Rashad Saleh

Secretary of Fatah movement in Canada supports the “Palestinian Intifada” & Trudeau #elxn42

The Mississauga-based Arab Palestine Association (ألجمعيه العربيه الفلسطينيه) expressed its official support of the “Palestinian Intifada” against Israel.

The Arab Palestinian Association is described by Meshwar newspaper as “a cover for the regional branch of the Palestinian Fatah movement” in Canada. Fatah is the parent movement of Aqsa Brigades, which are designated by Canada as a terrorist organization.

  • David

    As C.S. Jarvis, the British governor of the Sinai, wrote,
    “The Arab is sometimes called the Son of the Desert, but as Palmer said, this
    is a misnomer as in most cases he is the Father of the Desert, having created
    it himself and the arid waste in which he lives and on which practically
    nothing will grow is the direct result of his appalling indolence, combined
    with his simian trait of destroying everything he does not understand.”

    “A great part of the country in which he
    now ekes out his haphazard existence was at one time fairly productive and
    prosperous and, by failing to repair damage done by wear and tear of weather
    and by wantonly wreaking conduits and cisterns he was too lazy to use, he has
    succeeded in creating a sun-scorched treeless desert which will remain
    wilderness as long as he encumbers the land,” he added.

    Jarvis wrote that the Bedouin likes
    rocks, but that the “sight of a tree appears to incense him and he is
    not happy until he has destroyed it utterly by snapping off its branches and
    burning its trunk through to the core.” The same thing is happening today with
    Bedouins and Jewish trees in the anti-tree Jihad.

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      Had an inkling this was true.

  • David

    THE MIDDLE EAST AND ORWELLIAN
    HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS

    When lies are the foundation of policies.

    October 16, 2015 Bruce Thornton 37

    36289282

    Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism
    Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

    Many of our policy debates and conflicts
    both domestic and foreign call on history to validate their positions. At home,
    crimes from the past like slavery and legal segregation are used to justify
    present policies ranging from racial set asides to housing regulations long
    after those institutions have been dismantled. Abroad, our jihadist enemies
    continually evoke the Crusades, “colonialism,” and “imperialism” as
    justifications for their violence. Yet the “history” used in such fashion is
    usually one-sided, simplistic, or downright false. Nor is the reason hard to
    find: as we read in 1984, “Who controls the past . . . controls the
    future: who controls the present controls the past.” Bad history is a powerful
    instrument for gaining political power.

    Nowhere is the abuse of history more
    rampant than in the Middle East. Since World War II all the problems whose
    origins lie in dysfunctional tribal and religious beliefs and behaviors have
    been laid at the feet of “colonialism” and “imperialism.” Western
    leftists––besotted both by a marxiste hatred of liberal democracy, and
    by juvenile noble-savage Third-Worldism–– have legitimized this specious
    pretext, which now for many has become historical fact.

    In reality, Europeans never had colonies
    in the modern Middle East, for the simple reason that the territory was
    controlled by the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Hence “colonialism” is irrelevant for
    that region’s history. The facts of that history teach us that the feckless
    incompetence of a series of Ottoman sultans, in pursuit of imperialist dreams of
    recovering their lost Balkan provinces and restoring their hegemony over Egypt,
    had financially weakened the empire and made it dependent on the European
    powers who lent them the money. As a result, it became the geopolitical “sick
    man” that England had to protect against Russian adventurism and Egyptian
    expansionism.

    Historians Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh
    succinctly state the conclusion of a sober examination of these facts:

    Twentieth-Century Middle
    Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior rather
    than an externally imposed dictate. Great-power influences, however potent,
    have played a secondary role, constituting neither the primary force behind the
    region’s political development nor the main cause of its notorious volatility.
    Even at the weakest point in their modern history, during the First World War
    and in its immediate wake, Middle Eastern actors were not hapless victims of
    predatory imperial powers but active participants in the restructuring of their
    region.

    From the Ottoman decision to join the
    Central Powers in World War I in order to regain imperial status and recover
    lost territory, to the Hashemite clan’s inveigling England into giving them
    most of the Ottoman territories after the war, the prime movers in creating the
    modern Middle East were the Ottomans, Egyptians, and Arabs, not the “colonial”
    powers who, as great powers have done since ancient Sumer, attempted to
    influence events in order to advance their own interests. But that’s not “imperialism”
    properly understood.

    The most egregious example of this
    Orwellian history, however, is the predicating of Muslim violence against
    Israel on its status as a neo-imperialist Western stooge violently thrust into
    the “homeland” of the “Palestinian” people whose ancient lands were stolen by
    an “illegitimate” nation that continues brutally to “occupy” the territory
    rightfully belonging to the “Palestinians.”

