are the US media to biased toward Israel ? (video)

[Spoke]

@FinnAgain

Debating in these threads is often like playing whack-a-mole, and I’d almost be willing to bet money that this video will be cited again in a week or a month or a year’s time, most likely by someone who already posted it and then had it rebutted, but didn’t deign to respond.

I would love to see someone who was well informed, intellectually honest in their arguments, and who could present a nuanced position. For the most part, I’ve not seen it.

Well, I do see that it can be frustrating refuting the same assertions over and over. I generally say out of these threads, so I probably haven’t seen where you’ve done it before (except as linked in this thread). So there’s some Board history that I don’t know which probably explains the obvious irritation.

[Jackmannii]

@spoke-

So what are you saying? If one criticizes Israel (unless they are carefully meek in their criticism) we must assume that this person is an anti-Semite?

That certainly sounds to me like a debate-killer. No one may dare criticize Israel, lest they be presumed a bigot.

As noted, this is not at all the point I was making. Reasoned dispassionate debate of the type you are espousing doesn’t result in accusations of bigotry.

If a “debater” insists on viewing things as a matter of Stark Evil vs. Good and relies on classic stereotyped premises to characterize the other side (i.e. “they control the media”) then inevitably there will be efforts to debunk these fallacies, and the debater’s arguments will be dissected with zeal (bigots are notoriously careless with facts and supporting data).

In order to generate more light instead of heat in these discussions, I think you’d find it more valuable to discourage postings based on these hidden agendas, rather than to criticize those who’d like to keep bigotry out of the debate.

[Shodan]

@Malthus

Don’t agree. Gandhi’s and MLK’s approach worked because they were able to transcend the “us vs. them” rhetoric and appeal directly to the conciences of those they believed where actively or tacitly supporting injustice. They worked because the British and the US both believed that they were just; thus they played to the ideals of the target.

In my opinion, the same tactics would “work” on the Israelis - but of course, that depends on there being an injustice to highlight.

It would work (for example) in protesting actual injustices, such as the denial of a Palistinian state. But that of course is not the real goal of the terrorists - it is the destruction of the Israeli state.

Put it this way. Gandhi-like tactics would never have worked against any of the 20th centuries’ totalitarians - because they cared nothing for justice. Equally, Gandhi-like tactics would not work if what Gandhi sought was not independance of India, but destruction of Britain.

This is well put.

What was the Tom Clancy novel which started out with the Palestinians using Gandhi’s tactics?

Regards,
Shodan

[Weirddave]

@Sevastopol

Completely misinformed.

While the Israelis have predictably made a lot of hoopla about the Gaza withdrawl, there was nothing benevolent about it. Two facts:

1. It is by and large a useless piece of dirt, which occupied too many Israeli resources to hold.

2. Expansion of West Bank land appropriation and settlement, or theft, by Israel has far outstripped the population withdrawl from Gaza, during that period.

1. Ahh, I see. Typical anti-Israel debating tactics. Demand that they must do something for there to be peace, and then when they do it, dismiss it as “worthless”. There’s something worthless around here alright, and it ain’t Israel’s attempts at peace.

2. Again, you condemn Israel for something that, generally speaking, is well within the easy grasp of the Palestinians. AFAIK, Israel is still a signatory to the Camp David and Oslo Accords. Something like 3/4 of all Israelis support the principle of land for peace. All the Palestinians have to do is say the word, and they could have their own sovereign nation, free of Israel’s presence, on the morrow.(<----exaggeration for effect on the timeline) All they have to do is say the word…but that word is recognizing that Israel is a sovereign nation with every right to exist. All they have to do is grant Israel what they are demanding for themselves.

[XT]

@Shodan

What was the Tom Clancy novel which started out with the Palestinians using Gandhi’s tactics?

Rainbow 6? I seem to recall something like that happening in the beginning (before all hell started breaking loose later on with terrorist groups).

-XT

[Malthus]

@Sevastopol

Here you go. I’ll give you a second chance to re-read my post, then your characterisation, think about it for a bit and state in your own words whether you think it was an accurate paraphrase. We’ll leave ‘fair’ for later shall we?

Obviously I think it was accurate, or I wouldn’t have made it in the first place.

If you think it is not, it would be nice to see some actual reasoning as to why. I’m not holding my breath though.

