Israel is the only open and democratic society of the Middle East and it is their priority to get rid of it first. The claim that Osama bin Laden was "created" by the U.S. is propaganda waged by extremists. The popular claim that 9/11 was done by the Mossad also originates from that same source and directly contradicts the fact that many islamo-extremists celebrated 9/11 as a victory against the Jewish/American "oppressor". Between 1989 and 1996 Islamic-Jihad in Sudan kills 4 Million people. Bin Laden and his Muslim Brotherhood friends Al-Zahawiri and Al-Bashir masterminded the largest genocide since Hitlers bloodthirsty rampage through Europe. In 1994 yet another offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood is founded: The Taliban of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden returns from Sudan to join the Taliban. The entire "War on Terror" is actually a continuation of the War against Nazis. Nazism survived. After WWII, through Project Paperclip, many German scientists were recruited to America. But most of the military officers obtained Visas to places like Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon. This is why Nazi-literature started appearing there in the 1950s. This is why between the late 40s and 70s one war after another was waged on the Jews from Arab states. The public has been led to believe that the Mideast conflict is all about land and Palestinians wanting self-determination. But if that were true, the conflict would have ended long ago. This is a much larger conflict with much deeper agendas. Do you really believe that Jews wanting 1% of Arab land, a little strip in the Desert which was practically uninhabited before, would lead to 50 years of terror? Prior to Israel being founded, the area was ruled by the British Empire, not by "Palestinians". Before that it was ruled by the Turkish Empire, again, not by "Palestinians" Palestinians are mostly Jordanians. The Homeland of Palestinians is Jordan. 100 years ago a large number of Palestinians were actually Christian. They were driven away from the area to make place for the new agenda. The reason the "Palestinians" rejected the U.N. proposals AND the Oslo proposals which would have given them 97% of what they claimed they wanted + Jerusalem as their capital, is because they do not actually want "peace" or two nations. They want "A Palestinian Nation from Jordan to the Sea".
Those who claim only to want justice for the Palestinian Arabs either don’t know that they are historical latecomers to Israel, or do know but are simply motivated by hatred for the Jewish State. To some ears, it sounds more rational to deny Israel’s legitimacy by adopting a competing national claim, even one that is predicated on doctrinal anti-Semitism and historical revisionism. Whereas there is irrefutable archeological, ethnographic and literary proof that Jews have inhabited Israel since time immemorial, there is no similar evidence of an ancient, indigenous Palestinian people. To compensate for their lack of historicity, the Palestinian Arabs deprecate the Jewish connection to Israel with lies and distortions that are often repeated by their supporters on the left. They contend, for example, that the Jewish People originated in Europe and that the Temple never stood in Jerusalem. They claim that the Jews were complicit in the Crusades, although Jews suffered far worse than anyone else at the hands of the Crusaders. They argue that the archeological record, which is so rich in linguistic, cultural and architectural evidence of ancient Jewish life in Israel, is simply the product of Zionist propaganda. In so doing, they project their own lack of national bona fidesonto the only people with a continuous link to the land. When history fails they default to faith, attempting to lay superior religious claims that are not borne out even by their own scriptures. Despite the assertion that Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam, for example, it is not mentioned in the Quran and was considered an insignificant, provincial backwater during Ottoman times. The Jews’ ancient capital – the single holiest site in Judaism – became significant for Muslims only after the Jewish population began to grow during the early part of the last century, but this newfound importance was political, not scriptural. Islam’s modern claim to Jerusalem is a response to the success of the Jews in reclaiming sovereignty in a homeland that had been usurped through jihad and in which they were scorned by Muslims as a subjugated minority under Sharia law. An essential fact omitted from the Palestinian narrative is that the Arab population of Israel was not primarily an ancestral one, but rather was relatively insignificant and transient during the lengthy period of Ottoman rule. The Arab-Muslim population began to increase through immigration in the early 1900s in order to offset Jewish population growth. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Arab immigration continued under the watchful eyes of the British, who administered the Mandate until 1948 and who conspired to hold Jewish national aspirations in check. That much of the Arab population originated elsewhere is indicated by the definition of “refugee” employed by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), which applied the term to those Arabs who established residency within Mandate territory between June 1946 and May 1948, but who lost their homes and livelihoods when Israel was attacked by the Arab armies after declaring her independence. Unfortunately, the truth is always the first casualty in any conflict; and those who denigrate Zionism have no justification for doing so in light of the Palestinian Arabs’ lack of history as compared to the Jews’ ancient – and well-documented – connection to their homeland. This dichotomy should raise a red flag for those who argue that anti-Zionism is not a form of anti-Semitism. If Zionism is the modern political movement through which the Jews achieved national regeneration, then to be anti-Zionist is to begrudge Jews the basic right of self-determination. Could one have denied Italians the right to exercise sovereignty through the Risorgimento, or the Germans through unification, without being accused of national or ethnic bias? If not, then singling out the Jews as the only people not entitled to national integrity is indeed a form of bigotry, particularly considering that the only independent nation ever to have existed in the Land of Israel was Jewish, not Arab or Muslim. It could be argued that the Jews are unlike any other people, and this may very well be true – though not in the way Israel’s detractors might think. After the Romans conquered the Kingdom of Judea, much (though not all) of the population was dispersed into exile. But rather than assimilate and disappear, the exiled remnants of Israel maintained their religious and national identity while living among hostile societies in the Mideast, North Africa and Europe. Because the Jews persistently clung to their heritage throughout their exile, they were seen as strangers wherever they sojourned. As a consequence, they were subjected to relentless persecutions, including confinement in ghettos, systematic harassment, expulsions, pogroms, and genocide. They lived everywhere but belonged nowhere. Through Zionism, however, they sought to reassert their national sovereignty and ameliorate their condition as a wandering, vulnerable minority. Therefore, rejecting their right to national sovereignty effectively constitutes a denial of their right to be free from persecution.
