December 2, 2007


Karma Nabulsi is pro-Palestinians and anti-Annapolis. Sounds a lot like Hamas who were democratically elected by the Palestinians. Well, read this. Nabulsi, is a hypocrite. If he believes in Arab lands, what the heck is he doing on Western lands?

Time to repost two articles which show that the Palestinian Struggle, which really means to the Hamas supporters, "don't give in until the Jews are driven into the sea," is baseless, childish, and hypocritical:


Land in the 20th and 21st Century doesn't work like land used to work, when all solid land wasn't claimed on this earth.

There is no such thing as Palestinian land, Muslim land, Arab land, Jewish land, Atheist land, Caucasian land, Christian land, etc.

Land is either owned and/or governed. That is it. That is how land works. Land is just dirt, plain and simple.

Yes, the Palestinian region has existed throughout recorded history. Yes, there is a such thing as Arabs who are/were indigenous to the region, as well as Christians and Jews, etc.

But demographics change everywhere. Immigration is not a form of stealing. You can only steal land if it is OWNED.

The percentages of Muslims in the West has climbed in recent years. Nobody is accusing Muslims of stealing Western lands though because they are not.

The region of Palestine was last governed by the British before Israel was created.
Arabs and their mindless supporters tend to forget that it was the Brits who came up with the White Paper which limited Jewish immigration into the British controlled land of Palestine.

The Arabs, with the exception of the very few who owned land in Israel, have absolutely no claim to Israel. In fact, they have no claim to the West Bank, but it is open to negotiations. Just as Israel was when the Jews were successfully lobbying for it.

Over 90% of the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were born in the West Bank and Gaza, and have no property in Israel proper. Their grandfathers may have lived there, but so what? I used to live in Toronto, I don't anymore. In fact, in Toronto, the Kensington district used to have a Jewish majority until the late 50's. But the Jews moved to Northern Toronto. Nobody is making a claim that Kensington is Jewish land.

My house and property is not Jewish land. It wouldn't matter if everyone on my street were Jews. Land can be sold. And it can as easily be sold to anyone of any ethnicity.

Anyone who reads this blog has to know that I like to think, I try to think, and many times my thoughts even make sense. I know I'm no Albert Einstein, but I aint no Ann Coulter either.
Lately, I've been doing more thinking about my argument dealing with land, Israel, and changes in demographics. Something then struck me as I saw a blurb about Michigan having loads and loads of Arabs. I started doing my maniacal internet searches on this topic and found that Dearborn, Michigan is now considered the Arab capital of the United States.
Dearborn? The birthplace of alleged Jew hater Henry Ford has a population of around 100,000 people. 40% are Arabs. Surely, Dearborn didn't have a 40% population of Arabs when Henry was born. Of course not.

Lets see what states about the Arab populstion history in Dearborn:

'Dearborn was founded as the first overnight stop on the stagecoach route linking Detroit to Chicago. Its streets are named for the German Catholics who have since given way to Polish and Italian Americans, whom Arab immigrants and their descendants, in turn, are replacing. Southfield Freeway separates the city’s Western and Eastern worlds, roughly demarcating three neighborhoods: Southend is now mostly populated by Yemenis; East Dearborn is a bustling Lebanese community of Arab restaurants, bakeries, and halal butchers; and West Dearborn’s residential streets remain populated by Italian and Polish ethnics.

The Muslim presence in metropolitan Detroit dates to the last decade of the 19th century, when men from the Lebanese Biqa Valley, working as peddlers and traders, followed a larger number of Lebanese Christian emigrees to the U.S. When Henry Ford began to offer generous five-dollar daily wages for workers at his Highland Park assembly line in 1913, Detroit became the predominant destination for Lebanese immigrants. Immigration accelerated when Lebanon’s economy fell apart in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse at the end of World War I. The restrictive National Origins Act of 1924 reduced Lebanese immigration to a trickle, but over the next twenty years, wives and dependent children, whom the Act still allowed to immigrate, gradually reunited with their husbands and fathers. In 1927, Ford shifted operations to the Rouge River plant in his native Dearborn, and a Muslim neighborhood soon followed.

By the close of World War II, the Dearborn population numbered about 200 families. Most subsequent immigrants–Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi–arrived in Dearborn as political refugees, with only Yemenis coming to Dearborn in this period primarily for economic opportunity. Collectively, the communities in Dearborn represent the second largest concentration of both Arabs and Muslims outside the Middle East, behind only Paris.'

