Jews rule the world, make othrs fight wars for themselves.

QUOTE]To give credit where it’s due, Mahthir’s speech focused more broadly on the failure of Islamic civilization to sucessfully compete with the West.
[/QUOTE]

I would have to disagree.

In 1948 when Israel declared its statehood, the Arab countries attacked it refusing to allow a Jewish state on Muslim land.
The president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nassar, called for the destruction of Israel and started to mobilise for war.
Those countries that joined in with the sole goal of destroying Israel were Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, with military and financial backing also coming from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Algeria.
Israel of course won and they still exists, and this was devastating to the Arabs especially since they lost to another religion. Despite the war only lasted 6 days, the casualties Israel suffered was only 300 while the other countries, Jordan lost 6,000 troops, Syria lost 1000, and Eygpt lost 11,000 troops.
This was a humiliating defeat for the Arabs considering thier size to a small country like Israel. (Notice this recognition in Mahathirs speech at the Islamic Summit) The defeat of Iraq by infidel forces was seen as more humiliation, and was widely expressed in the media just recently.

From Mahathir’s Speech (To begin with, the governments of all the Muslim countries can close
ranks and have a common stand if not on all issues, at least on some
major ones, such as on Palestine. We are all Muslims. We are all
oppressed. We are all being humiliated. But we who have been raised by
Allah above our fellow Muslims to rule our countries have never really
tried to act in concert in order to exhibit at our level the
brotherhood and unity that Islam enjoins us.)

At the end of the 6 day war, Arabs and Palestinians decalred thier intention to keep fighting Israel for years after the war.

The Muslim Brotherhood created in 1928 in Egypt helped create Hamas in Palestine. The Hamas have thier in charter, the main goal is the destruction of Israel.

The education system in Palestine incites hatred toward jews. Instead of seizing the opportunity to educate future generations to live with Israel in peace, the PA has done everything in its power to teach hatred to young minds.

The programs involved with Palestine, are pawns to the Arab countries that want to destroy israel. They have used them in a propaganda pogrom to further damage Israel and gain world sympathy on thier side.
In Mahathi’s speech, he said

It is surely time that we pause to think. But will this be wasting time? For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before. If we had paused to think then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory. Pausing and thinking calmly is not a waste of time. We have a need to make a strategic retreat and to calmly assess our situation.

The enemy will probably welcome these proposals and we will conclude that the promoters are working for the enemy. But think. We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.
The Quran tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react
positively. True, the treaty offered is not favourable to us. But we
can negotiate. The Prophet did, at Hudaibiyah. And in the end, he
triumphed.

So this is an admission that the current intifada in israel is not working and a reassesment is neccessary. So what does he propose?

It cannot be that there is no other way. The 1.3 billion Muslims
cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we
can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and
our strengths, to plan, to strategise and then to counter-attack.

We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and
warships

"The Quran tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react positively. True the treaty offered is not favourable to us. But we can negotiate."

What the media is not telling you is the words that followed:

"The Prophet did, at Hudaibiyah. And in the end he triumphed."

The Treaty of Al-Hudaybiyya was an agreement made by the Prophet Muhammad with the Meccan tribe of Quraish—which the prophet broke as soon as his armies were strong enough to attack and conquer the Quraish.

There is absolutely nothing moderate about this speech. In many ways, it is tantamount to a declaration of war with all Arab leaders in agreement.

The Islamic Summit was not an adjoining of some radical members but world leaders in Islamic Countries. The thoughts Mahathir expressed are mainstream Islam. At the end of the speech, he had a standing ovation.

“I don’t think they are anti-Semitic at all. I think he was stating the facts,” Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi told reporters.

Paul Krugman of The New York Times called Mahathir’s anti-Semitic remarks a part of his “domestic balancing act” to please the Malaysian Muslims majority.
To please the majority? Someone explain to me what this means?
Foxman went further, denouncing the speech as a “call for a global holy war against the Jewish people by 1.3 billion Muslims.”

But the European Union, largely because of opposition from France, failed to officially denounce the speech as anti-Semitic, according to Foxman, who blasted French President Jacques Chirac in an Oct. 17 letter.

“We are appalled and outraged at your efforts to block the inclusion of a condemnation,” Foxman declared. “This speech was not about Israel, or about Muslim empowerment, but about the scapegoating of others for the ills afflicting the Muslim world.”

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher called the speech “a very, very wise assessment.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the speech was “very correct.” Indonesian President Megawati Soekarnoputri joined the standing ovation.

Ignoring the prepostorous OP, I’m just here to nitpick slightly and add a comment or two…

Nasser wasn’t around in 1948.

