Israel invaded by “protesters.” Ron Paul’s candidacy revisited. More on Osama bin Laden’s killing. John Bolton, and more.
If you were unable to attend live and would like to hear this week’s webcast/podcast, click here, or you can access it via iTunes (link on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>> ).
Thanks to all who participated live in this week’s webcast. Use the comments portion of this post to leave comments, and to suggest topics for next week. Also, if you are enjoying the podcasts, don’t forget to “Like” the show’s page on Facebook (link on the right-hand side of this web page >>>>>), plus leave ratings and reviews in iTunes.
If you would like to register to attend next Sunday’s webcast live, click here.
4 responses to “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #13”
History of Israel:
§ As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
§ If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.
§ The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
§ The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
§ The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
§ The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
§ The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
§ The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from
§ The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
§ The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
§ The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
§ The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
§ The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
§ The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
§ The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
§ The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
§ The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
From this article:
Firstly, thank you for maintaining such a thoughtful forum. I have been “hanging out” here a little because it seems to be far beyond what otherwise passes as discussion of current events in old media, even if I only agree 85% of the time with the consensus here. Here are my thoughts:
If you’ve ever seen Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky debate the facts on Israel, you might agree that language has obscured truth though you know what the truth is as a matter of manifestation – Israel is freedom. So I get hung up on the language a bit. Last week you called Ron Paul an anti-Semite and this week you suggested he would not defend the USA if attacked because he would blame the nation for being attacked just like he apparently blames America and Israel for Islamic jihad (as the marxists do). Perhaps what is most upsetting to your listeners about Paul is his misunderstanding of Islam, and Islam is perhaps the only immovable political issue for 21st century America, both foreign and domestic. How can Paul supposedly wish death to Israel like a Jihadi but not understand a thing about Islam? Do you mean Paul is of the European vintage of anti-semites? Or is he just a naive pacifist? Since CPAC, David Horowitz has been pushing the anti-semite label on Paul hard. Horowitz has also chose to combat the “nonviolent” Islamic revolution and “pro-palestinian” pacifists at Universities with unending scrolls on the level of Derchowitz. Now, by focusing on antisemitism and spending one million words on Israel, we leave Islam to expand everywhere else, unchallenged. The words should instead be about Islam and the only relevant antisemitism is of the Islamic variety developed in the 20th century and rampant today (Muslim Arabs did not get European words like nationalism and patriotism until the 19th century). A basic understanding of the Quran is not enough; we must also teach how today’s many “Islamic republics” have developed, and how sharia law can produce facades that look identical to American cities but lack most of our rights and liberties within. It is an old story to warn people about desolation in the wake of euphoria over golden idols. The Quran is not a continuation of the narrative that flows from Old Testament into the New; the Quran is intended to literally replace all prior scripture of Abrahamic tradition, as the final word of all creation. In Quran, the Jews are perpetually condemned and to be humiliated by Allah for trying to disobey and kill his prophets, and Jews do not actually crucify Christ (who is merely a prophet) instead crucifying only a likeness of him, in both delusion and failure at once. Jews and Christians have never been anything better than second-class citizens in Moslem states no matter how peaceful or lavish the coexistence became or has become. Ayn Rand may have been at war with the mystics when not brilliantly espousing the immorality and tragedy of collectivism, but the argument over the observability of existence itself, with respect to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, will consume us in a fight over who is being irrational while we silently become enslaved in accordance with Mohammedan prophecy manifest (peace be upon him).
@gorgborg, when did I say that Paul was an anti-semite? I don’t recall doing this. He may or may not be an anti-semite. That could be his motivation for not wanting to take affirmative steps to help/defend Israel. That could be his reason (or part of his reason) for calling us “occupiers” in the Middle East. I don’t know. I can’t read his mind. All I know is that he’s wrong on these issues, and that if he sees us as “occupiers” — i.e., as guilty in giving the terrorists a legitimate reason to do what they do — then he is in no position properly to defend our country because he won’t believe he’s morally entitled to do so.
I’d have to listen to #12 again, but I thought you used the word “antisemite.” I certainly don’t go looking to focus on that word like the ADL, Dershowitz, and Horowitz. A good book that corroborates my talk about this word is “Semites & Anti-Semites” by Bernard Lewis. I agree with you that Paul is wrong about Islam. If he doesn’t “defend Israel” rhetorically, I don’t see how that stops Israel from doing what Israel wants. I don’ think he would stop American companies from selling, lending, or giving Israel defense services. And I don’t extrapolate that he would force a Constitutional crisis in the event that Congress declared a war he did not want to enter.