Lee Broad's Blog, page 2

RPI “postpones” screening of “American Sniper”

This was my response to Mr. Brond, Vice President for Strategic Communications & External Relations at RPI, and his announcement that a screening of “American Sniper” had been postponed (announcement is provided below) at the request of the RPI Muslim Students Association.

Response to Mr. Brond:

“American Sniper” is a movie. Attend the screening or don’t. Like the movie or don’t. The decision to postpone the screening reflects political correctness in its most insidious form.

Kindly drop me from any and all alumni (Class of ’68) communications, especially solicitations of donations.

Salve et vale.

End of my response to Mr. Brond.

Mr. Brond’s announcement:

TO: The Rensselaer Community

FROM: David Brond, Vice President for Strategic Communications and External Relations

SUBJECT: Screening of the film American Sniper on campus

DATE: April 13, 2015

On Wednesday, April 8, the UPAC Cinema, a subcommittee of the Rensselaer Union Programs and Activities Committee, and the Muslim Students Association, both student-­‐led and student-­‐run clubs on the Rensselaer Troy campus, decided to postpone a screening of the film American Sniper, scheduled for Friday, April 10. To create an opportunity for intellectual discourse on campus, the two organizations agreed that the screening should go on only if discussion and clarification on the topic of the film could be conducted. A joint statement by these two student organizations was distributed on Thursday, April 9 through multiple social media channels to the Rensselaer student body.

Two facts have often been overlooked with regard to this decision, especially by erroneous media reports that compare this action to screenings of the film at other venues across the country. First, this decision was made solely by members of the UPAC Cinema Club, after careful consideration of a request by the RPI Muslim Students Association. Members of the Rensselaer Union administration facilitated this process by advising students with multiple options and assisting in the implementation of the students’ chosen decision. Second, UPAC has decided that they will show American Sniper during this spring semester, at a date to be announced. The showing will be coupled with an optional educational forum for all members of the Rensselaer campus community to participate in an intellectual discourse about the film and current world events.

We applaud this decision, and this decision-­‐making process. At its core, The New Polytechnic at Rensselaer is guided by societal concerns and ethics. The action and quick response exemplifies The New Polytechnic and serves to showcase an environment that ensures the right conditions are in place for each individual to achieve his or her full potential.

For 125 years, the Rensselaer Union has been a model of a student-­‐run organization, and one of the few in the United States. Today it is home to more than 200 clubs, sports, and organizations, creating opportunities for students to learn invaluable skills. The decision made by these two student organizations reflects the diverse population of our Rensselaer community and the principles of respect, coexistence, and inclusion. Being sensitive to student concerns in a responsible way is commendable. Furthermore, the Institute has always supported students’ freedom of expression, which is articulated in the Rensselaer Handbook of Rights and Responsibilities. Students came together, collaborated, and problem-­‐solved in order to address a multifaceted challenge. Through their action and response, these students demonstrated thoughtful leadership, an awareness of multicultural issues, and appreciation for a global perspective on a very timely and important social issue.

 

The post RPI “postpones” screening of “American Sniper” appeared first on Lee Broad.

Muslim woman killed for allegedly burning a Quran

Another milestone in the decline of civilization could be witnessed last Thursday (March 19) in Kabul. A Muslim woman was killed by a mob after being accused of desecrating a Quran. No need to wait for verifying the facts. No need to seek review of the circumstances by competent imams. Just go with how you and your buds, among the most uneducated men on the planet, interpret the word of Allah. Judge and jury. No fuss, no muss. Unless of course, you have any sense of, and respect for, God’s love of all human beings. Then again, not much of that can be seen in the writings of Mohammed, which detail a resplendent and special affection of Allah for the slaughter of infidels and apostates.

The post Muslim woman killed for allegedly burning a Quran appeared first on Lee Broad.

The Time for a Muslim Reformation is Now

 

Background

Unlike what Americans are used to in the codified separation of civil law and individual religious beliefs, in Islam, there is no distinction between religious and secular—every aspect of life is subject to Sharia Law. Sharia is based on the Quran, Sira, and Hadith. The latter two are writings regarding the perfect example of Mohammed[1], that is, the details of Mohammed’s life and thoughts, and are collectively referred to as the Sunna.

Those who portray Islam as a tolerant and peaceful religion might be earnest in their beliefs. Nonetheless, as will be briefly shown herein, the literal writings of the Quran and Sunna depict Islam as a religion of both intolerance and subjugation of non-Muslims and violence toward them. There is no alternative conclusion that admits to the literal content of the Quran and Sunna, and it follows that all true Muslims must follow Sharia Law.