Dearborn almost had an Arab mayor, if it wasn't for bad timing. 9/11 happened the same day as the Dearborn mayoral primary. Well, don't worry. Next time Arabs/Muslims will probably be the majority, and a terrorist attack won't stand in the way.

Isn't it special that Arabs/Muslims can set up in an American region and nobody accuses them (nor should they) of stealing land, like Jews were accused of doing in Palestine prior to the Partition.

Isn't it special that demographics can change over time in a Western city, and nobody is looking to push the Arabs/Muslims into Lake Michigan?

Where is the Western outrage? How come Dearborn isn't thinking about building a fence around it to protect itself from terrorists?

Why would it seem hysterical if the German Catholics, who built the city of Dearborn, demanded "their" land back?

Addition: For some reason, some readers aren't getting this post. So let me try to explain it a little better. Jews went to Palestine for a better life, just like the Arabs did when they migrated from Arabia to Dearborn. Many Jews came to escape anti-semitism, many came for religious reasons, many came because they didn't have many other options, and many came to escape Dhimmitudism, just like the Arabs of Dearborn did.
Palestine was relatively empty prior to Israel's birth. In the late 1800's, 500,000 people lived on land that now comfortably hold over 6 million. Nobody had to leave, nobody had their land stolen.
For those of you weak on history, at the time of the partition, Arabs owned 20% of the land and Jews owned 8%, the rest unowned. Palestine was governed by Britain. The land partitioned off to be the Jewish state had 550,00 Jews and 450,000 Arabs. It was a Jewish majority in 1947 that came about the same way that Dearborn went for 0% Muslims to 40% today. Except, the United States exists now and isn't up for negotiations, so Dearborn can never be an Arab state, unless in the future, the US decides to allow them to have a separate state (Not impossible).

Get it yet?


  1. You've left out the most important factor in the equation which is Islam. Having a Jewish state in the heartland of Islamic territory is a thorn to Muslims that must be removed. Don't ever think that the Palestinian question, if it is ever resolved, will remove the compulsion and desire of all Muslims to eliminate the Jews from Israel. The Qu'ran clearly identifies the Jews as the biggest threat to Islam.

  2. What a load of misbegotten rubbish.

    If Jews are identified as a threat in the Qu'Ran, how come Jews have managed to live peacefully within the Umma for generations? Let's have chapter and verse.

    And to the Atheist Jew, I wonder if you would be so willing to write an apologia for a nasty, racist state if it were you and your family on the receiving end of its policies?

  3. Jews were Dhimmis (second class citizens) in Arab majority countries.
    Actually having their own governed state makes Allah very unhappy.

    Israel is as racist as the US. You want a racist state, think about Saudi Arabia or Syria, etc.

    And the poor Palestinians have only themselves and the surrounding Arab countries to blame for their plight, not Israel. If the US were Israel, the Palestinians would be extinct by now. They are lucky they live next to Joooos and not red necks.

    Israel's policies are made to defend themselves from Palestinian babies who refuse to grow up.

    If the Arabs dropped their guns there would be peace.

  4. Great post! Anti-semitism is an ancient disease of the mind. What a brainwashed group many Arab Christians are for defending radical Islamists who are terrorizing them, they really are in deep denial. We must keep waking up all the Jews and Christians, on the Left and the Right.

    It's a real scary situation with the Christian Arabs being driven out of Palestine and the Middle East and Western churches not defending them either.

    The level of dhimmidiotness is astounding. This is shameful, all Christians should be ashamed for the behavior of their dhimmidiot Church leaders.

    People should go up in their church when they are invited up to offer a prayer and say:

    "I'd like to offer a prayer this Christmas for all the oppressed and harassed Arab Christians being driven out of Palestine and the Middle East."

    And the church won't be able to stop it, it will be too quick.

    This will open some eyes and get some parishioners wanting to learn more about this.

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    harass all Christians

    drive them from your lands
    or watch people leave Islam

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    blame your failings on the Jews

    for a few more thousand years
    they are Earth's scapegoats

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    give Israel away

    to appease her enemies
    dishonor America

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    go ahead and blame the Jews

    IslamoFascists and YOU
    believe the same crazy shit

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    blame a small population

    deflect your people's anger
    let them feel superior
    . .

