Santorum
After Rick Santorum's surge had the result of publicizing his view that no Palestinians live in the West Bank--that's Israel, too--Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post did an emphatic "fact-check" of the statement, showing how deluded Santorum is. What I find interesting about the piece is its need to save the two-state consensus in Washington at all costs.
This is one case where Washington is living in an alternate reality, Hunky-Doryland. There is not a word about the occupation-- no sense that Palestinians are killed for trying to regain an occupied village's access to its water supply! No sense that 20 years of peace process have produced further dispossession. The Post invokes Israelis' sense that things are movin right along on the West Bank:
Moreover, because of a series of agreements between Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinians have now acquired self-government over tracts of West Bank territory. A map on the [Israeli] Foreign Ministry Web site shows the sections of the West Bank that are subject either to full Palestinian military and civilian control or just civilian Palestinian control....
In other words, Israel makes no claim that the Arabs residing in the West Bank are Israelis and in fact has already given up some governmental control to Palestinian self-rule — with the implication that even more territory will eventually form a Palestinian state...
Then notice how the Post attaches Santorum's one-state idea to the belief of Palestinians like Ali Abunimah (its link), ignoring the many non-Palestinians who also have called for democracy.
Santorum, by labeling the Palestinians as “Israelis,” appears to be adopting a position similar to that favored by some Palestinians increasingly skeptical of a two-state solution — a one-state solution that would grant equal rights to Jews and Arabs.
What about the late Tony Judt, a Jew. Or Virginia Tilley. Or Peter Beinart, who says that West Bank Palestinians should be able to vote for the government that rules their lives.
And finally, notice (my emphasis) how this idea of "equal rights," only favored by Palestinians, forces Kessler to put forward a racial argument that he would never offer so neutrally in the context of American liberal democracy. Imagine expressing such concerns about the black majority in Washington, D.C.!
Under such a [one state] proposal, demographic changes might lead to a greater Arab population than a Jewish population in the single entity, which is why some Israeli politicians, such as opposition leader Tzipi Livni, have accepted the need for a separate Palestinian state.
P.S. The Washington Post has more work to do. The National Review has run this evangelical Jewish piece by Barbara Lerner: "Instead of the 'two-state solution,' restore what God gave Abraham’s people." Abraham's people are not Muslims, no, Lerner is into the religious war: "This war began in the seventh century, when Muhammad, believing that God had ordered him to conquer and rule the whole world in the name of Islam, first used Taqqiya to trick and then slaughter Jews in Saudi Arabia who did not bow to his new religion..."
Phil, I haven’t been around this site long enough to know what you think about the one-state vs two-state solution. What do you think? The current two-state solution is a farce resolution that will never grant Palestinians a sovereign, independent state but at the same time, the one-state solution gives off a Yugoslavia-ish vibe given the ethnic tensions.
I have been around and I would venture that Phil is committed to neither. I think this might sum up what many of us think: I do not care if it is one or two states but what is required is justice for the Palestinians but justice means allowing them to control their land and water rights which Israel will never do. That is, the WB settlements are irreversible. So does that mean one-state. But then Israel would no longer be Israel but would become Palestine. This Israel would never allow. Thus apartheid is the only solution. But again that is impossible because apartheid will bring down the world’s wrath via a BDS on steroids. Thus that won’t work. Hmm, now we are treading on the dread ‘transfer’ option or the even more dreadful ‘genocide’ option. Those will not work either.
So of the four general options outlined above none of them can possibly work so why take a position on any of them. Just support justice for the Palestinian people and let circumstances be the guide to a just solution.
Its a weakness of the movement that it doesn’t know what it wants, and the choice of a single state (meaning the end of Zionism) vs a two state (meaning the continuation of Zionism), is a very big deal.
The single state is a revolutionary approach, if attempted from outside rather than by persuasion. A war on Israel.
The two state approach could work, if tried, a test for dissent and by Israel.
Wow. Only 2weeks ago, Witty was insisting that he has always supported the single state, while preferring the 2ss. Now he’s Rguing that the 1ss is war on Israel.
So which is it Witty? We’re you lying whe yo said you supported the 1ss or do you support a war on Israel?
Witty gives us this advise: Its a weakness of the movement that it doesn’t know what it wants,
Actually what I want (or whatever movement you think I am part of) is quite irrelevant. It is the Israelis that will determine the final outcome. They can engage the Palestinians in an attempt to provide them with justice or they can continue to oppress them. If the latter, the only thing I can do is support and advocate for BDS. That is my only choice. If Israel insists on oppression, I will continue with the only tool I have — BDS plus supporting any politician in the US who agrees with me.