Many violent groups operating in the Middle East, such as ISIS, are not composed of radical Muslims. Quite the contrary, members of these groups practice Sharia Law to the letter as true Muslims are called to do. It is no coincidence that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims have been the continual brunt of discrimination under Dhimmi laws[2] and the victims of repeated and sustained violence against person and property[3] in Muslim-dominated countries.

One seeming solution would be for those Muslims who reject the wealth of prejudice and violence toward Kafirs (i.e., infidels) that can be found in the Quran and Sunna—the true radical Muslims—to reform those religious texts to reflect what they believe Allah’s true intent and disposition toward non-Muslims to be. Not an easy task and sure to be opposed, violently, by those who cling to jihad and subjugation of non-Muslims. There is, however, no other way if Islam is to be accepted by non-Muslims as a religion of peace.

 

What the Quran and Sunna Say

Among the most respected works regarding Sharia Law is the book Reliance of the Traveller, written by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in the fourteenth century. This book is the most definitive, single source reference regarding Sharia Law[4]. In this paper, the Reliance of the Traveller will serve as an authentic interpretation of these Islamic documents.

Among the difficulties of discerning the intent of many Muslims are the widely varying admonitions and instructions of the Quran and Sunna. Both defendants of Islam and Sharia Law as well as those who raise alarm provide copious quotations to substantiate their respective arguments. Certainly the volume of writings allows for picking and choosing as is demonstrated in the paragraphs below.

The Quran and Sunna ostensibly provide evidence of the magnanimity and love of Allah for all mankind. Here is one often-cited example:

“Whoever takes a life other than to retaliate for a killing or for corruption in the land is as if he had slain all mankind.” (Quran 5:32)

This particular quotation seems sensible enough and protective of all life, but the context needs to be understood. “Retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and with right.” (o1.1)[5] Retaliation, however, is not permitted, inter alia, for “[A] Muslim for killing a non-Muslim” (o1.1.2), so punishing a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim for any reason whatsoever is, in Allah’s view, “ . . . as if [the punisher] had slain all mankind.” Non-Muslims are afforded little protection from even the most arbitrary actions of Muslims.

Retaliation also is not permitted for “[A] father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring” (o1.1.4). This latter exemption from retaliation would seem to allow “honor” killings.

As to what constitutes “corruption in the land”, one form is apostasy—the act of abandoning or rejecting Islam. “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” (o8.1) If a Muslim were to convert to Buddhism, another Muslim would have the right to kill the apostate.

A second corruption is fornication (i.e., adultery) or sodomy. “If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death, someone with the capacity to be chaste meaning anyone who has had sexual intercourse with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane.” (o12.2) Pregnant women, however, have a mandated, if limited, stay of execution: “A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child can suffice with the milk of another.” (o12.6)

There are other passages in Enormities (Book p of Reliance of the Traveller) that apply, too. In p17.3m we find: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him;
May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did
Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”

Another quotation that is intended to give non-Muslims comfort is found in o11.1 in Reliance of the Traveller, as follows: “A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

Jews;
Christians;
Zoroastrians;
Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the Fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
And those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).”

As it stands, the quotation is very consoling. The catch, however, is found in paragraph o11.3, which contains a set of rules that must be followed for the agreement to hold. In summary, the “subject peoples” must:

Follow the rules of Islam in public behavior and dress, although they may worship in private and have their own laws and courts;
Pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), although women, children and the insane are exempt;
Comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. They:

Are penalized for committing adultery or theft, but not for drunkenness;
Are distinguished from Muslims in dress
Are not greeted as a Muslim
Must keep to the side of the street
May not build as high or higher as Muslim buildings
Are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, to ring church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Bible aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feast days;
And are forbidden to build new churches.

If a subject person violates these rules, then that person is subject to one of four alternatives that are applied to prisoners of war (o11.11). Those alternatives are: death, slavery, release, or ransoming for money or in exchange for a captive Muslim. If the subject person converts to Islam, then he/she may not be killed and one of the other three alternatives applies (o9.14).

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims (o9.0). Further in this section from Book o (Justice), we find scriptural basis for jihad in:

“Slay them wherever you find them” (Quran 4:89)
“Fight the idolators utterly” (Quran 9:36)

Later in o9.0 is a hadith as follows: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the right of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.” Another hadith follows: “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Jihad is not optional, but is a communal obligation (o9.1). Later in o9.1, failure to perform jihad is labeled a sin: “If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it.” Interestingly, a Muslim may leave the battle if the non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force (o9.2).

