Most items originally from Dennis Prager, other items from open sources.
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament: over 700
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran: 0
Percent of the 5,000,000 square miles given to Arabs to create countries in 1918 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire: 99%
Percent of that land given for the re-establishment of a Jewish state: 1%
Percent of the 1918 Jewish land given to Arabs again in 1921: 75%
Total square miles for all Arab League countries (not counting Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan) : 6,145,389
Total square miles of Israel: 8,463
World Arab population: 300 million
World Jewish population: 13.6 million
Israel's Jewish population: 5.4 million.
Number of "hot war" shooting conflicts in the world: Approximately 30
Number of those "hot wars" involving Muslims: 25
Number of Arab leaders who visited Jerusalem when it was under Arab rule (1948 to 1967): 1
Number of Arab refugees who fled the land that became Israel: approximately 600,000
Number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries: approximately 600,000
Number of U.N. agencies that deal only with Palestinian refugees: 1
Number of U.N. agencies that deal with all the other refugees in the world: 1
Number of Jewish states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 3
Number of Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 0
Number of terrorist attacks by Israelis or Jews since 1967: 1
Number of terrorist attacks by Arabs or Muslims since 1967: Thousands
Percentage of Jews who have praised the Jewish terrorist: Approximately .1
Percentage of Palestinians who have praised Islamic terrorists: Approximately 90
Number of Jewish countries: 1
Number of Jewish democracies: 1
Number of Arab countries: 19
Number of Arab democracies: 0
Number of Arab women killed annually by fathers and brothers in "honor killings": Thousands
Number of Jewish women killed annually by fathers and brothers in "honor killings": 0
Number of Christian or Jewish prayer services allowed in Saudi Arabia: 0
Number of Muslim prayer services allowed in Israel: Unlimited
Number of Arabs Israel allows to live in Arab settlements in Israel: 1,250,000
Number of Jews Palestinian Authority allows to live in Jewish settlements in Palestinian Authority: 0
Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning an Arab country for human rights violations: 0
Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations: 26
Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and 1991: 175
Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97
Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4
Number of Arab countries that have been members of the U.N. Security Council: 16
Number of times Israel has been a member of the U.N. Security Council: 0
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning an Arab country: 0
Percentage of U.N. votes in which Arab countries voted with the United States in 2002: 16.6
Percentage of U.N. votes in which Israel voted with the United States in 2002: 92.6
Percentage of Middle East Studies professors who defend Zionism and Israel: Approximately 1.
Percentage of Middle East Studies professors who believe in diversity on college campuses: 100
Percentage of people who argue that the Jewish state has no right to exist who also believe some other country has no right to exist: 0
Percentage of people who argue that of all the countries in the world, only the Jewish state has no right to exist and yet deny they are anti-Jewish: approximately 100
Number of Muslims in the world: More than 1 billion
Number of Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terror: Approximately 2
Number of patents registered to all Arab countries as a group between1980-2000: 370
Number of patents registered to Israel in that same time period: 7,652
Amount U.S. Jewish donors paid for 3,000 greenhouses transferred to the Palestinian Authority: $14 million
Days it took before Palestinians looted many of those greenhouses: 1
Percent of the 5,000,000 square miles given to Arabs to create countries in 1918 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire: 99%
"Given to Arabs to create countries"?
'In 1918, as the Ottomans retreated before British arms in Palestine, the Arab Revolt culminated in triumph when Faysal led his followers into Damascus and there formed an "Arab Government." In 1919, he went to Versailles, where he asked that "the Arabic-speaking peoples of Asia" be recognized as "independent sovereign peoples," and that "no steps be taken inconsistent with the prospect of an eventual union of these areas under one sovereign government." Finally, in 1920, a "General Syrian Congress" declared the independence of a "United Kingdom of Syria" including the entire Levant, and proclaimed Emir Faysal king. From Damascus, an "Iraqi Congress" also proclaimed Iraq independent, under the kingship of the Emir Abdallah.