RW: “The single state is a revolutionary approach,…”
Or is it Richard? How about this:
Revolutionary approach. Witty advocates for Israel to withdraw settlers from the land they have stolen and return to its legal 1967 borders to secure “the Jewish state” as per Saudi peace initiative.
Evolutionary approach. Israel continues to steal Palestinian land and resources making a separate Palestinian state ever less viable. Prolonged struggle for equal rights leads to an eventual single, democratic state (name to be determined). Unintentionally, Witty tirelessly advocates for this outcome by insisting settlers keep their stolen land with no equivalent recompense for the Palestinians.
I do not care if it is one or two states but what is required is justice for the Palestinians but justice means allowing them to control their land and water rights which Israel will never do.
Oddly enough, the League of Nations established a requirement in 1932 which stated that the government of a mandated territory had to declare its acceptance of a formal undertaking to constitutionally protect the equal rights of religious and ethnic minorities as a condition for terminating a mandate regime and obtaining recognition of independence from the international community. The reluctance of both sides to the I-P conflict to embrace the equal human rights of the other nation is the real issue and the one state vs two state discussion is just a side show.
Its a prerequisite “side show”.
Acting to dissolve Israel without its citizens consent is not a way to recognize the rights of the other?
Its a question that must be clarified.
Acting to dissolve
IsraelPalestine in 1947 without its citizens consentiswas not a way to recognize the rights of the other?, but the way that led to certain war, to ethnic cleansing, to oppression and the denial of myriad human rights for over 60 years.It’s a question that must be
clarifieddealt with by every liberal Zionist in a way that will restore justice and peace and bring about reconciliation.I disagree that the 2 state solution is impossible, or that Israel wil not make those “tough” concessions. I state this with strong reservations, in that I consider it a long road to get there, but I state this only because I hope for justice for Palestinians some day….
Think of it this way: If we are to EVER muster enough pressure on Israel (internally, externally, UN, BDS, US, American Jewry, World Jewry, Arab military threats, etc.) to cede some reasonable level of justice to the Palestinians (that is our goal here)…. What option do you think Israel will take? Clearly, the most palatable is a vible 2SS, to the majority of Israelis. Every other option is less palatable from a *Zionist* Israeli perspective.
I am idealistically 1SS, but pragmatically 2SS. And if the 2SS solution is in fact dead, then I only see disaster like some of the options you alluded to. And in that case, I should just ignore the BS insanity and find another political cause where I won’t be looking forward to nothing but disappointment followed by disaster.
And for those who are intent on moving towards a 1SS only…. Many Palestinians are not on your side, and the one group that does agree with you are the fanatic settlers…. And though you both want a different version of a 1SS, you do not live in the West Bank, have an automatic weapon, have political sway, and have a racist nation with 200 nukes behind you…. So whose conception of a 1SS is it likely we will converge upon, should we be looking at that endgame? I’m not saying a feasible 1SS is entirely impossible, but the uncertainty is my prime reservation about people who are strident 1SS advocates, and want nothing else.
I fully agree we should focus on rights, and nobody needs to be pinned down on what it looks like (1 state, 2 state, 3 state, no state!). I shift around. But no option should be ruled out, either.
But to BURY the option of a 2SS I find wrong, on multiple levels. We talk about strategy here, altering American Jewish opinion, altering Israeli opinion (the real end game), growing the movement in general, and gaining support from all players…. basically keeping a big tent.
If we rule out the 2SS we most definitely will scare some people away, but worst of all, we might be ruling out the most viable resolution, as ugly and inherently unjust parts of it may prove to be.
Great post! This is why MW is such a breath of fresh air.
“Washington is living in an alternate reality, Hunky-Doryland.” Ha ha ha! That just about sums it all up.
For “liberal Zionists,” racist-sounding rhetoric is a moral outrage everywhere in the world, and especially in the United States and Europe, except in Israel. In Israel inciting anxiety about ethnic and religious demographic threats is just normal political discourse that doesn’t raise an eyebrow.
Try to confront them with their conspicuous self-contradictions? What are you talking about? You’re an anti-Semite. Perhaps even
Amalek. I’m righteous, you’re evil. End of argument.
