Plus a bit of commentary:
This is a report on an ongoing trial: the rest of this account can be found here (and at the top bar of this blog).
On September 22nd, the judge warned everyone in the courtroom that come hell or high water (and, I am paraphrasing here), this trial was going to finish tomorro – that is, today. In order to make sure that this indeed comes about, she would recall everybody into Courtroom #20 of the Elgin Street Courthouse in Ottawa, Ontario, at 9am instead of the usual 10am – adding a one-hour ‘buffer’ to their time.
Aware of this, I arrived at the Courthouse nice and early – about 25 minutes after 8. I strolled slowly through the parking garage, stopping to chat with one of the attendants whom I got to know well enough to say ‘hi’ to over the duration of these proceedings. Then I had a tea and went to the ladies room before – with plenty of time left – strolling up to the 2nd floor and to the appointed courtroom.
Surprisingly, I did not see any of the actors in our little drama – and I began to get an uneasy feeling. Did I get the time wrong?
I checked my notes and the wall clock and, sure enough, I still had 12 minutes before the proceedings started.
Ah – there was a paper sticky-taped onto the door – perhaps the press finally figured out the importance of this case to their own ability to report the news and enough of the showed up to have to move things to a larger courtroom!!!!
Here was some incoherent message about teenagers and dating…. But, the look at that sheet of paper gave me a glimpse through the double doors’ windows…and it looked like the trial was already ongoing!!!
Not wanting to make a lot of noise inside the courtroom upon my arrival, I took my notepads and scribble-tools (today I was using a blue Zebra pen, fine point – they write quite quietly and have a good feeling in the hand, heavy but not too much so…) OK, I got my implements to hand and intramurated velocitously. (Yes, I am a huge fan of Black Adder – and if has, at times, affected my vocabulary….though, the character I most closely identify with is Baldrick.)
OK – in I sneak and sit down as quietly as possible.
Everybody is in and things are in full swing!
Barbara Kulaszka is standing up and speaking.
To her left, Connie Fournier sits calmly, wearing a dark purple pantsuit and a cream blouse, which I will later notice has a delicate black embroidery and is accented by a single strand of knotted pearls, long enough to reach beneath the blouse’s collar. The overall look is pleasing, but, from behind, the bob in which her hair is cut is just the wrong length, making her neck appear shorter than in had in her previous outfits. However, this optical illusion is dispelled when Connie glances back and gives me a warm smile.
To the right of Ms. Kulaszka sits Roger Smith, aka Peter O’Donnel, in his blue blazer and another pair of tan slacks. His shirt will later be revealed to be almost a twin of his earlier one – black and charcoal stripes, but instead of a blue pinstripe, this one has a gray one.
Next is Mr. Steven Frankel, the brilliant young lawyer representing the CCLA.
To his right, Mr. Burnet, the Plaintiff’s lawyer, had his gaze firmly fixed on the judge and was listening intently to Ms. Kulaszka’s every word. He had better, too – at the end of the day, he’d have a chance for a brief rebuttal to all the defendants’ closing arguments, so listening intently was very critical.
On the far right, as usual, was Dr. Baglow…I bet he does not hear that phrase very often!!! Sitting far back from the table, his legs elegantly crossed in front of him, he had a calm and almost serene demeanour. In his signature black suit and, as he once wrote, ‘the most comfortable walking boots on Earth’, I glimpsed a navy cuff of a shirt, if I am not mistaken…though, I must admit, I was so busy trying to catch up with what was being said that I did not take the time to note this down. My apologies.
Later, during a break, Dr. Baglow helped me out: he said he noticed I was wondering about the pin in his lapel. It was indeed some sort of an abstract maple leaf: a pin denoting 30 years in the Public Service. During another break, he let me know that the reason why he only wore his gun-metal-rimmed glasses at some times was because they were reading glasses and he only needed them at some times.