[Malthus]

@spoke-

So what are you saying? If one criticizes Israel (unless they are carefully meek in their criticism) we must assume that this person is an anti-Semite?

That certainly sounds to me like a debate-killer. No one may dare criticize Israel, lest they be presumed a bigot.

If we are ever to have a rational debate, I think it better to assume otherwise until proven wrong, rather than indulge in innuendo and name-calling.

At any rate, calling your opponent in a debate an anti-Semite is still an ad hominem attack, even if true, since it adds nothing to the debate and is irrelevant to the resolution of whatever issue may be under discussion.

See how the debate in this very thread has been sidetracked into an argument over whether Tutu is a bigot?

If you are interested in the study of fallacies in argument, the exchange above is illustrative. I would say that it demonstrates the right-and the wrong- way of approaching the twin fallacies of “appeal to authority” and “ad hominem” attack.

The important thing to note is that neither an appeal to authority nor a characterization of a person’s position based on what they say is of necessity a fallacy. Some people actually are authorities, and this does give their opinions more weight; stating that a person is not objective on a matter may actually detract from that weight. It depends on circumstances.

For example, look at the exchange above. A poster cites Bishop Tutu on the ME. He is obviously using an appeal to authority - the implication being that Tutu, as a moral exemplar, is above accusations of bias. Thus we should heed his subjective opinion.

I then cite a quotation from the statement of Bishop Tutu which, I contend, clearly demonstrates that he is biased. This isn’t an ad hominem attack on Tutu - it is a refutation of the appeal to authority made by the person citing Tutu in the first place!

A fallacious ad hominum would look like this:

• You can’t trust Bishop Tutu’s arguments. He is an Anglican Bishop, and Anglicans are all well-known Jew-haters.

Not like this:

• You are giving Bishop Tutu’s opinions weight because of the respect he has earned [appeal to authority]. You have claimed Bishop Tutu is objective and not biased. However, in examining his statement, he demonstrates bias in the following manner [cite]. Thus, I conclude he is in fact biased. I conclude your appeal to authority should be discounted.

In conclusion, an analysis of the validity of sources, such as whether to grant an appeal to authority status, does not “add nothing to the debate” and is not a “fallacy”. Indeed, such an analysis is the very essence of informed debate.

[gonzomax]

It is true. The Israelies are still in the territory provided by the UN mandate. There are no Palestinians subjected to debasing and humiliating checkpoints. If there are they should understand it is not meant to be that way, so it doesn’t count.
Try and put yourself in Palestinian shoes occasionally.
Face it.in the middle east, israel has been portrayed as a big bully intent on gathering more land This last month has been poor pr for them.

[Sevastopol]

@Weirddave

1. Ahh, I see. Typical anti-Israel debating tactics. Demand that they must do something for there to be peace, and then when they do it, dismiss it as “worthless”. There’s something worthless around here alright, and it ain’t Israel’s attempts at peace.

2. Again, you condemn Israel for something that, generally speaking, is well within the easy grasp of the Palestinians. AFAIK, Israel is still a signatory to the Camp David and Oslo Accords. Something like 3/4 of all Israelis support the principle of land for peace. All the Palestinians have to do is say the word, and they could have their own sovereign nation, free of Israel’s presence, on the morrow.(<----exaggeration for effect on the timeline) All they have to do is say the word…but that word is recognizing that Israel is a sovereign nation with every right to exist. All they have to do is grant Israel what they are demanding for themselves.

Obviously every word Weirddave has posted is untrue, as a moment’s casual research will show. For instance could it be put to him that Palestine has recognised Israel’s right to exist and thereby his entire concept is misconceived?

It could, but that would be petty, almost as much as the reminder that the correct response is a retraction and reference to evidence. What is due is the entire retraction of his world view, an apology and oath to go forth and sin no more. Pettyness aside (for the moment) It is however relevant to this thread. The question is: What deep well of Israeli propaganda is there in the US that such views are voiced, even by someone able to read and with access to the 'net?

@Malthus

Obviously I think it was accurate, or I wouldn’t have made it in the first place.

If you think it is not, it would be nice to see some actual reasoning as to why. I’m not holding my breath though.

As per above, what forces have worked on your thinking to warp it so? Sadly the question is the same fallacy as the “War Supporters” poll. The quality that includes you in the sample disables you from answering coherently. Nevermind, as is instantly apparent:

@Malthus

‘actually, I think terrorism has worked well and is a morally justified strategy’.