So: where does one go from here? Attempts at reasoned conversation seems to be a waste of time. My guess is that Americans and Europeans will increasingly seek not to criticize or punish Israel but simply to disconnect from it as cleanly as possible — let it go its own way. The debate has become really tiresome and unproductive.
Alternate reality? There are three variations on “political reality” hinted at above, the reality of what to say in public. Santorum has acquired some knowledge of the AIPAC line as filtered through the evangelical prism. The WP has got the non-evangelical AIPAC political line. MondoWeiss has a pro-Palestine line which is also (or so I believe) the only one of the three which also describes the actual reality. (The other two describe varieties of neo- or non-reality or alternate reality, varieties perhaps of that never-never-land Hunky-Dory-Land).
Neither Santorum nor WP seems inclined to mention international law, UNSC-465 (1980), the ICJ (7/2004). How do I know? Because anyone with that inclination always gives in to it. That’s why.
i love this phot of Santorum! lol, just had to say that. back to the article..
He looks in this photo like Pinoccio.
His nose should start growing though.
Too bad the defense industry hasn’t invented a time machine as a war tool.
Then we could send the Ms Lerners back to the 7th century where they belong.
This Barbra Lerner’s sorry piece of garbage is one of the worst, brainwashing propaganda sweat I’ve read lately.
Truly pitiful.
brainwashing or brainwashed? does this stuff work on anybody?
Both:)
Does it work?? I’m sure there are many, who’ll gladly follow false prophets or brainwashed journalists ,who very seriously believe that a job of brainwashing (enlightning) a public is a very serious task.
But then, there is a question.
To what extent being brainwashed justifies a job of further contamination /brainwashing a public ??
Does being brainwashed serve as an excuse from bearing responsibilty for
co-operation with evil powers??
“Pater, ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quod faciunt”,
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”
????
2 Timothy 3:13-14
very good quote John H.
So relevant to our times.
Talking about impostors, evil people etc.
The supposed “suicidal” attempt of the Polish officer that was done publically today, ( I wrote about it a few hours ago) looks like it’s another phony event that was done to stir some trouble.
The more I look and read about it, the more it looks like it was pre-planned, and pre-arranged. It does look fake and the guy is basically all right. He will leave hospital tomorow. He did play “the Role” pretty well though.
Another absurdity that purpose is unknown. Yet.
Because a two state solution is what the UN and all other manifestations of world opinion can agree on, that objective must try to be obtained through legal means, BDS and political pressure until that goal, for whatever reason is no longer feasable, in which case a single state would by default become unavoidable. Unfortunately the Israelis most certainly do not have this in mind, rather they intend to take the whole of the land of Israel and consign the Palestinians to…. choose your description.. Bantustans, Homelands, Cantons, Reservations, I suspect the World would see Prisons as a more apt title.
Max Blumenthal article in al-akhbar english:
Santorum warns of “Eurabia,” issues call to “evangelize and eradicate” Muslims
“What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”
link to english.al-akhbar.com
From one of the comments on the al-akhbar article:
(Link to an Interview with Santorum)
link to ocrpl.org
Santorum Question 10: What must be done to improve Europe-U.S. relations?
(10) QUESTION: You mentioned Western Europe as being “dead”. And during the last 8 years, the relationship between Western Europe and the U.S. have soured. What could be done to heal these relationships because these alliances are important?
ANSWER:
I look at Western Europe, when I go over there and when I read and see, as a place that has rejected Christendom, who sees that the culture that has risen throughout Europe over the last two millennium as flawed and defective and as something that they need to reject.
Multi-culturalism is now an adopted point of view that Western culture is no better than any other culture. It’s not superior. In fact, it’s inferior, in many respects, to other cultures.
And so we have a group of people in leadership over there who will not fight because there’s nothing to fight for. You can’t fight to defend what you reject. If we can get Western Europe to do things that are in the interest of the survival of Western civilization, for one reason or another – I don’t know why – but if they can sign up, I’ll take them. I don’t expect them to.
I mean, I expect Poland to be there. I expect the Czech Republic to be there, Romania to be there. But I don’t expect France, or Germany, or Belgium, or Holland. I mean, I don’t expect any of those countries.
They have no interest in us. They hate us because we stand by this old, antiquated idea of Christendom as a good thing, as a culture worth fighting for and worth saving. They don’t. They don’t believe that.
Questioner: What about the U.K.?
Santorum: That channel has helped a lot. That separation from the Continent has helped a lot. But it’s moving in that direction. We’re losing that battle in the U.K. They’re probably the last outpost.