Lying is a sin and considered an Enormity. But, there are exceptions. “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, ‘He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.’” See r.8.2. Specifically permitted are untruths “ . . .for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences).” Because jihad means to war against non-Muslims, it follows that for the purpose of sustaining jihad, Muslims are allowed to lie.

There is much more that could be presented in this paper, but the conclusion is inescapable: Islam, as reflected in the writings of the Quran and Sunna, is a religion that embraces the subjugation of infidels and violence against non-Muslims. The behavior of Muslim dominated nation states and many individual Muslims over the centuries has been fully, and sadly, consistent with this assessment.

 

Time to Choose

Many Muslims live in America ostensibly for the freedoms and opportunities afforded them. These and other Muslims who would live in a world of peace and acceptance need to step forward now and declare the teachings of Mohammed to be those of peace and an acceptance of the differences among the peoples of the earth. They need also to condemn those who would do harm in Allah’s name and disavow all parts of the Quran and Sunna that exhort Muslims to intolerance of, and violence against, non-Muslims. Will they?

In a paper “Historical Methodology and the Believer” delivered at the June in 2010 Symposium of the New English Review in Nashville, Ibn Warraq, a leading apostate from Islam, said:

“Without criticism of Islam, Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. It will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth. Western intellectual Islamologists have totally failed in their duties as intellectuals. They have betrayed their calling by abandoning their critical faculties when it comes to Islam.”

There may be many Muslims who do not follow Sharia Law, but one cannot live as a true believer without following Sharia as defined by the Quran and Sunna. Those Muslims who claim to be tolerant of non-Muslims are either consciously disavowing major elements of Islam, or they are exhibiting the deception of the infidel, or Kafir, as permitted in Sharia. Where do we go from here?

In accepting the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn said: “The spirit of Munich[6] has by no means retreated into the past; it was not merely a brief episode. I even venture to say that the spirit of Munich prevails in the 20th century. The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles. The spirit of Munich is a sickness of the will of successful people; it is the daily condition of those who have given themselves up to the thirst after prosperity at any price, to material well being as the chief goal of earthly existence. Such people—and there are many in today’s world—elect passivity and retreat, just so as their accustomed life might drag on a bit longer, just so as not to step over the threshold of hardship today—and tomorrow, you’ll see, it will all be all right. But it will never be all right! The price of cowardice will only be evil; we shall reap courage and victory only when we dare to make sacrifices.”

Many non-Muslims are well past the point of indifferent diffidence as reflected in Solzhenitsyn’s comments. Ultimately, the world will not exempt Islam, Mohammed, and Muslims from the slightest criticism while Christianity and all other religions receive no such protection from public or private offense. Nor will we non-Muslims hold our tongues and cap our pens because Muslims require us to do so if we are to escape their wrath. Non-Muslims are not welcome mats for the followers of Mohammed and we will not accept Dhimmi status. The stage is set for a confrontation between Islam and the rest of the world. Muslims have the power to determine whether the struggle is a peaceful contest for the spiritual hearts and minds of men and women or a catastrophic prelude to the Armageddon. Alea jacta est[7].

 

[1] Warner, Bill, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims. Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2010.

[2] These laws offer specified protections and limited rights to non-Muslims who pay a special tax and abide by a set of restrictions discussed later in this paper.

[3] See inter alia Peters, Joan, From Time Immemorial. Chicago: JKAP Publications, 2002.

[4] The 1994 revised edition contains statements from four Islamic authorities attesting to the accuracy of the translations.

[5] Refers to Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Justice, paragraph 1.1. Similar references appear elsewhere in this document.

[6] In using the phrase “spirit of Munich”, Solzhenitsyn refers to the foreign policy of nations (e.g., Great Britain during the years leading up to WWII) to refuse to confront a threat, and, instead seek peace and security through appeasement. The phrase refers to Neville Chamberlain’s claim to have secured “peace for our time” as a result of the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler.

[7] The Latin phrase reportedly uttered by Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon with his legions in opposition to the Roman Senate. Translation: “The die is cast.”

The post The Time for a Muslim Reformation is Now appeared first on Lee Broad.

PC(USA) wrongly divests of companies in Israel

At its latest General Assembly a few weeks ago, the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a measure to divest of Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola holdings because those companies ” . . . . contribute to the Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Below is my letter to the denomination, sent today and which strongly opposes that measure.

 

The referenced measure passed during the most recent General Assembly (“GA”) is shocking in its asymmetric portrayal of Israel as the great and only transgressor in the Middle East. In passing this measure, the standard of behavior that the GA has set for Israel is one that no country, including the United States, can, or should, meet.