  5. So, the white Afrikaners, they TOTALLY DESERVE to have complete and utter control of South Africa? Right? Because no one owns the land?

    And the Han Chinese, they had the complete right to take over Tibet, because, I mean, no one's land.

    The thing is, Palestine did exist. It was under colonial rule but it did exist. Britain did the same thing to them that they did to South Africa, and the USA, and Australia-- they wanted a place to send people they didn't want, so they dumped them in a colony, and the colonists quickly took over, set up their own governments, and when the natives objected (sometimes violently, sure), they waged war against them.

    Look, I'm not saying that we should kick out the Jews, we shouldn't. It's their home now too, and their holy lands. But you have to consider that first of all, Israel is NOT a secular state, so it is as inherently unfair to non-Jews (Not on the level of Shari'a, but it is STILL UNFAIR, and less secular than even the US); also, every argument you use was used by the Chinese to justify seizing Tibet and the Afrikaners to take over South Africa; also by the US to exterminate the Native Americans and the Australians to kill off the Aborigines. Is that really the camp you want to be in?

    I don't know how we can achieve peace in the region without more suffering, but if you say "Oh, it's just the Arabs, if they stopped resisting and assimilated we'd get along fine," how are you any better than any other entitled European?

  6. Oh, and lexcen-- according to the Qu'ran the biggest threats are apostates and people who aren't Of the Book, i.e. people who are not Abrahamic (Hindus, Buddhists, etc). But that's a BIG step from apostates.

  7. Basiorana, you have fallen for a lot of Far Left and Arab rhetoric. I know you are smarter than that.
    Read up on the history of the Partition to begin with.
    Israel is not an Apartheid state. The West Bank and Gaza are still not sovereign territory. Check out why the West Bank wasn't made sovereign territory from 1948-67 when Jordan occupied it.
    Israel is a Jewish majority state which figures it needs to stay a Jewish majority state for quite a while. It takes a little away from it being compared to the USA right now, but there are Arabs in the Knesset, and the Arabs who didn't leave in 1948 are either still in Israel or their offspring still are.
    Israel was scarcely populated in the late 1800's. Only 500,000 people (10% Jews) where over 9 million people live today. And 80% of the land was not farmed or lived on.
    The Palestinian Arabs had no problem living under Ottoman rule and then British rule, still without a sovereign country, and Jews started migrating there along with more Arabs as the economy started to improve with the arrival of more Jews in the 20th century.
    A Jewish majority existed by the time the UN awarded a Jewish governed state portion of the partition.
    The surrounding Arab nations who didn't give a rats ass about the indigenous Palestinians were the one intolerant of a Jewish majority state and declared war and lost it.
    I know I'm being simplistic here. But your comparisons are way out of whack here.

  8. I've read the history of Palestine. I know this much-- when the British and Ottomans were ruling it as a colony they weren't LIVING there. As you say. Thus most of the day-to-day legal code and legislation was basically maintained by the Palestinians. The Brits weren't micromanaging the way that people who live in the region would be.

    There is never a great deal opposition to colonization until colonists come in or the government starts waging war against natives. This has been consistently true throughout history. The problem arises when people's lives have to change because of it-- when colonists come in and make their own government.

    Any state that is not secular-- TRULY secular-- will be unfair to people who are not members of the main religion. What's more, they are culturally so different from the people of the region, and they have made no effort to combine European/Jewish cultural morals with Arabian ones. Palestinians living in Israel are treated like terrorists even if they have no desire to fight. Why is there a Law of Return for Jews, but no one else whose religious ancestors lived in the region (Christians, Muslims) can apply? The Israeli state uses sheer numbers to justify their complete and utter control over the area, plus the rights to expand if they need to, while still encouraging more people to come-- PROVIDED they are Jews.

    Palestine's history is full of racism and culturalism. The British wouldn't give Palestine it's own authority when most were Muslims, but Israel? Sure! Israelis (and non-Israeli people of Jewish descent) all seem to be of the belief that the Arab people are warlike, "childish," etc, while they are the great bringers of Science and Democracy. The only difference I see between the way Britain and colonists messed up Australia, North America, and South Africa (and China with Tibet) is that the Arabs have guns, and people giving them more guns all the time. I guarantee you if the Aborigines in Australia had had the same access to weapons when the white Australians arrived that the Arabs did when the Jews arrived, Australia would have wound up in the exact same condition as Israel today.