Digression - A rather interesting book I’m reading at the moment called Pan-Arabism Before Nasser: Egyptian Power Politics and the Palestinian Question by Michael Doran ( 2002, Oxford University Press ), makes a strong case that Egypt was less interested in destroying Israel in 1948 ( though they weren’t adverse to it and certainly tried their best to do so ), which in fact they doubted could be achieved ( their sober assessment of the Arab League army at the time was that it wasn’t up to the task ), than they were in thwarting Jordan, then the best-armed Arab state, which aimed to annex all of Palestine if it could. In Doran’s view, Egypt, struggling to maintain dominance ( or at least parity ) with the then formidable-seeming Hashemite double-threat of Jordan and Iraq ( which were also in political detente with Turkey ), formed a Triple Alliance w/ Saudi Arabia and Syria to counter them. Pan-Arabism and particularly Palestinian nationalism was promoted by the Egyptian government in significant part as a cold-blooded political maneouver to counter to Jordanian claims of hegemony, which extended to not only Palestine, but also to all of Syria/Lebanon, where the Hashemites had briefly seized control after WW I, before being ousted by the French and where in 1948 pro-Hashemite monarchists could still be found. All this also tied in with Egyptian anti-British maneouvers as well ( I’ll skip the details here ). So Egyptian foreign policy in 1948 was centered on, in order of importance:

  1. Breaking British hegemony in the region.
  2. Preventing a Hashemite hegemony from developing, that would pre-empt Egypt’s place as the dominant Arab power.
  3. Then the Israel situation

Invading Israel and the whole “no compromise” position was undertaken less in the hope of knocking out Israel ( which again, they were all for in the abstract ), but rather a) to use pan-Arabism as a useful propaganda tool to negate Jordanian ambitions and seize the day in terms of Arab political leadership and b) to throw the formidable Jordanian army into the Israeli maelstrom, distracting it and pinning it down so it Jordan wouldn’t be tempted to assert themselves elsewhere ( like, say, in Syria )

Not that any of this mattered to the Israelis getting shot, of course. But it is interesting just how cynical early Egyptian pan-Arabism was in some respects ( and note how Egypt was the first the break ranks in the 1970’s, once pan-Arabism had obviously begun to fail as policy program ) and how much lower a priority Israel presented at the time.

Anyway…

Are you still describing 1948?

Digession #2 - Folks emphasizing a supposed Muslim-Jewish conflict, rather than the more tribal and territorial aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, always forget that Lebanon in 1948, then probably a majority-Christian country with a Maronite Christian president, was a member of the Arab League and invaded Palestine/Israel as well. It also gave vocal and ( I believe ) limited material support in '67 and '73 ( Maronite Christian presidents then, as well, though the overall Christian majority had eroded by then ).

Who were more upset to losing to Jews, do you think - Christian Lebanese or Muslim Lebanese ;)?

Eh? You’ve shifted suddenly to the 1967 war, a rather different affair. In which, by the way, Israeli dead numbered 776 or 777 ( plus 2,500+ wounded ), not 300. Still a great result and Israel’s lowest battle toll in any of their wars ( 1948 and even 1973 were considerably bloodier ).

You mean the 1967 War? Yes, it certainly was and had a devastating political impact, ushering in the end of the age of pan-Arabism and the rise of militant Palestinian nationalism. 1948 and '73 weren’t so one-sided, though Israel still whupped more than their weight.

Probably slightly more accurate to say that Hamas budded off a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Tamerlane
I wouldn't say the World... since Mahathir himself is speaking out. Still the way the US is acting and is blindly defending even horrid things like the Wall Israel is building. I would venture that they have the US fighting wars for them. They don't rule the US... but why would they have to ? After all the Terrorist issue is mainly centered around the palestinian issue... which is getting worse only due to unfledgling support the US gives Israel. Put an embargo on Israel and see how quick they would change their heavy handed ways... but alas the US won't let that happen.

So having the US doing their bidding seems quite a major advantage... why bother seeking to lobby other governments ?

 Just dismissing this issue as paranoia and fabrication doesn't answer the issue of why so much blind support for Israel ? Don't bring that only democracy in the ME Bullshit either. Israel seems they can take care of themselves pretty well. 

The condemnations of Mahatir certainly seemed unecessary if people think its so implausible... but hey people jumped on that issue.

I trust you mean that Mahathir is the preposterous one for making the “Jews rule the world…” quote, not the person who posted this.

That being the case, what do you make of the standing ovation he received for this speech from the representatives of 57 pedominantly Muslim countries attending the Islamic conference?

Him and anyone else making the claim that Jews rule anything outside of Israel.

However I also wasn’t crazy about some of the notions, or at least the phrasings, in the OP’s post ( which seemed to me edge uncomfortably close to giving credence to what I consider a ludicrous proposition).

Not much, one way or another.

  • Tamerlane

That is to say I have no idea what exactly each one was applauding in his or her mind, but whatever it was, if it was the clear anti-Semitism being expressed, it wouldn’t shock me.

