…of President Obama’s selective Koran quotations:
The translation is, “Anyone who destroys (kills) one soul of Israel is viewed as having annihilated an entire world. Anyone who saves or sustains one (soul) of Israel is viewed as sustaining an entire world.” It’s pretty culture-specific, but the possibility of extrapolating the larger notion about the meaning of murder to other tribes is there.
The Talmud was compiled in the late 2nd century, so we know it precedes the Koran, which was written half a millenium later. Not that there is anything wrong with borrowing wisdom, of course.
It is only a little ironic that, in this Reuters survey of reactions to Obama’s speech from Islamic leaders, that is the line that got the most positive response. And the matter of Israelis who putatively don’t want to negotiate with Palestinians remained the major grievance.
I found this passage of the speech quite troubling, and again, indicative of his apparent deep naivete of the history of the region:
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
He talks about the “legitimate aspirations” without describing them. The reality is that the Israelis have an aspiration to live in peace in their ancient homeland, and the “Palestinians” (there’s no such thing, really, they’re just Arabs who formerly were Jordanians, Lebanese or Egyptians) have an aspiration to destroy the state of Israel. Whether the latter is a legitimate aspiration or not, it’s completely incompatible with that of the Israelis, which is why they have never been able to come to an agreement.
A two-state solution may be in the “Palestinians” interest, but they don’t seem to think so, since every time they’ve been offered it, they’ve turned it down in favor of continuing the war against the hated Jews. Arafat turned it down in 2000, and Hamas and the “Palestinians” who voted for them turned it down when the Israelis gave them Gaza, and instead of creating a nation, they continued to bombard Israel with rockets. Why the president thinks that pressuring Israel for more concessions will change this is far beyond me. Perhaps one needs a Harvard education to understand it.
The “Palestinians” remain tools of Arab despots.
The legitimate aspiration should be to be free of the Arab despots. The actual aspiration is to cheer their own deaths from Persian nuclear warhead fallout.
I just caught a clip of his speech. He mentioned 7 million American Muslims. I guess he’s using CAIR’s numbers. The CIA World Factbook lists Muslims as 0.6% of the population, or approx. 1.8 million. NationMaster says 4.1 million. Either way we’re the 41st/61st largest Muslim nation.
Unless you mean “Large land areas which happen to have a few Muslims living in them.” Then we’re #3 after Russia and China.
The question is: Does Obama know that Palestinians have no interest in a two-state solution? His relationship with facts and history is such that he may simply be projecting what he thinks they should want. It’s the Progressive mindset to believe They Know What’s Better For You more accurately than you do.
If the Obama Administration can come up with a plan nobody really likes and the Saudis can come up with a plan nobody really likes, I can come up with a plan nobody really likes.
I favor a four state solution.
1. Israel, including Jerusalem and it’s suburbs for Jews and no Arabs, including present Arab citizens of Israel.
2. Gaza, for Arab Muslims only. It’s silly to combine it with the West Bank and leave a hated enemy between the two. Didn’t work with Pakistan. Why would it work with the even more fractious and bloody Palestinians?
3. Most of the West Bank, less the chunk given to Israel, and another chunk mentioned below, for Arab Muslims only.
4. The chunk just mentioned above, probably to include Bethlehem, for Arab Christians only.
After fifty years, Jews and Arab Christians can move into the other three states, and Arab Muslims can move into the other two states.
Actually, the Arab Christians might like this plan.
Yours,
Tom
Also the “Two State solution” overlooks troubling facts such as Gaza being a defacto state ever since Israel pulled out.
That’s right Brock. Obama is deeply arrogant. See the “gifts” and manner he treats other nations. What we have is a man so deeply enthralled in his own glory that he believes his own hype.
See the “Largest Muslim nations” blunder, grossly incorrect on population percentage, raw numbers, and of course the Constitution.
Really the question is, what isn’t the President ignorant of?
From the speech text version (you quoted the Talmud version), the key phrase is “…whoever kills an innocent…”
Obviously, anyone that needs killing is not an innocent. There are certainly no innocent Americans, only innocent Arabs.
At least that is how Al Queda interprets that, I’m sure.
This speech will not and has not changed one mind in the Middle East. This was a taxpayer funded photo op for Obama, nothing more. It will yield nothing except more slobbering from Hissy Matthews and his merry band of propagandists.
The arabs and the persians will fight to the last palestinian. As I believe Golda Meir said, there will be peace when they love their children more than they hate ours.
Any peace plan with the Gaza Palestinians should set as a precondition that every last member of Hamas be captured or annihilated by the Gazans themselves. As an act of mercy, something akin to a witness protection program setup should be worked out for Saraa Barhoum and her family.
What I found astonishing is that Obama balanced the crime of the Holocaust against the crime of occupation–with not one word about the crimes of Palestinians over the last four decades.
What I found astonishing is that Obama balanced the crime of the Holocaust against the crime of occupation–with not one word about the crimes of Palestinians over the last four decades.
Yes, it was an obscene attempt at moral equivalence.
with not one word about the crimes of Palestinians over the last four decades.
Even more than four decades. The Arabs were rioting and killing Jews (called Palestinians back then) well before 1948.
Yours,
Tom
The Israelis are hardly above doing terrorist acts. Besides the bombing of the King David Hotel, the Mossad is well known (and feared) for their acts of state terrorism against persons deemed undesirable by the state.
Sure, I prefer the Israelis for cultural reasons. They have a Western mentality and have managed to endure a difficult position with great success. But there is little reason to think the Israelis wouldn’t do the same thing were they in the opposite position. The Muslims use terrorism because it is the only means they have of fighting back.
PS: I think you need at least a three state solution. One of them being Jerusalem proper.
But there is little reason to think the Israelis wouldn’t do the same thing were they in the opposite position.
There is abundant reason to think so. The Israelis revere life, while Hamas and Hezbollah worship death. The Israelis would never deliberately bomb a kindergarten or ice-cream parlor, or shoot a five-year old in her bed, regardless of how “desperate” and powerless they were. They would pick military targets (as the King David was).
The Muslims use terrorism because it is the only means they have of fighting back.
The Muslims use terrorism because they hate the Jews and want to kill as many of them as possible. If they had a nuke, they’d use it.
The Muslims have the will to destroy Israel, but lack the means. The Israelis have the means to destroy those trying to kill them, but lack the will. It’s a gross asymmetry, and I find attempts like this at moral equivalences disgusting.
A modest proposal:
Kill all the “Palestinians.” No Palestinians; no “Palestinian Problem.” QED.