• is not a paraphrase arrived at by coolheaded thought. Why? Because a cursory glance at the post that provoked this reveals its moral neutrality. Where is the moral assessment in the post? There is none supporting Malthus’s view. If any “unsavoury” reflects a judgment, the very opposite of what Malthus’s perceived. Again, what malevolence has so poisoned the mind of American youth. I cannot believe it to be an endogenous condition.

[Malthus]

@Sevastopol

As per above, what forces have worked on your thinking to warp it so? Sadly the question is the same fallacy as the “War Supporters” poll. The quality that includes you in the sample disables you from answering coherently. Nevermind, as is instantly apparent: - is not a paraphrase arrived at by coolheaded thought. Why? Because a cursory glance at the post that provoked this reveals its moral neutrality. Where is the moral assessment in the post? There is none supporting Malthus’s view. If any “unsavoury” reflects a judgment, the very opposite of what Malthus’s perceived. Again, what malevolence has so poisoned the mind of American youth. I cannot believe it to be an endogenous condition.

You know, I do not think it is very good manners to address me in this manner. I request that you please address me directly, as I have addressed you.

Not “it is the very opposite of what Malthus perceived”, but rather “Malthus, you are incorrect; it is the very opposite of what you perceived”.

Just as a matter of courtesy. Thanks in advance.

…

To address the substance: I refer again to the quote at issue:

If the Palestinians went Ghandi, the Israelis would simply continue to slice off as much Palestine as they’d guzzle. Moreover, the support of the American people rests on successful PR. As is plainly evident, them don’t want no facts. And the Israelis have successful USA PR in spades.

Yet oddly enough the Palestinan Olympic kidnappings were a major PR coup. While unsavoury, it took the Palestinian cause from unknown to something world fora have been alive to ever since.

So ‘straightening up’ won’t work, because PR in the US will never go their way, no matter what. It will take what it will take.

It is I think apparent to any objective observer that the tone is one of regretful necessity of the effective tactic of terrorism.

Dissecting the quote from first to last, in a more detailed paraphrase:

• Nonviolence will not work on Israel. The US is influenced by Israeli PR, not facts.

• While regrettible, terrorism has succeeded in advancing the Palistinian cause.

• Therefore, “it will take what it will take” - that is, terrorism is a justified necessity for Palistinians.

What exactly is your quarrel with this? Reasons please, and without resorting to ad-hominems this time (I am neither “American” nor a “youth”).

And while you are at it, I would be interested to know what you mean by ‘you cannot believe that [poisionous malevolence] is an endogenous condition’.

[Sevastopol]

Interesting. From my POV the use of the third person as in: “Malthus has said…” is the more formal and hence the more polite address. Nonetheless I’ve met that objection before. Noted.

Onward:

@Malthus

…‘actually, I think terrorism has worked well and is a morally justified strategy’.

What you now propose is distant from this original paraphrase. “Is a morally justified strategy” is unequivocal. It is an evaluation.

@Malthus

…
It is I think apparent to any objective observer that the tone is one of regretful necessity of the effective tactic of terrorism.

I think you would courteously agree that a tone of ‘regretful necessity’ is far from unequivocal, would you not?

@Malthus

…- Nonviolence will not work on Israel. The US is influenced by Israeli PR, not facts.

• While regrettible, terrorism has succeeded in advancing the Palistinian cause.

• Therefore, “it will take what it will take” - that is, terrorism is a justified necessity for Palistinians.

What exactly is your quarrel with this? Reasons please, and without resorting to ad-hominems this time (I am neither “American” nor a “youth”).

There is no ad hominem in my earlier post either. As is well known, it is a tactic I despise. Back to ‘regretful necessity’; your paraphrase was:

• has worked well; and
• is a morally justified strategy.

Now, you are rendering that as ‘has worked well, therefore is a morally justified strategy’, hence ‘regretful necessity’. Well that is a different proposition altogether. You have attempted to count the same observation twice.

This much is adequate to dispose of the initial paraphrase, as both you and I have done. Continuing, out of interest: There is still no basis for your finding moral evaluation in the post. It is merely analytical.

