Left, the view of politics through racial glasses is all they have, as demonstrated nowhere so poignantly as in American politics, where the substance of the economic arguments against Obama’s fiscal policies is cast aside by a barrage of accusations of “racism” instead of being debated. Those of the more center-Left (like Jim) too prefer to ignore the Islamic root cause on emotional grounds: Because they’re wedded to the much easier idea of solving geopolitical conflicts by means of give-and-take, material agreements. It’s an idea I’m by no means against, but it is simply not, factually speaking, applicable when there’s a form of imperialistic ideology involved, which is why I reject it, painful though the admission of having been wrong might be.
Long ago, one commenter on Jihad Watch said something like, “If it’s about Islam, how are we going to fight a billion people?” Well, my reply now would be that there’s no need to fight a billion people, just deal locally with the Islamic invaders that happen to be on your own soil, which is much easier (note: I don’t call for mass killing but for mass deportation). I have to say, though, the question itself is a clear window into the mindset of those who wish to appease Islam or ignore it entirely. It’s because of the consequences of recognizing the truth (even if, as I just pointed out, the idea of those consequences is mistaken).
Recently, Caroline Glick addressed this problem in the Jerusalem Post. She opined that the two-state solution has proven to be an impossible dream and that it would be best for Israel to annex the West Bank whole. She then addressed the demographic bugaboo, declaring that the Jewish population is actually growing faster than the Arab, both by natural increase and by immigration, so that this expanded state would be 65% Jewish as opposed to the 80% ratio in the present configuration.
Like Jim, I favor practical solutions. However, I don’t see them happening as long as diplomats who should know better remain locked into the same dead-end postures they have maintained for more than 40 years.
“…so that this expanded state would be 65% Jewish as opposed to the 80% ratio in the present configuration.”
A 35% minority is still a minority from which terrorists originate and attack, and which would support those terrorists. A minority of whatever percentage would be a minority under occupation, with all that that entails. I’m against the idea of Jews maintaining any kind of military occupation on Jewish soil—my difference from the anti-Zionists is as to which population is the one that’s to evacuate the land in order to end that occupation. It seems to me (unless she was just saying it for the sake of argument, in refutation of the demographic bogeyman) Glick has arbitrarily closed the doors to a practical peace solution.
“Like Jim, I favor practical solutions.”
So do I, and more so, I opine, than Jim does. For one thing, like I said, I tend to inform my practical decision by the failures of the past as much as by my ideals, and for another, I don’t slap the label “impractical” on a solution that’s merely unfashionable, politically incorrect or requires the leadership to possess a spine.
Forgive me, but proposed compulsory involuntary evacuation of the West Bank en masse by the Arab population is not a practical solution. What Israeli governing coaliation would ever attempt such a thing? Isn’t this the kind of public policy that got the Kahanists outlawed in Israel? I say take small victors as they come in life. Like accepting McDonald’s action figures as prized possessions while your enemy sees them as un-Islamic and offensive to some Muslims.
“…proposed compulsory involuntary evacuation of the West Bank en masse by the Arab population is not a practical solution. What Israeli governing coaliation would ever attempt such a thing?”
My point above: Unfashionable, politically incorrect, requires the leadership to possess a spine. All true, but this does not equate to “impractical.”
“Isn’t this the kind of public policy that got the Kahanists outlawed in Israel?”
You can outlaw a party, you can’t outlaw ideas. The Jewish man in the Israeli street has been having quite a few second thoughts since the Second Intifada (October 2000), when the pre-1967 Israel Arabs joined their post-1967 counterparts in the rioting. A couple of decades and the Israeli Jews who came of age then are the new leadership.
“I say take small victors as they come in life. Like accepting McDonald’s action figures as prized possessions while your enemy sees them as un-Islamic and offensive to some Muslims.”
I have nothing against humor per se—maybe only the irreverent type exemplified by Monty Python—but humor by itself does not a practical solution make. If anything, this ridiculous story speaks volumes about the practicality of solving Israel’s conflict within the box of materialist, politically correct ideas. Those who go berserk seeing a squiggle on a Power Rangers doll cannot be trusted to honor peace treaties.
Not only Monty Python, but surely Broadway can be a useful touchstone to understanding every day life. When trying to gauge the conviction behind your comments, I frequently think to myself “When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way.”
It is an impractical solution as it is a democratically elected government. If it’s not politically correct, unpopular etc, it doesn’t represent the people who elected the government. Therefore, impractical.
You’re describing the situation as it is right now.
As opposed to what, the future when Israel becomes a dictator ruled state?
“…the future when Israel becomes a dictator ruled state?”
The future when the Israeli Jewish populace democratically elects a government that will do its will of removing the enemy population. What does dictatorship have anything to do with it?! Why assume that an agenda unpopular to the Israeli Left (itself quite dictatorial in its decisions as to who can voice their opinions in the media and the academic world) must necessarily imply a dictatorship?
