MuzzleWatch

11 Responses to “The Israel Factor 1”

1. a Says:
   March 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm

   Dear Sir,

   The following issue can destroy ISLAM or ISRAEL; study it thoroughly to see if there is any truth to it.

   READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land.

   If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

   The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.

   Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.

   Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%2021;&version=46;
   Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
   GENESIS 16:16 And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.
   GENESIS 21:5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
   At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later.
   The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
   BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
   100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
   BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
   Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child.
   If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, then the Islamic viewpoint is null and void.
   Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
   GENESIS: 21:14 - 21 So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes.
   Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said,
   “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar?
   Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink.
   And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
   The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct.
   This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.
   This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and their descendants a work of fiction.
   I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
   Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
   I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
   AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.
   For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:
   http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM (MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE) http://bible.islamicweb.com/ http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=EvilGoblin George Galloway media appearances http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696 (ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AND WAR CRIMES) http://ifamericansknew.com/ http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm (BIBLE, QURAN and SCIENCE) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ ANTI-WAR http://www.harunyahya.com/ (EVOLUTION DECEIPT) http://www.barnabas.net/ http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm http://www.islamicity.com/ http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml http://www.islamalways.com/

   HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
   101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
   102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!”
   103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
   104. We called out to him “O Abraham!
   105. “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
   106. For this was obviously a trial-
   107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
   108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
   109. “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”
   110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
   111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
   112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
   113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
   114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
   115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
   116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
   117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
   118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
   119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
   120. “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!”
   121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
   122. For they were two of our believing Servants.

   ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE?????
   Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
   HADITH Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
   The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque.
   During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward.
   Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?” He said, “Yes.”
   She said, “Then He will not neglect us,” and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka’ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
   ‘O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.’ (14.37) Ishmael’s mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
   When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land.
   She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody.
   She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times.”
   The Prophet said, “This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, ‘O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?”
   And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.”
   The Prophet added, “May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael’s mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.”
   The Prophet further added, “Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.’
   The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada’. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it.
   They said, ‘This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.’
   They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water).” The Prophet added, “Ishmael’s mother was sitting near the water.
   They asked her, ‘Do you allow us to stay with you?” She replied, ‘Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.’ They agreed to that.”
   The Prophet further said, “Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there.
   The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.

2. Joshua Says:
   March 31st, 2007 at 4:55 pm

   “At present, this supposed friendly relationship is a monochromatic, rejectionist Likudnik version that overwhelms the US political process making real discussion all but impossible.”

   Hardly. Likud is not even in the government.

   “The relationship is consciously studied, nurtured and cultivated in ways that I leave (dare) others on this site to find the equal of internationally.”

   Plenty of equals or even superiors. U.S. support of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Allies. U.S. support of South Korea, U.S. support of Taiwan, U.S. support of NATO. The main difference is that Israeli aid is classified as “foreign aid” and the rest are classified as “defense spending.” But we spend a lot more money, and directly risk our soldiers’ lives, for many nations above Israel.

   “the US should promote an even handed policy that is in the best interest of everyone-not a right-wing (and immoral and ineffective) Jabotinskyite “Iron Wall” dream of winning though pounding Palestinians to the ground.”

   The brief answer is 1) it shouldn’t treat an ally and a belligerent force as equals and 2) although it supports Israel, it doesn’t support the “Jabotinskyite” policy. But that’s a nice, long, nefarious sounding word so I guess it suits your purposes just fine.

3. john doe Says:
   April 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm

   what is nefarious about jaboninskyite? what does that word connonte?

4. Mike Says:
   April 1st, 2007 at 1:52 pm

   Perhaps JVP doesn’t realize that countries like El Salvador, Indonesia, Mongolia and Mali are not the objects of a worldwide campaign to undermine their very existence. (actually, based on previous postings, that seems to be the case).
   If I were Israeli, I would be taking great interest in the US Presidential campaign too, because it DOES matter to Israelis who sits in the White House. Does that make this poll part of some nefarious plot by the worldwide Zionist conspiracy?
   Of course, as rar as “rejectionism” JVP takes no notice of Olmert’s positive responses to the Saudi proposal despite the fact that the Palestinians still insist on the unacceptable and non-existent “right of return” and reject any possible workable compromise (such as compensation for those who lost their homes, and of course the right for any Palestinians to return to a Palestinian state just as Israel has a Law of Return for all Jews.)

5. john doe Says:
   April 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm

   http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko03302007.html
   The United States has given Israel $51.3 billion in military grants since 1949, most of it after 1974- more than any other country in the post-1945 era. Israel has also received $11.2 billion in loans for military equipment, plus $31 billion in economic grants, not to mention loan guarantees, joint military projects like the Arrow missile, and such. But major conditions on these military grants have meant that 74 percent of it has remained in the U.S. to purchase American arms. Since it creates jobs and profits in many districts, Congress is more than ready to respond to the cajoling of the Israel lobby. This vast sum, especially when calculated on a per capita basis, has both enabled and forced Israel to prepare to fight American-style war. But the US has spent immense sums of money since 1950 and it has failed to win any of its big wars.