This made me a little envious: I also have glasses, but mine (purple-rimmed) are progressive trifocals….yet, I still vacillate between wearing them or not. When I wear them, I can actually see what is going on: the major things, like people’s expressions and demeanour (I may not be able to decipher it, but I can at least describe it) – and the minor things, like, say, what I am writing down. However, I cannot shake the feeling that, when I am not wearing my glasses, I get a much better feel for everything….that I can better absorb the atmosphere and emotions and all that. So, I am constantly putting my glasses on, taking them off, putting them on, taking them off….sitting on them….sorry, I am rambling….
As I started taking notes, Barbara Kulaszka (BK) was just speaking about Dr. Baglow having been at the forefront of the Omar Khadr re-patriation movement.
If you read my blog regularly, my dear reader, you will know my views on the huge miscarriage of justice that is the Omar Khadr case. Perhaps it is my Aspieness, but, I am a big one for the adherence to the rule of law. Yes – sure, I hate some laws and believe that we MUST change them – but, until such a time that we DO change them, we are obligated to follow them.
And, according to the Geneva Convention, there was only one legal manner to deal with Omar Khadr: two bullets to the back of the head.
Anything less is a failure to adhere to the International Law and endangers civilian populations at the hands on non-uniformed combatants. The Americans ought to be prosecuted for War Crimes for having permitted Omar Khadr to live and even rendering him medical aid!!! Such a travesty!
At an earlier time, I actually had a conversation with Dr. Baglow about Omar Khadr and I mentioned that the two of us would probably agree that, in his case, the International Laws were not followed. Indeed, I raised the subject specifically because I expected him to elaborate, so that I would have the opportunity to point out just how deeply misguided – if not downright evil for endangering civilian populations everywhere – his position on Khadr was.
Unfortunately, Dr. Baglow just sighed deeply and looked so very, very sad that I did not have the heart to continue the conversation…and thus did not have an opportunity to enlighten him on the error of his thinking.
OK – back to the important stuff!!!
BK was explaining how Dr. Baglow was at the forefront of calling for the repatriation of the War Criminal Omar Khadr.
Next, she defined what the word ‘supporter’ means: one who supports.
For example, a ‘supporter’ of the Maple Leafs’ is NOT somebody who plays hockey with them, who is a member of the team. Rather, it may be somebody who buys their merchandise or watches their games or just says things that are nice about them. Even, perhaps, just expresses sympathy with them when they are loosing…
Similarly, saying somebody is a ‘Taliban supporter’ – it does not mean he is one of the Taliban!
Rather, it means somebody who may say things that express empathy with the Taliban….
OK – I am having a hard time wording the next bit: most likely because BK is much nicer a person than I am, much kinder and gentler…and I am ‘choking’ on typing the words she actually said, as they show way more of an empathy for Omar Khard than I am deeply convinced he deserves… But, she was speaking for the defendants, not me, so I must choke down my opinion and report to you, my dear reader, her words…
BK said that ‘expressing support for ‘the human rights’ (as if a non-uniformed combatant had any, under international law) of Omar Khadr’ could be interpreted as expressing empathy for the Taliban’ – and, by definition, that would be included in ‘being a supporter of the Taliban’.
Indeed, argued BK, the plaintiff himself used the very same logic when he said that the CCLA supported father Boissoin (a Catholic priest who was given a lifetime ban by a Human RIights Tribunal on speaking about the Catholic Church’s position of homosexuality), saying that the CCLA ‘gave aid and comfort to hate speecher’ and that they were ‘hate-speech facilitators’…that the CCLA ‘stands with haters’ and ‘aids in homophobia’.
BK asserted that ‘giving aid and comfort’ is, indeed, the very definition of ‘supporter’!
At this point, Madame Justice (her black judicial robe, white collar and red shash accentuated only by perl stud earrings and simple, elegant rings on the ring finger of each hand) nodded her head in assent and reasoned agreement.