An Arab nation had entered the game of nations, and from the outset, its members made far-reaching claims that ran up against other claims. Most notably, Britain had made wartime commitments to France and the Zionist movement. The first, the so-called Sykes-Picot agreement, secretly recognizing most of the northern Levant as a zone of French privilege; the second, the Balfour Declaration, publicly supporting a Jewish national home in Palestine. Britain also had strategic and economic interests in the territories demanded by the Sharif Husayn and his sons. The contradictory claims were sorted out in April 1920, at the San Remo conference, where Britain and France settled on the division of occupied Ottoman territory, which they planned to administer as separate League of Nations' mandates. On the basis of these agreements, French forces drove Faysal and his followers from Damascus in a brief battle in July, and imposed French rule on Syria that would last for a quarter century. At the same time, Britain began to fulfill its commitment under the Balfour Declaration by opening Palestine to more extensive Zionist immigration and settlement. Arab violence against Jews first broke out in April, presaging the strife between Arab and Jew that would become a fixture of the British mandate for Palestine. In June, a widespread insurrection against the British broke out in Iraq, which British forces suppressed by force.
Increasingly, Arab nationalists charged that Ottoman rule had been replaced by British and French imperialism, government even more alien than its Muslim predecessor. Britain did move to compensate the leaders of the Arab Revolt in 1921: it appointed Faysal as the king of Iraq in expanded borders, and carved an emirate of Transjordan out of the Palestine mandate, which it then exempted from Zionist immigration and turned over to Abdallah. But the Arab nationalists now nursed a deep grievance against Britain and France over the partition of the territories they wanted, and the denial of independence in Palestine and Syria, which they believed had been promised to them. Arab nationalism, once inspired by the West's liberalism, began to redefine itself as a negation of its imperialism.
The Arab nationalist lament against the arbitrary partition of the Fertile Crescent had much validity. None of the new states was commensurate with a political community. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Palestine, Lebanon — these names derived from geography or classical history, and their borders largely reflected the imperial jostling for strategic position or oil.'
Number of "hot war" shooting conflicts in the world: Approximately 30
Number of those "hot wars" involving Muslims: 25
(How up to date is this figure? Does it include Iraq? It seems a little unfair to paint Iraq as a Muslim war, when it was invaded for no good reason by the USA, under orders from Bush and his God.)
The article on Prager in Wikipedia says he feels that the left lacks 'the intellectual rigor of right-wing politics'. This list of highly selective and questionable statistics shows no intellectual rigor at all, though.
The two lines quoted at the top of this post are, I guess, supposed to imply a connection between Islam and war. But that's all there is; a vague, unsupported implication. It's essentially meaningless.
- Top five arms producing countries in the world; USA, UK, France, Russia, Germany, Italy
- Number of those countries identifiable as 'Muslim' or 'Arab' - 0
(web.amnesty.org - I can't find a top ten; I guess China is in there, too, somewhere.)
Poor nations fight with weapons the sale of which support western economies. If those hot wars stopped, it'd be a disaster; profits would shrink, shares would drop. Developing nations are often, by accident of history, Muslim.
Originally posted by JohnGalt: Most items originally from Dennis Prager, other items from open sources.
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament: over 700
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran: 0
- snip -
From which we can infer that Prager has not read the Koran.
Alan Moore
Alan, could you tell us where the Koran mentions Jerusalem? I did a search and the only thing I can find is a mention of a mosque in a "furthest city," which Muslims sites seem to feel refers to Jerusalem, but which other sites dispute. I can't find anything specifically saying the name of the city. My Quran is at home (I'm not there at the moment), but according to the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, "For the Muslims, the sanctity of [Jerusalem] was based on its biblical associations... It was probably somewhat later that Jerusalem was identified with the "remote place" that was the goal of the Prophet Muhammed's Night Journey, mentioned in Quran 17:1..."
Based on that, I would say that it is possible that, on this particular point, Prager is not as far off base as your response makes it sound.
(By the way, I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I don't think that the number of times their holy books mention the city is important with regard to the conflict).
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by Sarai: Alan, could you tell us where the Koran mentions Jerusalem? I did a search and the only thing I can find is a mention of a mosque in a "furthest city," which Muslims sites seem to feel refers to Jerusalem, but which other sites dispute. I can't find anything specifically saying the name of the city.
...Jerusalem has a distinctly secondary place for Moslems. It is not once mentioned in the Koran... Source.
The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once... Source.
...the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran. Source.
Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran. Source
...the Qur'an does not mention the name "Jerusalem"... Source
...the claim of being "the third holiest place" is based on a dream described in the Koran. That's right, not an actual event, just a dream. In the dream, Mohammed "visited" a place referred to as masjid el-aksa, which means "the farthest mosque".