    Again, Israelis should not have to leave. However, they need to come to understand that it is not "childish" to object to your government constantly pushing for you to be outnumbered, to your government banning you from some of your own holy sites, to the entire air of cultural imperialism that the Israeli state had when it came to the region. They need to come to understand that their policies are NOT fair to non-Jews, and that they ARE being racist/religionist. Then they need to work towards eliminating their unfair policies. Would that solve the conflict? Probably not. But I'd support an Israel that actually gave two shits about the non-Jews in the nation besides worrying if they'll blow up the rest of them. Until then, THEY are being hypocritical.

  9. I should probably stop arguing about this. I have come to understand that you can take the Judaism out of a person, but you can't take the Zionism out of them.

    I don't know how to solve this conflict, but I do know that your kind of attitude has a hell of a lot to do with why the Palestinians are so pissed off about the increasing Jewish population. The conflict in Israel will be solved one of two ways-- dropping a nuclear bomb on the region and killing everyone, or through a completely secular state composed of BOTH Jews and Arabs that carefully and fairly combines the two cultures.

    My money's on the nuke.

  10. Basiorana, what Israel needs to do is make sovereign final borders. There is no way they are going to take in the West Bank or Gaza Arabs, and nor should they. At best, some of those in the West Bank and Gaza are genetic refugees, which is a laughable concept.
    No country ever formed where everyone was happy.
    My Zionism may be biased by the fact I'm a Jew, but I look at conflicts like this probably as objective as anyone.
    Israel will not commit suicide.
    As far as the Arabs having guns. Sure, and they lost 3 wars plus an ongoing war with those guns.
    How are guns working out for them?
    People move on. There are over 1 million Arabs in sovereign Israel, and I doubt the majority would want to move anywhere else. So much for not be treated well.
    Sometimes, a person is born with a couple of strikes against them because their parents or grandparents made bad decisions. This is what happened to the Palis, but the thing is, they still make bad decisions. They have to grow up and possibly work on their own state, or keep being babies trying to get something they will never get...the only thing they will wind up with is further misery.
    OH, and the Indians had guns too....things got a little better for them when they stopped using weapons.
    Unfortunately might makes right until sovereign. That is how every country on this planet began. Israel was formed more legally than others IMO.
    And when the Arabs stop attacking, then there will be no need to treat them like terrorists.
    As far as secular countries go. Aren't blacks treated differently than whites in America when it comes to crime? In England they have a state religion.
    If you don't call those two countries secular, I don't know what you'd call them?

  11. I'm going to add a bit more.
    What country in the middle east is fully secular? Are Jews in Arab countries treated even close to how Arabs are treated in sovereign Israel?
    IT is the middle east, and lets not lose sight of why Israel exists to me.
    It is a place where Jews from everywhere on the planet can go if anti-semitism rises up anywhere any time. It is also a place where Jews can go and be treated as equals where their ethnicity doesn't come into play.
    50% of the Jews in Israel are either atheist or agnostic. Anti-semites don't care if a Jew believes or not.
    When anti-semitism goes away, then Israel will not need a Jewish majority anymore.

  12. Native Americans had guns, but not like the Arabs. They didn't have a constant supply of guns from neighboring nations. They didn't have a Jordan, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. They had some enemies of the US and Britain but they were far away and not nearly as invested.

    I am saying that guns are the only reason why the Palestinians are not in the same position as say the Native Americans. And how did the Native Americans have things get "better" for them when they stopped fighting? They were assimilated. They were culturally absorbed. If the alternative was to become a cultural Arab, with strict rules of dress and modesty, no drugs or alcohol, and prayer in every street and on every corner (even without being forced to join the actual religion), wouldn't you want to fight?

    People do not like to leave their homes. The Palestinians don't want to leave because it is their ancestral home, they have a strong religious connection to the region, and yes, some have been assimilated. It's the same as with Native Americans-- join us, support us, live in our world by our rules, and we'll treat you fine. otherwise, go live in these special areas we set aside for you.

    The USA has it's own problems with racism. I don't deny that. And we should acknowledge it, work to rectify the problem, and not try to hide the past. We are guilty of cultural imperialism as well, which is why I mentioned "carefully and fairly combin[ing] the two cultures."