In addition, BK carried her momentum forward, this was the medium of a Message Board – not a scholarly dissertation…which, through medium alone, classified this as a ‘comment’…
The Judge wondered about this being ‘fair comment’ if fully 41% of Canadians shared Dr. Baglow’s view. If I were the lawyer, I would have quickly pointed out that the fact that this automatically meant that 59% of Canadian did NOT share Dr. Baglows view – making this a very fair comment indeed. But, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet…
Instead BK took a much better tack, pointing not to peasant logic, like I would have, but to actual law: she presumed Mr. Frankel would speak to this later (to which he nodded – earning one of Madame Justices’ broad smiles), but, the legal test (as per the WIC radio case ) was whether ‘anyone can honestly hold that opinion’. Not the majority, not 41%, but ‘anyone’. (And, I am heavily paraphrasing – I am simply not able to take notes fast enough! You, my dear reader, ought to fire me and get a faster writer to report on this!!!)
As in, of ‘anyone’ can honestly hold and express this belief – that is the test.
This, the Judge agreed with.
Which is where things took a turn into territory rather unknown to your reporter – but one that seemed very familiar to both madame Justice Polowin and Ms. Kulaszka: the Vietnam War issue… They had a fun back-and-forth about someone named ‘Jane Fonda’ and a nickname of ‘Hanoi Jane’ – but, not knowing the context, this did not make much sense to me. But, the two of the seemed happy, joking, agreeing – on the same ‘note’, if you get my drift. ‘Ancient argument’, ‘based on fact’ – these were the terms ‘flying about’.
In his turn, Dr. Bagglow seemed so bored, he was in danger of falling asleep…
Which is where the topic of ‘Taliban Jack’ got re-introduced (it had been discussed ‘many’ times before to illustrate how hyperbole and nicknames and memes work).
From here, the proceedings took a turn into legaleese: another field I am blissfully ignorant of. All I can do is report the words…and badly, at that, as I am not fast enough to get them all down…my deepest apologies, my dear reader!
Madame Justice Polowin wanted to know how does this get ‘around’ the ‘Grant’ test.
BK disagreed – the ‘test’ here was not ‘Grant’ but ‘WIC‘. People listening to a ‘shock jock’ would know a well-followed controversy, the facts of the case were known to the audience in that case as in this one. Roger Smith was talking about ‘Dr. Dawg’ – a pseudonym.
If people did not know who ‘Dr. Dawg’ was – then, saying something about a ‘pseudonym’ was clearly not defamatory.
If people DID know who ‘Dr. Dawg’ was – then they would have been following the controversy and been aware of the background facts…and thus would have been able to understand the sense in which the words were uttered – making them, yet again, not defamatory!!!
What needs to be weighed here is the state of mind of Dr. Baglow during this whole exchange: from the very beginning, his aim was to find a pretext to sue her client.
The judge did not, to my untrained eye/ear, appear particularly empathetic to this line of reasoning…as expressed by the succinct: “So?!!?”
Which I took to imply that the plaintiff’s state of mind had no relevance on whether or not he was defamed…by the defendants…
BK handled this rather well.
As Dr. Baglow sighed deeply and examined his manicured hands, BK explained tat re-posting the disputed words AGAIN using his sock-puppet persona ‘MsMew’ ensured that even if the original words were taken down by Roger Smith, they would remain on the site – along with the malicious identification of Dr. Dawg as Dr. Baglow. This demonstrated malice – but not on the part of her client, but on the part of Dr. Baglow…
Indeed, BK continued, given the definition of the word ‘supporter’, her client did not think the impugned words were ‘defamatory’ in any way, shape or form (yes, I am paraphrasing).
Dr. Baglow, on the other hand, had demonstrated malice with his ‘sock-puppetry’ – and, as Dr. Dawg and MsMew, it was he who was bullying her client.