The Arabs claim that this refers to their mosque of that name, located on the Temple Mount.
But the El Aksa Mosque was built about a hundred years after Mohammed. In Mohammed's time, Jerusalem was ruled by the Byzantine Christians, and there were no mosques at all in Jerusalem, not on the Temple Mount or anywhere else. So obviously, Mohammed couldn't have dreamed about a mosque that didn't exist.
Moreover, the very name "El-Aksa" for the imaginary place mentioned in Mohammed's dream proves that the reference could not possibly be to Jerusalem. Because Jerusalem would never be referred to as "the farthest place". Source
Originally posted by newnickname: Poor nations fight with weapons the sale of which support western economies. If those hot wars stopped, it'd be a disaster; profits would shrink, shares would drop. Developing nations are often, by accident of history, Muslim.
Every picture or video I see of Muslims fighting, and they all seem to be using non-U.S. made AK-47s.
Despite that, your contention seems to be that all those Muslims at war with others or each other are actually the fault of the United States? I see now. I guess the tsunami and the earthquake were the United States' fault too. What bad thing out there don't you blame on the United States?
Since the only reasons Muslims would ever wage violence is because of the evil United States supplying them all those suicide vests, then I guess that if the United States were to vanish from the face of the Earth, there would be absolutely no violence in the name of Islam. I wonder how you explain the fighting in that area of the world before the U.S. ever even existed.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JohnGalt,
"Percentage of Jews who have praised the Jewish terrorist: Approximately .1"
Menachem Begin was identified by the British as the head of a terrorist organization, the Irgun. The British also had a reward for his capture. David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, also saw Begin as a terrorist. One Albert Einstein also called the Irgun "a terrorist, rightwing, chauvinist organization" that stood for "ultranationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority.". Einstein also opposed Begin's visit to the United States in 1949 because Begin and his movement amounted to "a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means. Begin was Prime Minister of Israel from 1977 - 1982. I assume that at least some Jews praised him.
Yitzhak Shamir,a leader of the Lehi, another terrorist organization, was Israel's Prime Minister after Begin (983-984, 1986-992). He started out with the Irgun, but when the Irgun split, Shamir went with the more militant faction, the Lehi, aka the Stern Gang. He later become one of the leaders of that terrorist organization. The Lehi was responsible for several asassinations of British Middle East ministers. Once again, I think it is safe to say that at least some Jews praised him.
Avraham Stern, founder of the Stern Gang, felt that his interests were best served by fighting the British in WWII, and tried to make a deal with Nazi Germany. He also embraced terrorist means. Today, Israel has a town named for him, using his nickname ("Kochav Yair", founded in 1981). Obviously, quite a few Jews thought him praiseworthy.
John, whoever compiled your list obviously got a few things wrong, didn't he? More to the point, deciding exactly who is a terrorist often depends on which side you agree with. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is often decided by the news report that you read, and who wins the war.
Posts: 16774 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
"I guess the tsunami and the earthquake were the United States' fault too."
I thought Pat Robertson affixed that blame already. I really wish you people on the Right would get together and agree on things. It would make it much simpler to oppose them if you did.
Posts: 16774 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
"So obviously, Mohammed couldn't have dreamed about a mosque that didn't exist."
Let me get this straight. Bushes can burn without being consumed. Bushes can speak. Wood can turn into a snake. A large body of water can be parted by the waving of arms. Frogs can be commanded, water turned into blood. The future can be told. But a man can't have a prophetic dream. OK, I got it now.
Posts: 16774 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "I guess the tsunami and the earthquake were the United States' fault too."
I thought Pat Robertson affixed that blame already. I really wish you people on the Right would get together and agree on things. It would make it much simpler to oppose them if you did.
I really wish "you people" would realize that I am not "on the Right", but that I am a Libertarian. Granted, I am right, but not on the Right. I would also like to know if you would ever use the term "you people" when talking about black people?
And besides I said the United States would get blamed for the natural disasters, not a deity or supernatural force ala Pat Robertson's asinine claims. And, as a matter of fact, there are those in the Muslim world that haveblamed the tsunami on the United States!
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "So obviously, Mohammed couldn't have dreamed about a mosque that didn't exist."