Such, sadly, is the rhetoric being bandied about today in at least some corners of Muslim society. By both the leadership, which cynically exploits it when useful and by at least some ordinary citizens who buy into a combination of 19th century Christian-origined anti-Semitic slander ( like the notorious “blood libel” ) combined with a) the apparently conspiracy-theory run amuck trend among certain facets of the popular press in at least the Arab states and b) a hard-won, but now entirely outsize respect for organizations like Mossad, which ( like the CIA to some extent ) seem to be imagined to be capable of doing just about anything.

  • Tamerlane

That was all a very long time ago. It’s interesting to know that at some point the arab world was a fount of knowledge the fact is that it isn’t today. I think Susma’s talking about modern times not the middle ages or earlier.

Marc

**

Which wars would those be? I’m really curious.

**

Most of us seem to think that Israel is in the right, at least for the most part. They actually do funny things like elect leaders, their legal system isn’t barbaric, and they’re pretty tolerant of most other religions.

**

Would the PLO change their heavy handed ways?

**

What’s with the blind condemnation of Israel? I haven’t heard you suggest embargos against the Palistinians to get them to cease their heavy handed ways.

Marc

Well colour me amazed Tamerlane. You tag the OP with the charge of a ludicrous proposition (I failed to read a proposition in the OP), while you remain indifferent to the endorsing public reaction of Muslim leaders to a speech that chillingly reminds me of the leader of theThird Reich.

Rashak Mani says…

So let me get this straight: People from region A come into region B with the sole intent of indiscriminantly killing as many innocent civilians as possible. In retaliation, the people of B build a wall to keep them out. And this is horrid?

Good Lord, man, do you have any sense of proportion?

The wall in israel is not as innocuous as some would have us believe. It does not follow the “green line” but also veers into a great deal of non-Israel territory to enclose settlements that Israel’s government has grudginly assented are illegal. If they want to have a wall and pretend to “safety” behind it, then they should follow the green line and tell the illegal settlers to get back to Israel proper.

shrug YMMV

Who said I was indifferent?

I just said I was not particularly surprised.

  • Tamerlane

Ethnic clensing is also another ‘funny’ that Israel does. For sensible people this isn’t a matter of Black/White/Right/Wrong, for there are many shades of grey in this conflict.

MGibson,

The fact is that the palestianians are cornered means enacting sanction against them won’t work… especially since Hamas is not their legitimate leadership… while Israel’s Sharon is the recongnized leader of the other side. The PLO has changed… thou they MIGHT be giving hidden support to Hamas they are not the ones carrying out attacks anymore. The world has condemned Palestinian terrorism … its Israel that has UN immunity due to the US. Different standards ?

If you think Israel should play things the same way that Hamas does… who is morally superior then ? This tit for tat is not going anywhere… Sharon doesn’t want peace… negotiated or not.

By giving Israel totally backup the US has created the possibility of Sharon neglecting peace overtures and UN opposition. Without the US Israel would have to negotiate themselves out of it… any solution is better for the US than the current standoff.

P.S. - Mahathir can suck it ;j

When Berlusconi talked about the Islamic culture as backwards and not second class, there was not much of an outcry, except in Europe.

MGibson, just because Israel’s government is democractically elected doesn’t give them moral authority. This only tells us that they are doing what the people want them to do - which might still be the wrong thing to do.

The wall is a clear an unequivocal land grab. Without proper pressure from the US - which is never likely to happen - Israel will now take that land permanently.

I predict that in a few decades, the land grab will have been rewritten in the history books as “land lawfully run through war”.

Things are enormously bleak for the Palestinians. But there is no way they will ever get that land back now, there is no way Sharon will ever make the “painful concessions” he has promised on so many occasions.

If any part of Palestine remains in fifty years time, it will be a miracle.

The only thing that could change the situation would be a literal World War Three bringing about an entirely new world order, or a situation where American was threatened to such an extent on its home shores that it was forced to end support for Israel. By this I mean something like North Korea (ie a non-Islamic, non Middle East state) nukeing a major US city.

**

Who is their “legitimate” leader? At any rate people seem to be able to funnel materials used to build bombs and other weapons into Palestinian hands. Maybe some sort of sanctions could be effective. Cut off humanitarian aid?

**

Color me unimpressed.

**

Have you missed all those UN resolutions targetted at Israel? It’s easy to miss them since they’re about as effective as condemnation of Palestinian terrorist.

**

Israel doesn’t play things the same way Hamas does, that’s really the point. That isn’t to say Israel’s behaved as perfect little angels in all cases. You say Sharon doesn’t want peace, I don’t think the Palestinians really want peace either.

What peace overtures has Israel ignored lately? Also, I have respect for some of the things the UN does and I even have respect for many of its members. I have very little respect for the UN’s ability to enforce any sort of peace.

Marc

… or a complete substitution of Oil as a source of energy and consequent strategic importance.

As for the Wall… it stinks of the Berlin Wall and of Concentration camps to me. Things the US and Israel shouldn’t remind other of.