As for ‘malice’, the ‘WIC’ case demonstrated that even though the ‘shock-jock’ ‘hated’ Ms. Simpson’, that was irrelevant in the legal ‘finding of malice': rather, paragraphs 67 to 85 (of the ruling in the WIC case, I can only presume) show that since the dominant motive was that the ‘shock jock’ ‘believed’ what he said, the fact that he also hated her did not matter.
OK – I freely admit, there was a bit here that went 100% ‘over my head': something about ‘Ross vs. New Bruns’ or something somewhat similar….predominant motive, tab 12 paragraph 106…I have no clue what this was about…
Yet, this concluded this bit and, in the next installment, I shall report on Roger Smith’s closing arguments!
A big rally was held in Ottawa yesterday, the 6th of September, 2014, to show support for the minorities – religious and ethnic – in the Levant. And to voice the outrage at what the barbaric Islamic State criminals are doing…
(At the 2:19 mark, you can see yours truly holding up a sign “In solidarity with persecuted Iraqi Christians we stand”.)
Here were a few good speeches:
It was an interesting rally – they even had an imam speak (that went well and he unequivocally condemned violence against Christians) and a representative for a second imam speak.
It was with this second Muslim speaker that I had great difficulty.
Not only did he employ the ‘usual’ linguistic tricks that we have come to expect from Islamists and Sharia supremacists (like never condemning violence against Christians and/or Yazidis but only condemning ‘violence against innocents’*), he went on to foment hate against atheists.
Yes, while he was there ostensibly to condemn hateful crimes against religious minorities, he took the time to equate the Islamic State butchers to atheists and to say that both are equal to each other.
And the organizer of the rally called it ‘an excellent speech’!
No wonder they did not have even one atheist speaker!!!
So there I was, getting sunburned as I, a person of no faith, showed support for religious minorities and condemn violence against them – and the organizer of the shindig agrees with a speaker who equates me with the evil I am protesting. I felt awful – betrayed. It just goes to show that the only time religionists will stop killing each other and unite together is to take down those of us who prefer listening to reason rather than imaginary friends.
I’m afraid this was a bit of a downer…
* In Islam, every person is considered to be born as a Muslim, knowing intrinsically that Islam is the only religion. If that person is then raised in a faith other that Islam, they are said to have committed the crime of apostasy – of leaving Islam. (This is why one cannot become a ‘convert’ to Islam, they say one is a ‘re-vert’ to Islam because one is returning to their original faith.) And Leaving Islam is a crime – so Christian and other non-Muslims are not ‘innocent’. When Sharia supremacists condemn the slaughter of ‘innocents’, they are very deliberately excluding non-Muslims from the list of people whose slaughter they are condemning.
To us, Westerners, it does not seem like a particularly big deal that ISIS/ISIL had pronounced the terrirories it now controls as a Capilhate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (whatever previous names he may have been know by) as a Caliph.
All right, let’s analyze this, one bit at a time…
Al-Baghdadi simply means ‘from Baghdad’.
So, what does Abu Bakr mean?
It is obviously not the man’s birth name but rather a name he adopted in order to fit/further/support/explain the role he perceives himself (and others perceive him) to play. Or, if you wish, the ‘mantle’ he had assumed.
Who was the original Abu Bakr?
The ‘original’ Abu Bakhr was the very first person outside of Muhammad’s family to become a Muslim – and he was the father of Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha.
To a person who is familiar with the history of early Islam, the above sentence is chock filled with meaning – so much so that a single little article may not do it justice…but, I will try!
The Early history of Islam is imbued with much meaning and allusions to it will convey many layers of meaning to those cognisant of it. In order to even scratch the surface, I will need to ‘back up’ to the time of Muhammad himself.
Muhammad was born to a pre-eminent Meccan family. His paternal grandfather was in control of the temple now know as the Kaaba. It is now the most sacred site in Islam – the direction in which every Muslim prays. Back then before Muhammad’s ministry, the Kaaba was a temple dedicated to many, many deities worshiped by the pagan Arabs – including the Moon God, Allah.