Mind you, I don’t buy into the current idiom of American English, where terrorism howsoever defined by the administration is the marker of the enemies of decency. It is a question to be assessed in each case and in the post in question the moral content of the action is not assessed.

@Malthus

And while you are at it, I would be interested to know what you mean by ‘you cannot believe that [poisionous malevolence] is an endogenous condition’.

Why is it that so many minds are warped according to the very same pattern? It is likely to have an external cause.

[Malthus]

@Sevastopol

Interesting. From my POV the use of the third person as in: “Malthus has said…” is the more formal and hence the more polite address. Nonetheless I’ve met that objection before. Noted.

Okay; I would say that such a use appears (though I would hope not intended) to carry the connotation of “you are not worthy of direct address; rather, I will make remarks concerning you to the listening audience”.

Onward:
What you now propose is distant from this original paraphrase. “Is a morally justified strategy” is unequivocal. It is an evaluation. I think you would courteously agree that a tone of ‘regretful necessity’ is far from unequivocal, would you not? There is no ad hominem in my earlier post either.

You seemed to believe that my interpretation was the product of “warped thinking”; that I was “disabled from answering coherently”; that my analysis was “not the product of coolheaded thought”; but rather an example of the sort of “malevolence” that “has so poisoned the mind of American youth”.

Not exactly ad-homs, more like straight-up insults.

As is well known, it is a tactic I despise. Back to ‘regretful necessity’; your paraphrase was:

• has worked well; and
• is a morally justified strategy.

Now, you are rendering that as ‘has worked well, therefore is a morally justified strategy’, hence ‘regretful necessity’. Well that is a different proposition altogether. You have attempted to count the same observation twice.

I don’t understand the basis of your objection. Perhaps a simpler approach is better. Is terrorism justified in this case?

Your reasoning sounds an awful lot like “the ends justify the means”. How is that not a moral justification of the means?

In short, your distinction lacks difference.

This much is adequate to dispose of the initial paraphrase, as both you and I have done. Continuing, out of interest: There is still no basis for your finding moral evaluation in the post. It is merely analytical.

Mind you, I don’t buy into the current idiom of American English, where terrorism howsoever defined by the administration is the marker of the enemies of decency. It is a question to be assessed in each case and in the post in question the moral content of the action is not assessed.

I disagree. The topic of discussion was not the amorphous general “terrorism howsoever defined by the Administration”, but a specific example: the kidnapping and murder of Israeli Olympic athletes at Munich. I doubt you will find many who will quibble that kidnapping & murdering athletes is not “terrorism”.

This particular “unsavory” action was specifically stated to be justified by its results.

The quote “It will take what it will take” is, to my mind, no different in meaning from “the ends justify the means”.

In short, a moral justification of terrorism. The original pharaphrase is fully justified.

Why is it that so many minds are warped according to the very same pattern? It is likely to have an external cause.

Please detail this “external cause”.

[Weirddave]

@Sevastopol

Obviously every word Weirddave has posted is untrue, as a moment’s casual research will show. For instance could it be put to him that Palestine has recognised Israel’s right to exist and thereby his entire concept is misconceived?

It could, but that would be petty, almost as much as the reminder that the correct response is a retraction and reference to evidence. What is due is the entire retraction of his world view, an apology and oath to go forth and sin no more. Pettyness aside (for the moment) It is however relevant to this thread. The question is: What deep well of Israeli propaganda is there in the US that such views are voiced, even by someone able to read and with access to the 'net?

Uh-huh. Then you should have no trouble providing a cite, right? I know I’m dumber than a weasel’s liver and hopelessly brainwashed by an international Zionist conspiracy to the point that I wouldn’t recognize a fact if it bit me on the balls, but I am sure there are other posters here who are not as blinded to the truth as I am that would benefit from such a cite. Care to provide one that shows the Palestinian Authority formally recognizing Israel? For those lucky people who, unlike me, aren’t sheeple of course.

[FinnAgain]

Well, they did… sort of.. I’ll leave it up to you why someone would dishonestly pretend something about what really happened and claim unequivocal acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.

The plan also calls on militants to limit attacks to areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War and calls for formation of a coalition Palestinian government.

Further info:

It also calls for the right to continued armed resistance, at least in the West Bank where Israel has been determined to hold on to at least some of the large settlements it began following the 1967 war.