Ziontruth
Had the Arabs been all Druze or all Christian, they would have been no less accepting of Israel. Samee Kuntar the baby murderer is a Druze, and the PLO founder, George Habach a Christian? The PLO and the September gang who murdered the athletes were not religous, and included Christians.
Christan Arabs are more anti semitic than the Moslem Arabs.
Israel’s recent prisoner exchange included Christian Arabs. Azmi Bishara the traitor to Hezbolla is a Christian Arab. How much support does Hezbollah enjoy from Christian Lebanese? Quite a lot.
The British when they fuc*^&% Israel right from it’s creation, were not marxist. The Church of England is pro fakestinian. Christian anti semitism is the root of the western antagonism towards Israel. According to Christian theology Israel was not supposed to be a nation again.
Your analysis marxism-islamism is too simplistic and flawed.
Not least because it is the socialist Arabs who reject Islam who could be said to be the biggest enemies of Israel. The Syrians, fakestinians, Iraqis, Egyptians who want a secular state and are anti Islam are just as anti Israel if not more than the Islamist ones.
The PLO and the Sabeel organisations calling for divestment from Israel are backed by Protestant churches, the Episcopial, Methodist, Church of England, Orthodox.
It’s not a secret that there is widespread antisemitism amongst Christians, atheists and the world in general. It is also a sad reality that you don’t need Jews to have antisemites. However, these Druze, Christians, socialist Arabs hate Israel because they hate Jews, not because they are Christians or whatever. Sadly, we have learned to deal with that. When Egypt and Jordan signed treaties with Israel, they didn’t have an epiphany and start loving Jews. When you live side by side with those who hate you, there is always the risk of attacks, and this has no exclusivity to Israel. However, it is only Islam which has a tennet within the religion itself that forbids Muslim ruled land to be given up. This is why they never accept any concessions from Israel, (even when it has seemed completely insane) and if they do, it must be acknowledged to be a lie. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the most honest in stating their truth, but the West ignore this, and call them an insignificant radical minority. The conflict with Islam is different because from the Islamist perspective following Islam properly cannot coexist with living side by side with Israel in peace.
I’m skeptical about this, Spain comes to mind.
You mention Hamaz and Hezbollah as being honest about Islam but their version of Islam is rejected by traditionalist Islam, and they get their inspiration from the Moslem Brotherhood, Qutb which is Islamism, it’s not traditional Islam.
Daniel Pipes says neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are traditional Islam, they are an extreme backlash to the marxist and socialist fervour that swept the Arab world.
Re Spain:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2928/spain-islamization
This “traditionalist Islam” or “Moderate” – it’s all self serving lies. Yes the terrorist groups are militant, and Marxist/ socialist, and they use Islam as an excuse to give credibility to their fight, but essentially any version of Islam teaches that conquest is exalted, and that one should wish to be martyred rather than to be vanquished. Plus Muslim Brotherhood are not exactly a small, fringe group. Traditional or not, they are growing in power.
Inessa
If that is so, what motivated Samee Kuntar when he said he won’t accept concessions? Why didn’t George Habach accept concessions? Why are Christians supportive of Hezbollah?
Had the Arabs been all Druze or all Christian, they would have been no less accepting of Israel. Samee Kuntar the baby murderer is a Druze, and the PLO founder, George Habach a Christian? The PLO and the September gang who murdered the athletes were not religous, and included Christians.
Christan Arabs are more anti semitic than the Moslem Arabs.
Israel’s recent prisoner exchange included Christian Arabs. Azmi Bishara the traitor to Hezbolla is a Christian Arab. How much support does Hezbollah enjoy from Christian Lebanese? Quite a lot.
The British when they fuc*^&% Israel right from it’s creation, were not marxist. The Church of England is pro fakestinian. Christian anti semitism is the root of the western antagonism towards Israel. According to Christian theology Israel was not supposed to be a nation again.
Your analysis marxism-islamism is too simplistic and flawed.
Not least because it is the socialist Arabs who reject Islam who could be said to be the biggest enemies of Israel. The Syrians, fakestinians, Iraqis, Egyptians who want a secular state and are anti Islam are just as anti Israel if not more than the Islamist ones.
The PLO and the Sabeel organisations calling for divestment from Israel are backed by Protestant churches, the Episcopial, Methodist, Church of England, Orthodox.
I already said the Christian church (all even the pro Israel ones) believes that they are the new Israel which is why they support the Palestinians. They would happily fight for them, thus even if this were true, then it wouldn’t matter to the West whether Hamas and Hezbollah are true Moslems or not. You seem to think the West is some great friend of Israel and wouldn’t be happy to see it disappear if their cushy life is threatened by it.
You are correct insofar as your observations apply to mainline churches, the kind that embrace a phony universalism. Evangelicals tend to be supportive of Zionism, while the Vatican has been studiously neutral. Yes, I know individual Muslims who are privately supportive of Israel, and at least in the U.S. there have been Muslim clerics who can be described as mavericks with respect to the preachings of the heartland, but until the majority break away or a reformation movement lurches Islam into the modern world, I will have to remain skeptical and keep my powder dry.