The US went into Iraq both times (Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom), because Saddam, as a member of the United Nations, was in violation of his agreements with the United Nations and their security council, and had been in violation since long before 9/11, in fact, since as early as 6 August 1990, when the first of many ultimatums were issued regarding his (Iraq's) conduct as a member state of the UN (member states are not allowed to invade their neighboring UN member states and take them over, as Saddam did in Kuwait, which prompted Desert Storm). Israel is also a member state of the UN, as is the United States, and as such, they have the same interest (and right) in policing the other members as the other members have of policing them. Israel had been on the "band wagon" for over 10 years of Saddam's UN violations and promises to "behave" like a good UN member state. Normally, when UN nations states are due for inspections, they just let the inspections happen as scheduled. When it came time for Iraq, especially in light of clear UN violations in the past, Saddam denied access to certain facilities, and in other facilities, there was clear evidence that he'd "cleaned it up" before the inspection, raising suspicion that he was up to his old tricks which had got him in hot water over the previous many years (attacking Kuwait, gassing his own people, supporting terrorist organizations, etc.).
Long before 9/11 was even a twinkle in the eyes of Muslims, Saddam was violating his responsibilities with the UN (gassing his own people, attacking neighboring UN member states, etc.), and they were being patient with him, giving him "resolution" after "resolution" in the hopes he would respect the fact that Iraq, had made certain promises as a member state. But alas, he didn't, which led the UN to issue their final ultimatum, resolution 1441 in 2002 in which they clearly outline what Iraq, as a member state, must do to avoid being compelled to abide by their promises under the UN charter. The UN charter, which Saddam signed onto, allows for the UN security forces to enter a member state and police that member if it becomes evident that the need exists. (You may be familiar with the UN Security Forces or UN Peacekeepers as they are often called).
It actually all started when Saddam wanted to court the West, and asked to be admitted into the United Nations. Upon entry into that organization, along with all the perks he got for being a member, and all the protections afforded UN member states (there are many of these UN member states, Muslim and non-muslim, he also had to promise to abide by the rules of the UN charter. Killing your own people, or not allowing inspections of your weapons facilities, are a no-no. After several refusals to uphold UN rules, Saddam was given several ultimatums. These ultimatums or "resolutions" are in keeping with strict UN rules. If a UN member state is found to be in violation of the rules of the UN, which the member state agreed to upon their acceptance into the UN, then it is the job of the UN security council and its inspectors to go in and inspect by force if necessary. Of course, they asked over and over again to be allowed to enter and time and time again, those requests were denied, or there were clear signs Saddam was being deceptive.
When the UN inspectors, accompanied by the UN security forces and the Coalition Forces, went into Iraq Saddam (as he had promised he would do in a statement he made the previous week) declared war on them that day, and so, the war began. The loyalist baathist party members rallied behind Saddam and had to be neutralized. What ensued after that was a power-grab between Islamic tribes within Iraq. There is nothing new here. It is the same story that always occurs in a power vacuum in the Middle East. It happened when Saddam first came to power. Now, we have a winner: Karzai and the shi'as, and we have losers: the sunnis. Now add to that the hatred that exists between the shi'a and sunni camps, and then, add to the the hatred that exists between the baathists and other groups within Iraq, and you have a perfect storm. It is Islam which creates the problems that exist in Iraq. If there had been no divisions between sunnis and shi'as in Iraq, there would not be the daily bloodbath we see between them as they each battle the other for control of the new Iraq after Saddam. If there had been no Islam in Iraq, they would be on their way to peace and a higher standard of living than under Saddam. Instead, they are on their way to reducing Iraq to a wasteland of scorched earth and sun-dried blood.