And, on close reading, it really offers only an implicit recognition of Israel, not an explicit one, though in the important sense that future acts of resistance, ie. violence, ought not to focus on Israel proper, meaning within its pre-1967 borders.

In fact it is a futher act of dishonesty to claim that Hamas actually recognized a two state solution. Were it coming from anybody else, I’d call it ignorance. For this poster, it’s obviously a lie.

Some fallout:

Abbas had sought to soften Hamas’s hard line towards Israel – the movement’s charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state – in the hope of ending a U.S.-led boycott of the cash-strapped Palestinian government by Western donor nations.

Hamas insisted it was sticking to its “agenda of resistance” against Israel.

“The document included a clear clause referring to the non-recognition of the legitimacy of the Occupation,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said, using the Islamist group’s term for Israel.

Such a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be in line with Fatah’s recognition of Israel.

But Hamas legislator Salah al-Bardaweel told Reuters: “We said we accept a state (in territory occupied) in 1967 – but we did not say we accept two states.”

Islamic Jihad, another militant group, said it still rejected several points in the prisoners’ document, including the concept of a Palestinian state limited to the West Bank and Gaza.

[Valteron]

Once again, I note that I have no dog in this fight. Part of my family is Jewish, and I would hate to see the only democracy in the Middle East wiped out because of anti-Jewish hatred. So I agree with the right of Israel to exist.

But let’s be objective. Do you think Hollywood might have a bit of pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli attitude? Have you ever read How the Jews Invented Hollywood (written by a Jewish author)?

How many movies can you name from Hollywood that are sympathetic to Israel? I can think of three. Exodus, Major Marcus (starring Kirk Douglas) and Raid at Entebee.

Can anyone think of a movie out of Hollywood that was sympathetic to Palestinians or their cause?

But before you anti-semites (and there are some of them on these boards, believe me) start yelling about a Jewish plot, let’s point out one interesting fact. To my knowledge, the large Jewish influence in Hollywood in the 1930s was NEVER ONCE used to criticize Hitler and Naziism until the actual outbreak of war between Germany and the US. The only film that dared attack Nazis in the 30s was “The Great Dictator” by Charlie Chaplin, who was NOT Jewish.

Why did the Jewish studio heads and producers in Hollywood not do more to push US opinion against Nazi Germany? Because, apparently, they were warned NOT TO by J. Edgar Hoover and Joe Kennedy, with the backing of FDR.

Why does everything we say about Jews in society have to be reduced to black and white, conspiracy or no conspiracy? Is it not possible to say that the six million Jews in the US, who are frequently influential in politics and the entertainment industry, naturally have the effect of making the US media lean a little more in favour of Israel?

But since Israel is a democratic friend of the west, is that so bad? And if Israel often comes across as the good guy, might it be because it often IS the good guy?

[Sevastopol]

@Weirddave

Uh-huh. Then you should have no trouble providing a cite, right? I know I’m dumber than a weasel’s liver and hopelessly brainwashed by an international Zionist conspiracy to the point that I wouldn’t recognize a fact if it bit me on the balls, but I am sure there are other posters here who are not as blinded to the truth as I am that would benefit from such a cite. Care to provide one that shows the Palestinian Authority formally recognizing Israel? For those lucky people who, unlike me, aren’t sheeple of course.

Yasser Arafat (PLO Chairman) recognises Israel

…Taking control of the intifada, Mr Arafat surprised and angered many Palestinians by announcing he would recognise Israel…

No need to beat yourself up over this. As is evident they work pretty hard to bias the US media in favour of Israel. Mind you, I am a little worried it was such easy information to find, yet still many people are steadfastly ignorant of it. If you are really interested, given the information above you should be able to locate a fuller history.

[Sevastopol]

@Valteron

…and I would hate to see the only democracy in the Middle East wiped out because of anti-Jewish hatred…

Some things are indeed a matter of eternal struggle. Another one of those catchphrases which just will not die. Glance at a map of the Middle East and name the countries, just the big ones.

[Sevastopol]

@Malthus

I don’t understand the basis of your objection. Perhaps a simpler approach is better. Is terrorism justified in this case?

I haven’t expressed a moral judgment on the issue: because I haven’t formed one.

@Malthus

Your reasoning sounds an awful lot like “the ends justify the means”. How is that not a moral justification of the means?

No my reasoning does not sound like that.

@Malthus

In short, your distinction lacks difference.