As the patriarch of the clan, Muhammad’s grandfather controlled access to the Kaaba temple – and much (if not all) of his income was generated from the fees paid by pilgrims who wished to visit the Kaaba.
Muhammad’s father was the son of this ‘gatekeeper’ of the Kaaba.
As a matter of fact, when Muhammad’s grandfather went to purchase Muhammad’s wife for his son, he saw another lovely woman in that family and purchased her for a wife for himself. Therefore, Muhammed’s father married Muhamed’s mother in the same ceremony as his father married her kinswoman….and it is from this tradition that the tales of Muhammad’s unnaturally long gestation period come from…
Whatever the truth of the story, Muhammad was born long after his mother’s husband’s death – so long, in fact, that some people have questioned his parentage. It seems that the worry about Muhmmed’s parentage was shared by Muhamed’s paternal grandfather….who refused to acknowledge Muhammed as being of his kin, prompting the teenage Muhammed’s excommunication from Mecca. It was not until Muhammed’s paternal uncle officially adopted him that Muhammed was permitted to return to Mecca.
Once in Mecca, Muhammed caught the eye of his uncle’s employer, a wealthy widow named Khadija – who eventually married Muhammed.
Prior to meeting Muhammed, Khadijah was in love with her cousin whom he believed to be the messenger from the one and only God. Once she saw the young and handsome cattle-boy Muhammed, Khadija realized she was totally wrong and, afer she married Muhammad, she realized that it was really Muhammed who was the true prophet of the one and only God.
It took a few years of persuasion, but, eventually, the young Muhammed believed his wife (the first convert to Islam) that he was, indeed, special and chosen by God to be his Messenger!
Abu Bakhr, a wealthy merchant, was the first person outside the family to believe this and to embrace Muhammed as the prophet of the one and only God – thus becoming the first person outside the family to convert to Islam.
When Muhammed told him that, in a dream, he was told that he is to marry Abu Bakhr’s six year-old daughter, Abu Bakhr first argued that she is too young, but, submitting to the will of God’s messenger, he eventually agreed.
Unfortunately, at about the time of the betrothal, Abu Bakhr’s daughter, Aisha, fell ill and all her hair fell out. So, Muhammed waited until she recovered and her hair grew back in before bedding her.
Aisha remained Muhammed’s favourite wife till his death.
Which is where the traditions ‘break path’, so to say.
BOTH traditions agree that Muhammed was ill, then felt better, lead Friday prayers, went to spent time with Aisha and then died.
According to Sunni Muslims, Muhammed had been poisoned by a Jewish woman who had served him a meal of poisoned mutton right after he had slaughtered her entire family and clan. The Sunni believe she did this to test if he was just another King (who could be poisoned) or a true prophet (who could not – by the grace of God). While he survived the immediate attack, the Sunnis believe Muhammed died as an after-effect of this poison.
The Shi’a Muslims, however, believe that being a true prophet of the one and only God, the poison given him by the Jewess as a test did not harm Muhammed at all. Rather, they believe that while Muhammed’s nephew and bodyguard was out of town, sent on a mission by Muhammed, Aisha killed him on the orders of her father, Abu Bakhr, so that he could assume the command of all the Muslims.
Indeed, there were many stories at about this time about faithful men in line to replace Muhammed as the leader of the Muslims being assassinated, one at a time, by the brothers of Aisha, so that her father could assume the reins of power and reign as the next Caliph.
Indeed, the very first war between the Muslims was about Abu Bakhr’s succession of Muhammed as Caliph…
Th Sunnis believe that Abu Bakhr was the rightful heir to Muhammed’s rule.
The Shi’as belive that Abu Bakhr was an usurper who had no right to power, but attempted to assassinate Muhammed’s rightful heirs in order to seize power for himself.
Whatever the truth may have been so many centuries ago is less relevant to today’s events than the traditions of these events, as told by both Shi’a and Sunni Muslims.