But the rest, they’ve given up. They have no hope for the future. They’re not having kids. Their birth rates are down. Nobody goes to church. They’ve abandoned ship. And so, okay, is it important to have an alliance with an empty ship? Folks, nobody’s gonna stand by the guns and fire anything. Why?
What I think we need to do – and this is obviously not the government – but we need to re-evangelize Europe. I think the Pope’s Rechtenburg speech will go down as the seminal document of the time. It’s really the clarion call, that if Europe doesn’t quickly – Western Europe – doesn’t quickly begin to right itself by planting the seeds of faith. I think what may happen, potentially, with the rise of Islam in some of these countries, is you’re gonna begin to see, even more than you do today, is the persecution of Christians.
And of course, Christianity always flowers when it’s persecuted. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. And so, we will reach a point – I think it’s gonna be unfortunate – but I think we will reach a point with the blood of the martyrs in Europe, it will start to happen. And it will be the fertile ground in which the Church will regrow.
And who knows, it may happen in places like the Netherlands, and probably the places that are the worst, obviously, because they’re the worst, are gonna be the first to turn around. It may not be in your lifetime. We may go through a long time of a desert in Western Europe from the standpoint of all involved.
I mean, when you don’t have any kids, all you do is focus on you. It’s all about you. There’s no future to really be concerned about. You don’t have any children. You don’t have any faith; it’s all about this world.
I wrote an article the other day about Iran, and a nuclear Iran, and the threat of a nuclear Iran. A lot of folks here on the secular Left had said, “Look, we can contain Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. We contained Russia, and they were much more of a threat than the Iranians.” My retort to that is, the one thing you could always trust about the Russians was they were atheists. And this world was it. And so they were never going to do anything that meant their destruction because that was it. They game was over. If they died, there’s tomorrow.
Whereas the Iranians, this world today is horrible, a mess, and something only to be used to get to what’s important, which is the next life. And so the idea of mutually assured destruction as a policy worked for Russia because they were predictable. They were never going to do anything to risk their lives because their lives were it. Because they were atheists.
Whereas, Iran is just the opposite. These people don’t care if they die. In fact, if they die in pursuit of something that is blessed by the Koran, 72 virgins, the whole nine yards. This is a good thing for them. So the idea of containment makes no sense.
The Europeans don’t understand that because they look at the Iranian government, and they say, “Well, this is all faith. They’re just using it to gain power.” Because that’s how they would do it. It’s not sincere.
We have that here in America. Everyone looks at Ahmedinejad and looks at the mullahs and says, “They’re just corrupt politicians who are using it to maintain power.” Is that true with some of them? Sure. I’m sure that there are people in the mullah-cracy and in the government of Iran who pretend to be holy and pretend to believe this stuff, who are secularists and who just want power and want a good life. Is that the case? Sure. But I’m confident that’s not the whole situation. I’m confident that there are really true believers there, and those true believers actually have the levers of power.
But the secularists in this country and in Europe don’t believe that because that’s not how they function. It’s not their worldview. They can’t get their arms around that someone would actually believe that because it’s just so unbelievable to them. It’s like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Faith, to the modern secularist, is fantasy. It’s a fairy tale. And they can’t convince themselves that people are motivated by that in a way that would risk their lives because that’s not them.
**************
Santorum:
“The Europeans don’t understand that because they look at the Iranian government, and they say, “Well, this is all faith. They’re just using it to gain power.” Because that’s how they would do it. It’s not sincere. ”
They’re just using it to gain power.
They’re just using it to gain power..
They’re just using it to gain power…
Santorum is sincere and scarier than the mullahs that he is warning everybody about.
Yet, you will not hear a perp from conservatives or progressives suggesting racism on his part.
Mndwss, your second link (the Santorum Q&A at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life) is a fascinating document. I imagine it could even trigger some debate in the MSM, a la the Ron Paul newsletters. (Assuming, of course, Santorum’s fifteen minutes of fame aren’t almost over.)
BTW, it dates from a course on Religion & Politics that he presented at the OCRPL on August 1, 2008.
This piece on Santorum supports George Carlin: “In America, anyone can become president. That’s the problem.”
It is funny that the demographics demon is always brought up as an argument for keeping the current Apartheid structure. I don’t remember a winning argument back in the days of S. African Apartheid that “if blacks are allowed to vote, whites will lose control of the country”. Yet Jews are different: “Jews need a country of their own”. My answer to that is: then you should find an uninhabited island or buy a chunk of uninhabited land from Canada, Russia, US or Argentina. Palestine on the other hand was and is populated by non-Jews who have been living there for countless generations.