That’s a cool phrase, but you are all over the shop. Look, you need to grasp the difference between analysis and validation. Once you’ve done that, you’re home.

@Malthus

…This particular “unsavory” action was specifically stated to be justified by its results.

No it wasn’t.

@Malthus

The quote “It will take what it will take” is, to my mind, no different in meaning from “the ends justify the means”.

Not mine.

@Malthus

In short, a moral justification of terrorism. The original pharaphrase is fully justified.

Your shifts of reasoning and emphasis are too many to follow and too many to convince. While shy by habit in expressing my views on controversial topics, I do feel that had I an opinion on that question I might be emboldened to share it. I don’t though.

[gum]

To the OP: If the media were biased towards Israël, why the frick haven’t I seen, or read anything about ** This**?

[FinnAgain]

Oh yeah… Arafat’s commitment to peace. Obviously a guy who never said one thing, and did another. Yeaahhh…

[

Even as the violence hummed, Arafat assumed his statesman’s face for the West, to great effect. As the body count mounted in 1988, the U.N. granted the PLO’s observer mission the right to participate, though not vote, in General Assembly sessions. In addition, the administration of George H. W. Bush held open the possibility of direct dialogue if Arafat would renounce terrorism and agree to be bound by Resolution 242. This he purported to do on December 16, 1988, claiming to acknowledge “the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security…including the state of Palestine and Israel and other neighbors according to the Resolutions 242 and 338”; and asserting: “As for terrorism…I repeat for the record that we totally and absolutely renounce all forms of terrorism, including individual, group and state terrorism.” Like the Europeans, the U.S. officially recognized Arafat as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians.

The bankruptcy of these claims was revealed as the Intifada ensued and Arafat blundered by publicly aligning with Saddam both after the invasion of Kuwait and throughout Iraq’s scud missile attacks on Israel. But just as it seemed he might finally fade away, the strongman caught a lifeline when Gulf War victory failed to carry the first President Bush to re-election. Bush’s successor, President Bill Clinton, saw in the intractable Israeli/Palestinian conflict the chance for an enduring legacy, and saw in Arafat a viable “peace partner.”

With Clinton as determined midwife, Arafat and the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the ballyhooed Oslo Accords of 1993. The Palestinian Authority was created, Arafat was appointed its chief executive, and a plan for eventual self-government by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza was set in motion. But euphoria over this seeming breakthrough blurred appreciation of both Arafat’s innate mendacity and Oslo’s patent failure to resolve key contentious issues, including final borders, the status of East Jerusalem, and the rights of Israeli settlers and Palestinian refugees — under the delusion that Arafat would work in good faith toward a peaceful, comprehensive settlement with Israel over a five-year period.

The mega-murderer was suddenly statesman, star, and, in 1994, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize — a once-coveted honor now, by his attainment of it, reduced to a joke best listed among his countless victims. Thanks to this peace partner, it soon became clear that Oslo was a charade, a case of a credulous American president choosing his honey over his lying eyes.

The Palestinian Authority reneged on its promises of democratic reform and establishment of the rule of law — holding elections exactly once and never again after Arafat was overwhelmingly elected. Arafat also failed to honor, despite incessant pleading by Clinton administration figures, a commitment that the Palestinian National Charter would be amended to remove clauses calling for the destruction of Israel. The PA made a show of appearing to comply, disingenuously noting the provisions purportedly slated for nullification and calling for a new draft of the Charter to be produced. No revised Charter, however, was ever forthcoming. Meanwhile, what education system existed in the territories, much like Arafat’s public statements in Arabic (always far more menacing than the English he spoke to the Western world), continued to instill hatred for Jews and calls for the demise of their state. Naturally, the terrorist activity also proceeded, with the PA ineffectual in halting it — when not encouraging it outright.

There should have been surprise in none of this. As Stephens reports, in 1996, Arafat brayed to an Arab audience in Stockholm, “We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion… We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.” Asked about his plans on Egyptian television in 1998, Arafat explained that strategic pause was a venerable Islamic strategy, referring specifically to the “Khudaibiya agreement” in which the Prophet Mohammed made a ten-year treaty with the Arabian tribe of Koreish, but broke it after two years — during which his forces used the security of the pact to marshal their strength — and then conquered the Koreish tribe.

](http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200411120827.asp)