Israel, the only sovereign nation, past or present, to exist within the Holy Land, is the sole true liberal, Western-style democracy in the Middle East, and people are free to worship as they please. Not so in Muslim countries. The truly horrific life is not that of an Arab Muslim living in the West Bank, but that of a non-Muslim living in an Islamic country. Yet, I see no measures passed by the GA that condemn such countries or call for the divestment from corporations doing business with them due to religious persecution carried out in such lands (try taking a bible into Saudi Arabia or building a church there, for example). Indeed, the human rights abuses of many U.S. trade partners in the region only begin with denial of religious freedom; they go on to include gross denial of the rights of women, as well as the common practice of genital mutilation of young women. Where has the PC(USA) been in condemning these practices?

Instead, the PC(USA) has singled out Israel for alleged abuses of the Palestinians. The history of the conflict in the Middle East is too complex to retell here, but it is clear to me that Palestine is no more an occupied land than is Kentucky. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey are the internationally sanctioned creations of the League of Nations following the military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

At the same time, the area called Palestine was similarly carved out of the Ottoman Empire, but it was never an independent nation state. The British administered Palestine (along with Trans-Jordan, which is now modern day Jordan), first under a Mandate by the League of Nations and subsequently under the United Nations until May 1948, when Israel became an independent nation state. Indeed, given the history of the British Mandate, the true “Palestinian state” by any moral, political, or historical standard would be Jordan, where the Palestinian Arab majority is denied the most basic rights by an autocratic monarchy installed by British colonial authorities in the 1920s.

There never was, and to this day is not, any sovereign Palestinian nation to occupy. Just like the two non-democratic kingdoms of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, democratic Israel is occupying land taken from the defeated Ottoman Empire and held in trust by the United Nations. In November 1947, the UN partitioned the British Mandate called Palestine under Resolution 181 to create two states, one of which is Israel. The fact that the second Arab state failed to be formed is not the fault of Israel. That foundering must be laid at the feet of the five Arab countries, which having been themselves created by international agreement following World War I, chose to ignore the validity of another such agreement passed by the UN. Remarkably obdurate and intolerant, those countries chose not to welcome the new state of Israel, but rather to invade it with the aim being the total annihilation of Israel and its Jewish citizenry.

If the PC(USA) phrase “occupation of Palestine” in the measure refers to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, then I suggest the church review the causes that led Israel to seize the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the Sinai Peninsula in 1967. Facing alone for a second time the combined armies of five Arab nations, two of which had massed troops and armor on its border, Israel made a preemptive strike. What is more, one of the Arab combatants, Egypt, had blockaded the Strait of Tiran, a key waterway for Israel, and an act that Israel had warned in advance would constitute an act of war. (Imagine America’s response to a Russian blockade of our east coast!) At the same time, for two months prior to the outbreak of all out war, Syria had been shelling Israeli civilians from the Golan Heights. Finally, Israel had warned Jordan to stay out of any fighting between Israel and Egypt/Syria, but Jordan, without provocation, shelled Tel Aviv from the West Bank. Any country faced with the same overtly hostile circumstances would behave in the same manner. I certainly hope America would.

So, the historical record clearly indicates that Israel obtained the disputed – not “occupied” – territory in the West Bank in the course of a defensive war provoked by contiguous Arab nations. No country in history that has obtained territory within the context of a defensive war has ever been compelled unilaterally to return all of the territory in question.

Israel remains committed to negotiating a two-state solution provided, however, only that its neighbors first recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Palestinian leaders will not take even this basic step towards peace. Further, the avowed foreign policy of several of the countries surrounding Israel remains its total destruction. Israel’s position is not an example of intransigence, but of persistence in exercising its legitimate right to exist.

As to the corporations specified in the GA measure, the logic of their choice escapes me. First, I have seen no proof of systematic use of the products manufactured by these companies in “violent acts . . . against innocent civilians.” Second, these same products are used in many countries and in many ways that benefit humanity. The companies have been judged based only on the alleged harm they cause rather than also on the certain good they do. More asymmetry is at play here.

It may be that the performance of the funds managed by PC(USA) will be undiminished by the divestment. However, when The Assistance Program of the Board of Pensions looks to augment its funds through this year’s Christmas Joy Offering, I will have to ask myself how much of the need might have been met by having been invested in these stocks.