Let me get this straight. Bushes can burn without being consumed. Bushes can speak. Wood can turn into a snake. A large body of water can be parted by the waving of arms. Frogs can be commanded, water turned into blood. The future can be told. But a man can't have a prophetic dream. OK, I got it now.
This tu quoque-esqe fallacy totally ignores the point. If you are unable to see the rampant anti-Semitism within the Muslim world (and their desire to not coexist with Israel but to destroy it), then I am afraid you are blinded by some kind of ideology that I simply can't comprehend. It seems to me that Israel allows Palestinians and Muslims much, much, much more freedom and leeway than the other way around.
Every picture or video I see of Muslims fighting, and they all seem to be using non-U.S. made AK-47s.
Despite that, your contention seems to be that all those Muslims at war with others or each other are actually the fault of the United States? I see now. I guess the tsunami and the earthquake were the United States' fault too. What bad thing out there don't you blame on the United States?
Since the only reasons Muslims would ever wage violence is because of the evil United States supplying them all those suicide vests, then I guess that if the United States were to vanish from the face of the Earth, there would be absolutely no violence in the name of Islam. I wonder how you explain the fighting in that area of the world before the U.S. ever even existed.
Once again, diversionary tactics and 'straw man' arguments. Your retreat into sarcasm only makes it clearer that you can't back up what that list of dodgy statistics tries to imply.
I said, "The article on Prager in Wikipedia says he feels that the left lacks 'the intellectual rigor of right-wing politics'. This list of highly selective and questionable statistics shows no intellectual rigor at all, though.
The two lines quoted at the top of this post are, I guess, supposed to imply a connection between Islam and war. But that's all there is; a vague, unsupported implication. It's essentially meaningless.
- Top five arms producing countries in the world; USA, UK, France, Russia, Germany, Italy
- Number of those countries identifiable as 'Muslim' or 'Arab' - 0"
I guess you can't answer the main thrust of that comment - that Prager's lame list proves nothing about Islam and violence, and that we can make just as selective and questionable lists to prove just about any other point we like about wars around the world.
I didn't say "that all those Muslims at war with others or each other are actually the fault of the United States". You said that, once again putting words in others' mouths.
Many of the wars are hangovers from the proxy wars or puppet regimes of the Cold War, some are still sorting out the arbitrary borders or 'divide and rule' tactics of European imperialists, some have been simmering since pre-history.
The war in Iraq, I think we can blame on the US, which invaded Iraq for no good reason, and has helped create the conditions for bloody anarchy there.
"I really wish "you people" would realize that I am not "on the Right", but that I am a Libertarian." - JohnGalt
John, we all know that you say that you aren't on the Right, but let me steal a page from your playbook, albeit with much more accuracy -
JohnGalt's Political Outlook, by the Numbers
Percentage of political posts made by JohnGalt that put down Democrats, the Left, Kerry, or either Clinton - Approximately 98
Percentage of political posts made by JohnGalt that put down Republicans, the Right, or Bush - Approximately 2*
It doesn't matter what you claim when what you post shows how you really feel, John. I could claim to be an independent voter, but anyone who reads my posts knows that I am definitely on the Left. I am not ashamed to admit that. Why can't you admit to what all the rest of us know already by your posts?
* You KNOW I am being generous here.
Posts: 16774 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: John, we all know that you say that you aren't on the Right, but let me steal a page from your playbook, albeit with much more accuracy -
JohnGalt's Political Outlook, by the Numbers
Percentage of political posts made by JohnGalt that put down Democrats, the Left, Kerry, or either Clinton - Approximately 98
Percentage of political posts made by JohnGalt that put down Republicans, the Right, or Bush - Approximately 2*
It doesn't matter what you claim when what you post shows how you really feel, John. I could claim to be an independent voter, but anyone who reads my posts knows that I am definitely on the Left. I am not ashamed to admit that. Why can't you admit to what all the rest of us know already by your posts?
* You KNOW I am being generous here.
Once again, DG, just because you point to me and phrase a few sentences to resemble the original post and then say the equivalent of, "You too..." does not in any way, shape or form negate the essence of the original post. It still stands.