    The only reason England can get away with having a state religion is because they are fairly homogeneous and members of the Anglican church do not receive any special treatment from the government to the detriment of others. Jews in Israel do receive special treatment, in regards to holy sites and immigration at least.

    If Israel set permanent borders, it would take a long time before the Palestinians would trust said borders-- the Israelis have a bad track record in that regard. You say the Palestinians still make bad decisions, but was their original decision-- to object to the Jewish state-- all that bad? To an Israeli, yeah, it was a bad move. To them, it was the most logical one to avoid assimilation into a foreign culture. They are making that decision again and again-- the choice to not assimilate into a culture that opposes both their own culture and their religious values.

    And by the way, you're not objective. No human being is objective by their very nature. What's more, you have an ethnic tie to one side of the conflict. I think I am closer to being objective because I have studied the history of the region, heard both sides of the story when I didn't have an opinion one way or another on the matter, and studied Israeli culture, Jewish law, Palestinian culture, Islamic law, and the colonizations of many different areas throughout history. I formed my opinion YEARS after I first heard of the conflict and started to research. I switched sides several times after that, as I learned more and more. My final conclusion is that no one side is right. They both have flaws. And if you were arguing the Palestinian side I would argue with you too.

  13. No country in the Middle East knows peace because no country there is secular. If they are "peaceful" they have a TON of human rights violations.

    Antisemitism is real. So is anti-arabism. And in this country, and in Europe, anti-arabism is a lot stronger than antisemitism. There are millions of ethnic groups that are discriminated against far more than the Jews and they don't get places to go. What makes the Jews so special? Why is there no sovereign Inuit country, or sovereign Tibet, or sovereign Saami land? There are places where those ethnicities have the majority and fight for the right to have their own nation, and we don't give it to them, but when the Jews want that right, they get it.

    You can't say that it's just a place to hide from antisemitism unless you also want to give every oppressed and discriminated-against ethnicity a sovereign nation.

  14. Bas, would there have been a war if the surrounding Arab nations didn't step in 1948?
    Under that situation, nobody would have had to leave. Most left on their own.
    The idea of ancestral homes is nonsense. There are 10 million people of Lebanese Arab descent living in Brazil today alone.
    Again, think of Israel as a region, which it was prior to 1948. What is wrong with Arabs going to Dearborn and becoming the majority? What is wrong with Jews going to the Palestine region to become a majority.
    Remember, Israel was a small piece of Transjordan at one time. What is wrong for a small piece to be a Jewish governed piece?
    Arabs, Muslims, etc have places to go if they feel hatred towards them is high. Jews did not until 1948.
    The land was NOT SOVEREIGN until then.
    If you want to talk ancestral homes...mans only ancestral home is Africa.

    I just don't get how you see this whole conflict has to do with Arab intolerance mostly. Sure no country including Israel is not perfect, and a country for sure won't be perfect if having to defend itself since day one.

  15. It's an ancestral home because they live there and have a strong emotional and sentimental attachment to their home, which they have lived in all their life and their parents have, etc etc. I'm not talking about returning land. Sorry if that was a poor choice of words

    I don't think it's just about racism or whatever. But why should I tell you that it's about the Jews wanting to make their own government and the other surrounding nations (Jordan, Syria, etc) not wanting the state? Why should I argue that the Jews have lived there for generations and shouldn't have to move, or live under Shari'a law? You already know all that. I'm simply trying to make you see that the Israelis are not completely innocent in all of this, nor is Britain, and that the Palestinians do have a legitimate complaint about not wanting to be assimilated or have Israel continue to expand if they feel they need to.

    I support neither the Palestinian or the Israelis because neither is wholy right.

    Also, Palestine was NOT SOVEREIGN because they were a British colony. They didn't really have a choice in the matter.

    BY your logic, though, Dearborn, if they asked to be a sovereign nation, should be made one. What's more, small regions in Europe where the Roma people are the majority should be under Roma control, and northern Sweden/Norway/Finland should be given to the Saami as their sovereign state. Those are parts of sovereign nations, but what about parts of territories? The Aborigines do not have sovereign control over any part of Australia, even their own reservations, and the reservations are mostly in the Northwest Territory, which is not a state. Canada never gave the Inuit their own little nation of the part of Canada that no one lived in, that wasn't a real state, etc.