In many ways, I feel the supporters of the measure succumbed to a desire “to do something”. I wish that something had been much more balanced. The referenced divestment measure holds Israel to a unique and impossibly high standard of behavior that would not be upheld by any sovereign nation under remotely similar circumstances. That measure along with the recent “Zionism Unsettled” publication, once promoted by PC(USA), to me smacks of anti-Semitism in the guise of oh-so-politically correct Christian caring.

The post PC(USA) wrongly divests of companies in Israel appeared first on Lee Broad.

Are professors in our colleges suppressing freedoms?

An article by Cary Nelson in today’s Wall Street Journal highlights the disturbingly biased, anti-Israeli views of many of today’s elitist (as they no doubt hold themselves to be) educators. How, as the author implicitly questions, can Rima Najjar Merriman, a professor supporting a resolution urging the US to contest Israel’s denials of entry to Gaza and the West Bank be so ignorant of sovereign rights as to claim that “ . . . it was a violation of her ‘rights as an American citizen’ to be denied access to the West Bank.”? Well perhaps Ms. Merriman is not so ignorant as she is duplicitous. Turns out she labels herself (LinkedIn) as a professor at the Arab American University of Jenin (a city in the West Bank) working out of Bloomington, Indiana. She claims to be a “Palestinian American” and has written extensively regarding what she sees as Israeli abuses of Palestinians. Perhaps the Modern Language Association, which is considering the subject resolution, should ask whether it is being duped by those with a political agenda. Perhaps institutions of higher learning should ask whether groups such as the MLA are duping them. Lastly, perhaps Americans should ask whether Ms. Merriman is duping us all by calling herself a citizen of our country.

 

Another Anti-Israel Vote Comes to Academia

 

 

 

The post Are professors in our colleges suppressing freedoms? appeared first on Lee Broad.

Big government is here and NOT working

The Wall Street Journal today (December 12) contained articles on how the US government authorized performing lobotomies on combat veterans after WWII, denying the existence of radioactive sites (including one in NYC) for over 25 years, and HHS fudging numbers on Obamacare in a continuance of a fraud on the public. Certainly a wonderful set of arguments for ignoring the US Constitution and running headlong into the era of Animal Farm. Well, as H.L. Mencken wrote: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

The post Big government is here and NOT working appeared first on Lee Broad.

A realistic view of Iran’s nuclear effort

The comic definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. America’s foreign policy is stuck in this cycle. Norman Podhoretz offers a sober view of the alternatives. The plot of my novel, The Masada Protocol, is seeming less and less fictional. Let’s pray that it stays so.

 Strike Iran now?

The post A realistic view of Iran’s nuclear effort appeared first on Lee Broad.

Major Nidal Hasan, the Ugly American

So, Major Nidal Hasan, born in the United States of the Muslim faith, openly admits he shot and killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded over 30 more. His defense is that he felt compelled to defend Islam. Well, let’s not delay this Sword of Allah, Minion of Mohammed, and Defender of the Faith on his journey to Paradise. Launch this son-of-a-bitch into eternity at the end of a strong rope and grant him his wish to bask in the glow of Allah and diddle with his 70 virgins. Such should be the fate of all who feel justified in subjugating non-Muslims and the sooner the better.

The post Major Nidal Hasan, the Ugly American appeared first on Lee Broad.

Sir Winston Churchill’s views of Islam

“How  dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in  many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture,  sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the  followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A  degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next  of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger  retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism  is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not  that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome …”

 

Source: Sir Winston Churchill, “The River War”, first edition, Vol II, pages  248-250 London

The post Sir Winston Churchill’s views of Islam appeared first on Lee Broad.

UN criticizes Israel’s settlement policy

So, the UN has opined that Israel’s overall settlement policy clearly violates the human rights of Palestinians. The UN is a place where history is invented, not made. The UN has never stood by the State of Israel, created by its own Resolution 181, and ignominiously failed to defend the new State by the use of force as the Resolution authorized. A separate Arab Palestinian state was anticipated to be formed, but the idea was made moot when the armies of five Arab nations, then not giving one fig about peace, human rights, or the UN, invaded partitioned Palestine as the Security Council dithered. It was the action of the Arab nations, not Israel that created the Palestinian refugees. The surrounding Islamist states, whose physical existence is also notably attributable in large measure to international agreements, have never tolerated non-Muslims as witnessed by the dhimmi laws and episodic massacres across the centuries. And, oh, has anyone mentioned the avowed foreign policy of some Islamist states to wipe Israel off the map? The peaceful coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East has been a myth, nicely exploited in modern times by the Arab Palestinians, since the time of Mohammed. The UN be damned.

 

 

The post UN criticizes Israel’s settlement policy appeared first on Lee Broad.