Besides, you have nobody to blame but yourselves for you supported your government’s silly project of colonizing the territories since 1967, thus creating an irreversible one state. You could have gotten away with the original crime of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and with a majority which you achieved by expelling the natives. But you wanted all of Palestine. Now, just like whites in S. Africa, you have to choose between Apartheid or democracy.
The good news: the disappearance of the Jewish Ethnocracy is nothing to lament about. Also, there will still be a Jewish majority if the one-state is declared sans Gaza, which can be an independent state. I think there is enough support for such move.
I also think many Israelis are starting to understand that the Jewish State is at the source of their problems and eternal conflicts. Much like S. Africa, once the exclusionary feature is removed and the supremacist demon exorcised, Israel will be able to flourish and live peacefully with its neighbors. The Nationalist Jews who have more attachment to the flag than to the land will immigrate. Those who remain will be the real Jewish people who love the land and view it their home. Jews are not a different species – they can live as equals (whether a majority or not) with non-Jews in Palestine just like they do elsewhere in the world.
If the Israeli Jews were to make a deal with the Palestinians today, they could probably get in a binational state constitutional guarantees like one of the two houses in a bicameral legislature. The longer they wait, the less good a deal they will be able to get, and they may have to settle for the fate of the whites in South Africa. On the other hand, if they wait too long, they may only get the fate of the pieds noirs white settlers in Algeria.
I don’t see it as a “bi-national state” – a term that is abused and serves to perpetuate the conflict – you could also claim that in S. Africa there were “two nations”. By this definition, Israel is already a “bi-national state”, even without the territories. The term “bi-national” implies that there are two distinct nations but that is just a myth perpetuated by the Zionist establishment. Israel is made up of very diverse communities, some of which, like Arab Jews, have more in common with Palestinians than with Ashkenazi Jews. In short, they will have to de-emphasize the Jewish/Palestinian invented “nations” and create a new inclusive Israeli identity – it can be done!
You may not consider a binational state ideal, but surely it would be better for the Palestinians than the current situation. And, if it provides sufficient guarantees for the Israeli Jews, they just might be willing to accept it.
Welcome to Mondoweiss, ahadhaadam.
Please tell us soon something of your personal journey from Zionist to ex-Zionist. Thanks.
Unsurprisingly Kessler repeats but does not fact-check Santorum’s statement that Arab nations launched an “aggressive attack” on Israel in that war. Alternate reality indeed–some myths are sacred.
All you need to understand about the WP.
I think I posted something on this the other day but unfortunately I called the Post a ___ – ___ rag so I think it went down the rabbit monitor hole.
Here is the Washington Post’s official opinion/position on the USA, War and FP under the heading The Post’s View.
link to washingtonpost.com
President Obama’s defense strategy rests on shaky assumptions
(the revelant excerpts)
“We have argued previously that the military’s health-care system, which consumes $50 billion a year and charges military personnel premiums that are one-tenth of those of other federal employees, is unsustainable. Whether benefit cuts could be pushed through Congress during an election year is open to question, but under the circumstances the president would be right to try.”
“A more dubious, and risky, assumption of Mr. Obama’s plan is that the United States will no longer conduct operations like those of the last decade: “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” Though counterinsurgency has produced results in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it — and the troop levels required for it — will be retired; the size of the Army and Marines will be returned to prewar levels.”
“No one wants war with Iran or North Korea, but if one occurs, a major U.S. land force will be needed for a prolonged period”.
“Meanwhile, other than cuts to finance the new entitlements in his health care bill, the president has yet to propose meaningful trims in the exploding costs of entitlements such as Medicare, which did not exist during Mr. Eisenhower’s presidency. Would Ike have regarded what Mr. Obama is proposing as “balanced”? It’s hard to see how.”
So there we have it. We should cut benefits to our military and fighting forces and vets but keep big military ground fighting forces just in case (they hope) we need them to fight on the ground in Iran, overthrow regimes and occupy countries. And get rid of stupid entitlements like Medicare to keep up our warring and occupying forces. This is pure neo-zio position and interesting that they have come right and mentioned the possibility of huge ground forces being needed for land war in Iran.
Then the Post asks…where is Eisenhower? Just like Kristol asked where is Truman last week. Maybe Kristol wrote this too.
I have a feeling if they exhumed Eisenhower he would rip their privates off.
Google Santorum and see what the first thing that comes up is
LMAO
I cannot believe what cranks and whores you have in the US as presidential contenders. If they had brains, they would be dangerous. Are there really no sane people left to run your country? I’m so sorry for you Americans. And – no – there is not much fear of the “caliphate” here in Europe. We fear much more what the US/Israel is up to. And the evangelicals/zionists should leave us in peace. Greetings from Vienna.
Anders Breivik and Jared Loughner said the same things that Santorum says.
they were declared unfit to stand trial.
US congress and presidential candidates have a really low bar.
Count on Hostage to come up with an interesting angle. When it comes to international law I am much too impatient, but his points remain valid even if it might take a few centuries to see a resolution to an international case. Tell us Hostage how long it will take to see a resolution to the case Nicaraguans made against the the US after we sabatoged one of their ships during the Contra war we supported. Please do not consider my question antagonistic, I find your knowledge very important even if the implications exceed by patience.
When it comes to international law I am much too impatient . . . Please do not consider my question antagonistic, I find your knowledge very important even if the implications exceed by patience.
LOL! Real advances can take a generation or two. Most countries ended the practice of slavery without a bloody civil war. Here in the US, supporters tenaciously fought abolition and pointed to the fact that the practice was sanctioned by both the Holy Bible and the US Constitution. When they lost that battle they preserved a system of unequal rights that still manifests itself in many aspects of our modern society.
I’m no prophet, but the long term trend is to view the waging of wars as a crime against peace and mankind that needs to be completely outlawed. The ICC was formed outside of the UN organization. It has its own legislative body that can incorporate new rules of law into the Statute of the Court. None of the members enjoys a veto. At the present time it only deals with the subjects of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Much like the Confederate States of America, our Congress has authorized the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to bring about the release of any US citizen or citizen of any US ally who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. link to state.gov
Together with the Congress the President has authorized extra-judicial assassinations of US citizens, signed laws to permit detention of citizens indefinitely without obtaining a conviction, & etc. So I’m guessing that it will be a while before the US government embraces “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” during international and non-international conflicts. link to icrc.org
Santorum gets his Islamophobia and propaganda straight from the horse’s mouth – Israel.
Taqqiyah is Arabic for hat. When you put on a proverbial hat you become someone else, like when donning a costume.
If he owns one, Santorum should put on his thinking cap. The fact of the matter is that Taqqiyah is a Shi’te-only concept. One can’t even call it “practice” or “policy” or “doctrine” as it is not practiced or used, especially in this day and age.
Many Sunnis, for example, do not know and have never heard of Taqqiyah. Nonetheless, it remains one of the corner stones of anti-Moslem propaganda as it reaffirms the stereotypes and misconceptions about the Other, the Moslem ‘savage’.
If the targeted group were Jewish, and Santorum had claimed that Jews were scheming, calculating, deceiving, backstabbing people, does anyone care to guess how long it was before he lost his career and became homeless? The anti-Moslem Taqqiyah rhetoric is akin to claiming that Jews get their guidance from Judas’ act of betrayal.
Santorum’s claim is false on another level, as well.
If one were to go by what historical evidence is available, Muhammad had actually formed alliances with Jews and considered Jews to be The People of the Book.
Muhammad also warned about aggressors, as was the case with one of the Jewish tribes in the region when they violated an alliance agreement and betrayed him.
In addition, Islamic writing from the seventh century, both religious and non-religious sources, indicate that Muhammad sought to convert pagans and heathens to Islam. And he did so by peaceful means, not by the sword as Bill Maher likes to claim from time to time.
Jews were therefore protected and contrary to both Zionism’s and Santorum’s lies, were not targeted by Muhammad nor were they slaughtered as he falsely claims.
Incidentally, it is beyond pathetic that presidential candidates have reached the level where they are vilifying entire religions.
It was one thing when presidential campaigns were limited to pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian propaganda and quite another when that propaganda stoops lower to include Moslems in the US, or Moslems in Indonesia, for example.
Who is behind all this demonization? First Gingrich the bigot and revisionist and now Santorum. What next?
Thank you for these wonderfully informative posts Avi G.
Thanks Avi, I wish that you were the head of
a think tank in DC, to oppose the current dishonest
hum-drum coming from the halls and think tanks
of Washington. The stuff Santorum gets away with
on and off stage is ridiculous!
Thank you both, guys.