Today, considering the legends (and, perhaps, believing them to be true), adopting the name ‘Abu Bakr’ signals to Muslims that this person believes he is the rightful ruler of all of Islam (the Sunni bits, at least) who considers himself to he a true successor of Muhammed, with all that that implies.
Sure, it means death to all Shi’a Muslims as heretics – as well as all other non-orthodox Sunni followers of Islam. According to this ‘Abu Bakhr tradition’ - anyone who did not acknowledge Abu Bakhr as the rightful successor of Muhammed and all followers of the forms of Islam that sprung from this must be exterminated as heretics, even ore dangerous than outright infidels…
Which means war in the middle east…
So – why is this important to the people outside the middle east?!?!?
It has to do with the very concept of ‘Caliph’.
A ‘Caliph’ is not just the ruler of a particular geographic area.
A ‘Caliph’ is the spiritual and political ruler of every Muslim in the world!
That is agreed upon by all the schools of Sharia – Islamic jurisprudence.
Thus, a Caliph erases the differences between different forms of Islam – regardless of Shi’a, Sunni, Ahmadi or anything else, once there is a proclaimed Caliph, all Muslims owe HIM and ONLY HIM their allegiance and obedience.
Regardless where on Earth they live, what local jurisdictions they are living under: once there is a Caliph, Sharia dictates all Muslims must obey the Caliph before the laws of the land they happen to be living in.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may only control a small geographic area. But, by having had himself declared a Caliph, he now commands the loyalty and obedience of all Sharia-adherent Muslims everywhere on this Earth.
THIS is why we, in the West, must draw a very pragmatic distinction between the Muslims who are immigrants to our lands, hoping to escape Sharia (and whom we must protect from their co-religionists) and the settlers/invaders who came here to try to enact Sharia law in our lands and thus make us conquered by Islam.
Make no mistake: by having declared a Caliphate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the new Caliph, militant Muslims have, in one move, turned Sharia-adherent Muslims in Western countries into enemy agents, whether they want to be or not!!!
That was a question CodeSlinger asked me.
I replied in a comprehensive manner, explaining my reasoning: but thought it worthy of a post of its own. So, here it is:
I really, really don’t know that I would have them do anything other than what they are doing now.
The Israelis are in a very, very difficult position: the UN is stacked with anti-Semites, the Europeans are afraid to upset their anti-Semitic Islamist colonists (and yes – the Muslims who are true immigrants are integrating as best as they can – it is the Islamists who are entering Europe who are colonists, not immigrants who are preventing them), and the US is more anti-Semitic than ever. It seems that Canada is the only major ally of Israel – and we are small potatoes on the world stage.
So, the Israelis are stuck in a highly unenviable situation.
Israeli civilians are bombarded by rockets fired from Hospitals and UN schools within Gaza. It is only because of their investment in bomb shelters that the Israeli casualties are minimal.
But, the Hamas ruled Gazans have taken billions in ‘humanitarian aid’ and instead of bomb shelters and the equivalent to the iron dome, they built underground tunnels into Israel, often undermining kindergartens as particular targets in order to add shock value to their anticipated attack during a Jewish holiday. They have even worked several hundred Gazan children to death in mining these tunnels…
The Israelis MUST do something to primarily stop these tunnels which are extensive and through which Gazans dressed in Israeli military uniforms have snuck into Isrel and murdered people, secondarily to stop the rocket fire because a civilian population cannot indefinitely function under such conditions.
But, if the Israelis do not take extreme care to do what they are doing – dropping leaflets to warn people, phoning them to let them know an attack is coming, sending a harmless, warning shot against a building with enough time for civilians to evacuate before the real missile which will demolish the building is fired, if they did not call off air strikes when children are in the target area….they would be sinking beneath their own level of civilization!!!
After all, some of these Gazans may have voted in Hamas, but others did not and the children, of course, are innocent. Brainwashed – yes, but killing them would be barbaric. Israelis would be abandoning their own civilized state – not in the past, but now.