6. Jon Haber Says:
   April 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pm

   Mr. Lipton – Not to be a nudge, but I just wanted to remind you and your fellow holders of the home page keys that some of us are still waiting for your promised explanation of JVP’s involvement in the ISB lawsuit, to date the only real example that has appeared on this site of official stifling of free speech with JVP joining the side of the muzzlers. While I know that writing a careful response takes time, the more time you find to post new material (including your own most recent accusations, discussed below), the more some of us wonder if this delay is in hope that those of us looking for answers might eventually go away.

   Regarding your response to the Ha’aretz analysis of the US presidential elections, I must say this is probably the weirdest posting I’ve yet seen on this Web site. After all, Muzzlewatch is ostensibly “dedicated to creating an open atmosphere for debate about US-Israeli foreign policy” and “encourages people from across the political spectrum to debate freely and vigorously.” Yet when you encounter a concrete example of American-Israeli relations discussed openly and freely, by a panel of experts specifically chosen to represent the broad political spectrum, you crank up the evil-sounding organ music and start talking as though something wicked and nefarious is going on.

   Your notion that this type of analysis of US presidential politics by a foreign press is somehow unique demonstrates a remarkable lack of knowledge about media outside the US. In Europe, for example, coverage of US presidential campaigns is so feverish that at least one newspaper, running out of ways to cover the 2004 presidential race, decided to get into the campaign itself by encouraging its readers to write letters to voters in the state of Ohio, hoping to sway their choice one way or another. European fixation on US presidential candidates is clearly understandable, given the trillions of dollars and millions of lives the US has invested in helping that continent get through the last century (or, as you might put it: Europe exists on a sea of US money – and human lives). Yet, for you, Israelis taking the same, unremarkable interest in a US election somehow represents part of a “rejectionist Likudnik” scheme to “overwhelm the US political process.” (Another peculiar remark, given that Likud is not the party in power in Israel, and Jewish voting patterns in the US are based much more on domestic partisan identities than on issues relating to US-Israel relations.)

   Perhaps it is the quantitative “scorecard” methodology Ha’aretz is using that bothers you so. If that is the case, fear not for any numbers generated by this ongoing series are going to be fighting for attention with hundreds of other such scorecards being prepared for the candidates in US newspapers and with groups as diverse as TransAfrica (which grades politicians based on their commitment to African issues) to the ACLU (which takes an interest in free speech issues both inside and outside the US) to Planned Parenthood (that reviews candidates support for reproductive rights, including in US-supported international programs outside of the country). Unless you feel all of these transnational groups are also engaging in some evil practice to make real discussion of issues relating to Africa, free speech or abortion “all but impossible,” I suspect your level of discomfort has more to do with the fact that there are other opinions on the Middle East even being discussed, rather than everyone automatically agreeing with JVP on every issue automatically and unquestionably.

7. Ellen Says:
   April 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm

   Conflict and making sure the masses stay brainwashed to support it all, is good business.

8. john doe Says:
   April 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 am

   Monday, April 02, 2007

   15 Percent Increase in Iraq Deaths Despite Surge
   6 US GIs killed over weekend
   McCain Continues Magical Mystery Tour

   For all those journalists and politicians who keep insisting that there are new “glimmers” of “hope” in Iraq because of the new security plan started 6 weeks ago, here is a sobering statistic from the Iraqi government. (I’m looking at you, John McCain. See below for more on McCain).

   Iraqis killed in February: 1806 (64.5/day)
   Iraqis killed in March: 2078 (67/day)

   That is a 15% increase!

   (Of course, the real numbers are much higher than these government statistics suggest, since passive information gathering on casualties only catches a fraction).

   While 44 Iraqi soldiers died in action, the total for US troops in March was 85. AFP is suspicious about the disparity given that US and Iraqi authorities have said that Iraqi troops are leading the security crackdown. If that were true, they should have more casualties than the Americans.

   Killings in Baghdad have declined a bit, and death squad murders at night have been impeded, so that fewer bodies are found on the streets in the morning. But car bombing casualties rose. And, some of the violence was displaced from the capital to other cities, such as Baqubah and Mosul, which explains why the total is up so much. The US withdrew some 3,000 troops from Mosul last summer to concentrate them in Baghdad, and since then Mosul seems to me to have become increasingly insecure. It is Iraq’s second largest city.

   So the over-all death toll has actually increased since the surge began.

   Another cautionary note is that major attacks on Shiites in the capital and elsewhere seem to me to be way up. They may not take revenge immediately, but they will eventually. That the US has forced the Shiite militias off the street will be held against America, since Iraqis conclude that they are being killed because the Americans are not letting them defend themselves.