    FPM In
    Content Ad

    Everything about this narrative is
    false. There is no such thing as a “Palestinian” people, an idea that arose
    only after the Six Day War of 1967. The bulk of the people mistakenly called
    “Palestinians” are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically
    indistinguishable from Arab Muslims in Lebanon, Jordan, or Syria. Numerous comments
    by Arab leaders before 1967 emphasized this fact. For example, Zouhair Muhsin,
    a member of the Executive Council of the PLO, said, “There are no differences
    between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one
    nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our
    Palestinian identity… Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity
    serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new
    tool in the continuing battle against Israel.”

    Second, the region in question was never
    an Arab homeland, and Arabs only began to inhabit it permanently after the
    Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 637. Since then Muslim Arabs have come as
    conquerors, occupiers, migrant laborers, and immigrants, but they are no more
    “indigenous” peoples than Americans are of North America. On the other hand,
    abundant literary and archaeological evidence confirms the presence of Jews in
    the area and the status of Jerusalem as a Jewish city since 1300 B.C. This fact
    explains the Orwellian rewrite of history the Palestinian Arabs are currently
    engaged in, most despicably by destroying the archeological evidence on the
    Temple Mount that confirms the Jews’ presence on that site almost 2000 years
    before Islam even existed.

    Third, the claim that Israel is an
    “illegitimate” state is false. Israel was created as part of the mandatory
    system put into place after World War I as part of the peace settlement, and
    confirmed by several international treaties, the League of Nations, and later
    U.N. Resolution 181. Except for the U.N. resolution, that same process created
    the new nations of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. If Israel is illegitimate,
    why aren’t those other nations? Could it be because for traditional Muslims, it
    is Jews who are illegitimate, not their state? Could that explain why
    over a million Arabs live in Israel, but any future Palestinian state must be Judenrein?

    Finally, the charge of an “illegal
    occupation” of the “occupied West Bank” is a canard. Those territories, comprising
    the heartland of the ancient Jewish nations of Judea and Samaria, are disputed,
    their final disposition awaiting a peace treaty. There are no “borders” thought
    to define the mythical Palestinian nation. Those lines on the map are armistice
    lines, created after Israel defeated the armies of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt in
    1967. By all rights as the victor, Israel could have incorporated the so-called
    West Bank into the state of Israel, on the same eternal wages of war that led
    to the American Southwest being incorporated into the U.S. after the 1846-48
    war with Mexico, or of Prussian Germany into Poland after World War II. Indeed,
    since the territory in question was for thousands of years the homeland of the
    Jewish people, Israel would have had a better case for restoring Judea
    and Samaria to Israel. Instead, in the Orwellian history created by Muslims and
    accepted by the West, the indigenous peoples are considered the “occupiers” of
    their own lands, and conquerors, invaders, and colonizers considered the disenfranchised
    victims.

    The recent suicide-murders of random
    Israelis by Palestinians have been analyzed in terms that perpetuate this false
    history. Our intellectually challenged Secretary of State, John Kerry, referred
    to this false history when he said at Harvard, “There’s been a massive increase
    in settlement over the course of the last years and there’s an increase in the violence
    because there’s this frustration that’s growing,” he said. “Settlements” is
    nothing more than a mindless mantra, like “cycle of violence” or “checkpoints”
    or the “sanctity of the al-Aqsa mosque,” for the pusillanimous West, while for
    Muslims they are the pretexts for practicing their traditional Jew-hatred and
    sacralized violence.

    The history this reporting on the Temple
    Mount ignores is the great forbearance, and to be sure tactical pragmatism, of
    the Israelis in leaving the Temple Mount under the management of the Arabs;
    while a mosque created as a triumphalist boast over conquered Christians and
    Jews, in a city never mentioned in the Koran, is respected more by the West
    than its own empty cathedrals. Meanwhile the travails of Muslim immigrants are
    hyped and agonized over more than the crucifixions, torture, rape, and murder
    of Christians in the greatest mass persecution of Christians in history.

    These are the wages of historical
    ignorance and the acceptance of a history made up by an adversary who can
    “thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never
    happened,” as Orwell says of the Party in 1984. Our foreign policy has
    often been predicated on these lies, and the outcome has been predictable when
    lies are the foundation of policies––the abject failure we are witnessing in
    the region today.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Speargun to the face.

  • DavidinNorthBurnaby
  • SDMatt

    Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie again!

    Bonnie Crombie, the mayor of Mississauga (Ontario), attended (March 28, 2015) as a guest of honour the Land Day commemoration event organized by the Arab Palestinian Association. In her speech, Mayor Crombie aligned herself with the organizers stressing her sympathy for the Palestinian struggle over the land and her unwavering support of the Palestinian community. Among the other speakers in the event were Rashad Saleh, the Secretary of Fatah movement in Canada, Hamed Abu Setta (حامد ابو ستة) who spoke on behalf of the Arab Palestinian Association and called Israel “a cancerous tumor.”