But if this were not a sufficient reason, if you wanted a purely pragmatic one, I can supply one of those as well.
Israel cannot survive if the whole world – with the exception of Canada and a few other little nations, like the Czech Republic – refuses to trade with them and completely isolates them.
And every dead Palestinian child – whether killed by Israeli weapons or by Palestinian rockets aimed at Israel and accidentally landing in Gaza – is a source of money for Hamas. So, Hamas will make sure that each and every real and imagined dead Palestinian child makes headlines. (And, yes – they have been caught not only passing off scenes from a horror movie as ‘Palestinian children killed by Israel’ – but also passing the photographs of the Isaeli(including a suckling infant) who were murdered by a Palestinian terrorists as they slept in their beds, these too are being passed off as !!!
The Israelis – both Jewish and non-Jewish – may have much going for them, but they are a tiny country surrounded by nation states that share an ideological imperative to destroy Israel as a State AND to kill every Jew alive on this tiny little planet. And if the Jews pack up and colonize another planet, the Islamists will follow them to that planet nd try to murder them there.
Because their desire to kill every Jew in general and destroy Israel in particular is dogmatic, rooted both in the Koran and in the Hadith.
The Islamic prophet Muhammad had sheltered with both Jewish and Christian communities while he was, for reasons not known to history, excommunicated from Mecca. Both the Jewish and the Christian communities excommunicated him in their turn, also for reasons unknown. At least, that is what I was taught at Carleton University many decades ago when I took a course on Arab history.
While with the ‘People of the Book’ (Christians and Muslims), he learned a lot of their mythology. In particular, he latched on to the idea that the Jews had been God’s chosen people – which is why all the Old Testament killing and raping and genocide to get the Jews their ‘promised land’ was OK. God was fine with genocide – as long as the genociders were God’s ‘chosen people’. But, according to Muhammad, the Jews got too comfortable and broke their covenant with God (the whole Jesus thing, money-changers in the Temple and all that stuff) – which is why God punished them by kicking them out of the magical promised land, Israel.
Because, if Israel is ‘the promised land’, then only God’s chosen people get to live there – right?
And, the punishment that Muhammed is said for God to have inflicted on the Jews – to prove they were no longer his favourite people – was to deny them a homeland at all. As in – no matter where the Jews would have set up their new nation state, it would have made Muhammed wrong for saying they will never have a homeland as divine punishment. That is, the moment the Jews have a nation state of their own, Muhammed is proven wrong and all of Islam is proven to be a false religion…
But, setting it up in the promised land is an order of magnitude worse, because that is reserved for God’s favourites. And if the Jews get a homeland there, that means that they ARE God’s favourites…which means the Muslims are not, which means that Islam is not 100% correct….which it claims to be, so if one part is falsified, then all of it is….which is why them Jews have got to be kept out of Israel.
As do the Christians and everybody else.
Because if the Muslims are not God’s favourite people, then their whole religion is proven to be false…
So, now that we know why only the Muslims may live in Israel, we get to the secondary reason: all the Jews, including children, must be killed.
Because the Koran says that only when all the Jews are exterminated will the day of judgment (and paradise on Earth) take place.
So, you see, the Palestinian Islamists have very logical reasons for not wanting peace with Israel:
1) More dead Palestinian babies = more money for Hamas
2) Permitting Jews in ‘the promised land’ would bestow the title of ‘God’s favourite people’ on them and not Muslims, falsifying Islam
3) Killing all the Jews will bring Paradise to Earth and ought to be accelerated
Thus, Israel has no hope of a peace treaty with Hamas.
If Israel acts as any other country would to protect its people, the international community (weighted by Muslim and Islamist-fearing State votes) will destroy it through isolation.
Therefore, doing what they are doing now – pursuing their objectives while taking every possible precaution to save civilian lives is the only reasonable course of action open to the Israelis.
BlazingCatFur has the scoop: