...

Israel and Jews don't issue Fatwas and randomly kill people.  Radical Muslims do.  So if you are going to be brave and stand up against tyranny, who do you go after?  Someone who might kill you?  or someone who will give you a good tongue lashing?

As I indicated on another blog, these governments are cowards. nothing more, nothing less.

That's one reason, certainly. You want to be a safe rebel, fight the establishment and be protected at the same time.

But many, many people truly do believe the stories they hear about Israel and totally underestimate (rather than fear) the danger that is represented by Israel's enemies.

To you and me it seems obvious that people who hate Africans, homosexuals, and women are probably also wrong about Jews. But to the typical Europea who wants to declare himself free of the stigma that is the Holocaust it is not.

European intellectuals want Israel to be evil because it allows them to join the ranks of the fascists without feeling like they are repeating the mistakes of the 1930s where fascist groups were also supported and stories about Jews were also believed.

Only directly after WW2 was there a small window in which a majority (in the western world) felt so guilty that they supported a Jewish state.

They feel like they are very brave, standing up against a tide of extremist fascist right-wing Islamophobes.

To them, anti-Semitism only exists in the form of fundamentalist Christians forgetting when Hanukkah happens (not that those people themselves would know).

Those are the followers of the cowards.  The cowards are the ones spreading the information.  if all you hear and read is about "israel Bad, Muslims Good", you can be excused for being ignorant.  Those writing them however are the ones that are afraid and cowards.

I think a good number of those who write these things actually believe it and do honestly believe that there is an Israeli lobby that makes it difficult to criticise Israel (or Jews) and that anyone who dares to speak up is a real hero. In many cases those people really cannot imagine what danger is (or poverty, for that matter).

They believe that being held in prison for a few hours and a standard of living like in Ramallah really is the worst of the worst because they don't know anything about the rest of the world, only the part tourists can safely travel.

People want to be rebels. The belief in a Jewish (or Israeli) conspiracy is the easiest way to become one.

A part is probably also the wish to be better than a Jew. Not only not an anti-Semite, your typical liberal is so free-thinking and intellectually superior that he even dares to criticise Jews, not noticing that the white supremacist does nothing else either or that he repeats the same lies.

The belief is so deeply entrenched in western society that simply claiming that Israel might be innocent (when accused of a horrible crime) is thought to be an extremist Zionist position held by a total bigot.

Can you imagine if, for example, someone accused Muslims (a population of them) of murdering children (and sell their organs) liberals would likewise attack whomever dares to say that perhaps they didn't or that there should be proof before we accept it as fact and condemn Muslims for that crime? I doubt it.

Possible - I will not dismiss that possiblity.  But then that makes them incompetant at their jobs.  Clearly they are not going out and doing any "reporting", they are simply reprinting PR pieces. They may not be cowards, but they are idiots none the less.

I agree except with a nuanced difference.  Liberals are very bigotted, but they try to sound like they use their bigottry to be free thinkers.  I seldom think "is he a Jew/black/Mexican" when dealing with others as it is not important.  Yet they have to label everyone from the get go so they can then pigeon hole the comments (Articulate for a black man, etc.).  So of course they are going to exhibit signs of anti-semitism, because they first think "Jew" before they listen to the words spoken (or read what is written).

Someone - being a liberal someone.  Since they label first and listen second.  It all falls from their bigotry.  If they listend first and labeled second, they would have no problems condemning actions of anyone, because they would not know if that person (or persons) was supposed to be an oppressed minority.

Clarification: My use of liberal is in the American Sense.  I do not apply it in an international or dictionary sense.  Anyone (anywhere in the world) can be a liberal in the American sense, but not called that in their native country.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of Islam supports terrorism.

Wherever Islam springs up, violence follows, and the larger the Muslim population grows, the worse it gets, because they start pushing for their "rights", which are never, ever, conducive to the rights of non-Muslims.

This guy is a hero to his own people--whether or not they want to understand it--and even to the world.

They do know it.

Geert Wilders is incredibly popular in the Netherlands with more than half of the people supporting him. I assume that's why the Dutch courts are suddenly bothered by "hate speech" (they certainly don't intervene when thousands of people openly demonize Israel and Jews).

The media are all over Wilders. He's a "right-wing extremist" with "fascist sympathies".

In reality the man is a mild-mannered liberal (in the American sense sans the disregard for human rights of non-Muslims) and universally hated by real fascists (who do not actually support Zionist lackeys like Wilders).

Black doesn't matter because black is a skin colour, not a culture. Jew or Mexican matter.

The problem is that liberals assign negative qualities to the races and responsibilities to the nations.

If you are a Mexican, you need help.

If you are a Jew, you can better explain why you have a right to live.

If you are black, you need adult supervision and special laws to protect your differentness.

If you are a Christian you deserve pity (because you are stupid) and, in extreme cases, to be slaughtered by "freedom fighters" because you don't have human rights. (Nevertheless, murdering Christians does not specifically count as "resistance against oppression", so you are still better than a Jew. We are all Hizbullah.)

I find it interesting that liberals generally demand that Israel make peace but don't care whether the other side even drop their demand that all Jews be exterminated or their legal claim to the right to invade Israel whenever they want.

Nothing in Islam supports terrorism. The Quran specifically forbids the killing of women and children (i.e. civilians) whereas Hamas and Hizbullah specifically target women and children. (In Israel the percentage of women and children killed among Israeli victims is higher than the percentage of women and children killed among "Palestinian" victims.)

Islam says a lot of things about the current conflict, none of which support in any way the position of the "resistance".

The Quran says that Allah gave the Holy Land to the people of Israel.

The Quran says that the people of Israel are not allowed to turn back but must defend their land.

Several Muslim scholars say so:

God wanted to give Avraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael's descendents should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac's in Canaan.

The Qur'an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.

http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html

The Qur'an adumbrates several principles that hover around a common theme: God does not love injustice and will assist those who are wrongly treated. And it focuses so much on this that the person most mentioned in the Qur'an is Moses -- who is presented as God's revolutionary, and who leads a people despised and tormented for no other reason than that they worshipped God, out of the land of bondage to the Promised Holy Land.

The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you , and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

The Quran goes on to say why the Israelites were not allowed to enter the land for forty years...but the thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in the Qur'an we have "Written upon you is the fast"--to show that this is something that is decreed, and which none can change. So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/91-1640.aspx

Dr Al-Husseini is a British imam who teaches a course on the Koran as part of interfaith studies at the Leo Baeck College, the Progressive rabbinic college in Finchley, north London. One of the texts he has taught is the following verse in the Koran (5:21), “O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has decreed for you, and turn back on your heels otherwise you will be overturned as losers.”

He examines this passage through the eyes of one classic commentator of the Koran, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923), who says the remark is “a narrative from God… concerning the saying of Moses… to his community from among the children of Israel and his order to them according to the order of God to him, ordering them to enter the holy land.”

http://www.thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/what-koran-says-about-land-israel

(There are also many Web sites that deny that the Quran says so but for some reason they always argue from a point of view of a Muslim rather than the point of view of the Quran. Those writers also ignore that it was Islamic rulers who allowed Jews to come back to Jerusalem and that it was Saladin, the great Kurdish prince, who said that the exile was over and called on the Jews to return to the holy land.)

I was going to ask you what you thought about this and never got around to it.

PatCondell pretty well sums up mine and apparently your feelings about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZUZ9CPZII

Yes, I can agree withto a large extent.

As I said I don't agree with Wilder's  statements about Islam but I do agree that he the right to say them and MOST of what he says is indeed true.

(Of course the terror supporters can claim that their terrorists are also "mostly right", but I think we can both see that our guy who is mostly right doesn't murder people because of his opinions but is being punished merely for speaking up.)

I see nothing wrong now with supporting Wilders even if he is a bit too extreme. I'd rather live in the world he envisions than in the world his political (and real-world) enemies envision.

I love multi-culturalism. But what we are seeing in Europe is not multi-culturalism, it's a government-protected violent Islamic monoculture.