If you were around, or if you recall, prior to 9/11 my posts on AnswerPool's Genesis, AskJeeves, were very negative toward George W. Bush. I still point out many problems I have with him: resided over more spending than happened under Clinton; helped create a bigger government than under Clinton; responsible for creeping socialized medicine, certain aspects of the Patriot Act that I disagree with, didn't ask Congress to officially declare war, his illegal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, etc. But when it became clear to me that Islamofascism is currently the biggest danger to the Civilized World, then I put those things on the back burner to concentrate on the greater threat. So I stood behind Bush's decision to go after these jihadists wherever they are and to deny them whatever capacity they may try to get in the way of state-sponsorship. I don't like war. But, unlike you, I realize that sometimes the consequences of not doing something can be far more dangerous than taking decisive and unpopular action instead of checking the polls every day to see what is popular. Previous generations put off dealing with Hitler until it was too late. And I remind you that Hitler never attacked the United States.
I know that, due to your hatred of Bush, it is difficult for you to comprehend that I don't hate Bush more than I hate bin Laden or his buddy Saddam Hussein, but unlike the Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democratic Party, I don't. But when I see that nutjob and her myrmidons say their nutty things, then my anger towards the Democratic Party grows a little more when the officials of that Party won’t denounce her and her anti-American rants. Are all leftists anti-American? Of course not. But all anti-Americans are leftists. And for that reason, my distrust of the current leftist political party (democrats) is going to reflect itself in my posts.
I know whose side I am rooting for. And for all of Bush's faults (and he has many), I - unlike the Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democratic Party - want the Civilized World to win this War on Islamofascism. I even admit that in the 8 months prior to 9/11, Bush did not take the Islamofascist threat seriously enough - but unlike Clinton (who never took it serious for 8 long years), at least Bush eventually got the hint and took decisive action - something Clinton never did. My posts will likewise reflect that. And my posts against Saddam and his Islamofascist buddies don't automatically mean that I completely support every single one of George W. Bush's policy decisions as President or that I am a right-winger. It is not a zero sum gain situation to me. It might be to you. I know that many partisans (on both the left and the right) work this way: "Gee, since politician of party X supports this, then since I am of party Y, I automatically oppose it." Right now the democrats are doing this with Bush and the War on Islamofascism. And one of the results of their doing this is (unintentional to most) helping to embolden the Islamofascists. Take off you partisan blinders and you will see this.
When dealing with this kind of insanity, how does the Civilized World respond and will rational thought and a desire to peacefully coexist with Israel ever reign in that area of the world?
One random example of the civilised world, George Bush (there, I can say nice things about him), responds by indicating that the Saudi government can carry on doing and saying whatever it likes.
John, I wasn't on Jeeves long enough to even get into the political areas, so I have no idea about what you posted there. But here, on AnswerPool, I do know how you have posted. I won't go back and count, because it isn't worth it, but I have an excellent memory, and have always been good with numbers. I'll stick with what I said.
I know whose side I am on, too, John. Please forgive me if I just want America to be better than it is. Had you been able or willing to read and understand what I have said many times, you would know that. But it is your tunnel vision that prevents you from seeing a great deal.
Posts: 16774 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by JohnGalt: Most items originally from Dennis Prager, other items from open sources.
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament: over 700
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran: 0
- snip -
From which we can infer that Prager has not read the Koran.
Alan Moore
Alan, could you tell us where the Koran mentions Jerusalem? I did a search and the only thing I can find is a mention of a mosque in a "furthest city," which Muslims sites seem to feel refers to Jerusalem, but which other sites dispute. I can't find anything specifically saying the name of the city. My Quran is at home (I'm not there at the moment), but according to the HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, "For the Muslims, the sanctity of [Jerusalem] was based on its biblical associations... It was probably somewhat later that Jerusalem was identified with the "remote place" that was the goal of the Prophet Muhammed's Night Journey, mentioned in Quran 17:1..."
Based on that, I would say that it is possible that, on this particular point, Prager is not as far off base as your response makes it sound.
(By the way, I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I don't think that the number of times their holy books mention the city is important with regard to the conflict).
Look for alQuds, and for Beit alMuqaddis, the Arabic names of the city. There's not a lot of point to looking for "Jerusalem" if they don't call it that. You might as well look for a German map identifying the capital of Austria as Vienna.
Alan Moore
Posts: 2012 | Location: USA | Registered: 10-05-03
I guess the tsunami and the earthquake were the United States' fault too. What bad thing out there don't you blame on the United States? 
I would also like to know if you would ever use the term "you people" when talking about black people?