9. Jon Haber Says:
   April 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 am

   Well, things have gone a little quiet here, so I thought I’d just add a short thank you to John Doe for his write up on aid to Israel which helps dispel some misconceptions about US aid to the Jewish state. In other forums, I’ve seen people go on about the vast amounts of foreign aid Israel receives, and trying to make the case that every dollar give to Israel is a dollar taken out of the mouths of starving Bangladeshis. John has pointed out that aid to Israel needs to be considered in the context of military and economic support where it can be adequately compared to similar aid give to other countries. While I might quibble with some of his numbers, he at least avoids the trap of lumping every dollar spent by the US on anything remotely related to Israel as part of an undistinguished whole, another trap critics of Israel often fall into in an attempt to inflate this number to the highest imaginable value (I’ve seen such interpretations get into the clearly ridiculous trillions in the past, while John Doe at least gets the order of magnitude right, roughly $50 billion since 1948, or about a billion - the cost of one B-1 bomber - per year.

   Once understood as military/economic aid, US support of Israel can be appropriately compared to what the US has spent to defend Europe, Asia (notably South Korea, Taiwan and Japan), and itself. Looking just at Europe, US defense aid (in the form of a 50 year commitment to NATO) and economic aid (in the form of the Marshall Plan and other post-war economic assistance programs) does climb over the trillion mark. Yet as expensive as this was, it was a small price to pay compared to the cost the US had to bear to fight two world wars. Right there, you can weigh the relative cost of various defense expenditures made by the US. If a shooting war is the costliest thing you can have (in terms of both treasure and lives), investments in things like NATO and the Marshall Plan seem wise indeed, even if they are tremendously costly. And if the cost of defending other nations with your own soldiers is the second most costly thing below supporting a war, the cost of supporting someone willing to fight itself (such as Israel) is the least costly option of all.

   John does bring up a good point regarding the unintended consequences of taking military support from the US in his thinking that it might leave Israel unprepared to fight anything other than an American style war. Certainly Europe’s being under the US protective umbrella for half a century made it easy to play down its martial ways of the past, a mixed blessing for while avoiding another internal bloodbath is clearly welcome, a continent unable to defend itself may find itself at the mercy of an aggressor if the US decides it has other priorities than defending a continent that has also decided it no longer needs US assistance.

   Regarding consequences of Israel’s embrace of US war-fighting processes, we have to again weigh the strengths and weaknesses of US strategy. The integrated air, sea, land and intelligence tactics pioneered by the US have been extraordinarily effective when engaging the militaries of other countries (including Serb, Afghan and Iraqi). I’m assuming John’s interpretation of the US not winning a war since 1950 is a reference to wars that reached inconclusive ends, notably Korea and Vietnam. Yet, if we think of the Cold War as an extended conflict, a World War III if you will, then Korea and Vietnam can be viewed as battles, not distinct wars, battles of a World War III (or the Cold War) in which the US ultimately prevailed. Such an interpretation clearly dispels the notion that the Cold War was won without major bloodshed. It also points out that our present conflict with Islamist militancy (which can be thought of as World War IV) is a long way to being resolved, which makes interpretation of American victory or defeat in specific battles (such as the battle of Afghanistan or the two battles of Iraq) difficult to judge for many years to come.

10. Richard Silverstein Says:
    April 4th, 2007 at 3:03 am

    To say that anything Rosner writes or administers (like Israel Factor or his presidential rankings) could be “balanced” is preposterous. Rosner doesn’t have a balanced bone in his body.

    As recently as a month ago one of the lowest ranked candidates for “Israel-friendliness” was Barack Obama. Does that tell you anything about Rosner’s leanings?

    The latter is an AIPAC shill & nothing he writes should be as anything but the party line as reflected by AIPAC.

11. Joshua Says:
    April 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Rosner can in no way be portrayed as an “AIPAC shill.” This is yet another unfortunate (but clumsy) attempt at a hit job by Richard Silverstein, who simply attacks anyone who does not kowtow to his dogma.

    Rosner does not decide the “Israel Factor” rankings, he just reports them based on a panel which includes figures from all sides of the political spectrum. As such, the (as discussed below, now outdated) ranking for Obama does not tell us ANYTHING about Rosner’s political leanings.

    Richard is also misleading about the rankings. Rosner’s most recent entry pointing out that Obama’s stock is rising among the panel.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=843791

    Rosner is not an opinion columnist but an analyst. I have no idea who he voted for or what party he belongs to. If he is a conservative or a “likudnik,” however, then he does an admirable job of putting his personal biases aside to provide his readers with valuable insight as to the U.S.-Israel relationship from the perspective of an Israeli.

    Certainly anyone who wants “even handed” reporting would welcome more Shmuel Rosners, no matter what their political perspective may be.

Leave a Reply