What is Wrong With Jews Who Repeatedly Post the Most Hateful Propaganda Towards Muslims?

[ChristineM]

1 - Most historians agree that in practice the Arabs started the 6 day war.
2 - Jordan and Egypt are as guilty of blockades as Israel.
3 - In 1988 the Hamas charter was created and in 2006 Palestinians voted Hamas into power. This seems like a declaration of war to me.

In 2005 Israel gave the Gaza strip to the Palestinians and the Palestinians did not change their charter, nor have they stopped attacking Israel.

1/ most historians agree and it is documented that Israel launched the first attack

2/ not to the extent of blocking humanitarian aid. And US arms always managed to beat the blockade

3/ Hamas have agree to accept the 2 state solution based on the lines drawn up in 1967. How is agreeing with UN guides an act of war?


So who is Palestine getting their cluster bombs from? Why should they not defend there lands?

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, it dates back hundreds of years (the Hebron massacre of 1929, Caliph Al- Hakim's expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem in the 10th century, the destruction of the Nachmanides synagogue in 1474 and the heavy taxes imposed on Jews by the mamluks in 1440, the treatment of Jews by Muslims according to Kabtanik's "Journey to Jerusalem", the expulsion from Safed in 1576, Muhammed Ibn Farkoh's behavior towards the Jews in 1625 just as a start)

As for the 6 day war, whether the closing of the Straits of Tiran was a cassus belli for a shooting war or whether it was simply one variable in moves of aggression can be debated, but the stated interest of the surrounding Arab nations was clear, "President Abdul Rahman Arif of Iraq said that "the existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is an opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948".[183] The Iraqi Prime Minister predicted that "there will be practically no Jewish survivors"."

It is strange to claim that "Palestine" has accepted a 2 state solution since 1970 since Palestine doesn't exist as a sovereign nation and the leadership of the "Palestinian" people has flatly denied the existence of any Jewish state and still champions a singular "greater Palestine" in which there is no Israel. Just look at the map on "Palestinian" insignias -- it is the entire of the state of Israel, not subdivided, presented as "palestine." No 2 states.

But this is politics and not religion.

More politics

In an enormous concession to Israel, Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution. The elected representatives of the Palestinian people in Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had since the 70s recognized the state of Israel and accepted the two-state solution to the conflict. Despite this, Western media continued through the 90s to report that the PLO rejected this solution and instead wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

The pattern has been repeated since Hamas was voted into power in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Although Hamas has for years accepted the reality of the state of Israel and demonstrated a willingness to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside Israel, it is virtually obligatory for Western mainstream media, even today, to report that Hamas rejects the two-state solution, that it instead seeks “to destroy Israel”.

In fact, in early 2004, shortly before he was assassinated by Israel, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said that Hamas could accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hamas has since repeatedly reiterated its willingness to accept a two-state solution.

In early 2005, Hamas issued a document stating its goal of seeking a Palestinian state alongside Israel and recognizing the 1967 borders.

The exiled head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mish’al, wrote in the London Guardian in January 2006 that Hamas was “ready to make a just peace”. He wrote that “We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights…. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms.”

During the campaigning for the 2006 elections, the top Hamas official in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas was ready to “accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] ’67”, a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.

The elected prime minister from Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, said in February 2006 that Hamas accepted “the establishment of a Palestinian state” within the “1967 borders”.

In April 2008, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas officials and afterward stated that Hamas “would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace”. It was Hamas’ “ultimate goal to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.”

That same month Hamas leader Meshal said, “We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.”

In 2009, Meshal said that Hamas “has accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders”.

Hamas’ shift in policy away from total rejection of the existence of the state of Israel towards acceptance of the international consensus on a two-state solution to the conflict is in no small part a reflection of the will of the Palestinian public. A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two-state solution.

Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Foreign Policy Journal

 

[rosends]

More politics

In an enormous concession to Israel, Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution. The elected representatives of the Palestinian people in Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had since the 70s recognized the state of Israel and accepted the two-state solution to the conflict. Despite this, Western media continued through the 90s to report that the PLO rejected this solution and instead wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

The pattern has been repeated since Hamas was voted into power in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Although Hamas has for years accepted the reality of the state of Israel and demonstrated a willingness to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside Israel, it is virtually obligatory for Western mainstream media, even today, to report that Hamas rejects the two-state solution, that it instead seeks “to destroy Israel”.

In fact, in early 2004, shortly before he was assassinated by Israel, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said that Hamas could accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hamas has since repeatedly reiterated its willingness to accept a two-state solution.

In early 2005, Hamas issued a document stating its goal of seeking a Palestinian state alongside Israel and recognizing the 1967 borders.

The exiled head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mish’al, wrote in the London Guardian in January 2006 that Hamas was “ready to make a just peace”. He wrote that “We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights…. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms.”

During the campaigning for the 2006 elections, the top Hamas official in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas was ready to “accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] ’67”, a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.

The elected prime minister from Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, said in February 2006 that Hamas accepted “the establishment of a Palestinian state” within the “1967 borders”.

In April 2008, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas officials and afterward stated that Hamas “would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace”. It was Hamas’ “ultimate goal to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.”

That same month Hamas leader Meshal said, “We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.”

In 2009, Meshal said that Hamas “has accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders”.

Hamas’ shift in policy away from total rejection of the existence of the state of Israel towards acceptance of the international consensus on a two-state solution to the conflict is in no small part a reflection of the will of the Palestinian public. A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two-state solution.

Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | Foreign Policy Journal

A claim that this is the western mainstream media that perpetuates this notion fails when you read Al Jazeera, unless you see a-j as western and mainstream:

Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders

"
While Hamas' 1988 founding charter called for the takeover of all of mandate Palestine, including present-day Israel, the new document says it will accept the 1967 borders as the basis for a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to their homes.

The 1967 borders refer to those that existed before the war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

But it does not go as far as to fully recognise Israel and says Hamas does not relinquish its goal of "liberating all of Palestine".

"Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland is an agreeable form that has won a consensus among all the movement members," Meshaal said.

The document also falls short of accepting the two-state solution that is assumed to be the end product of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
"

So a two state solution without recognizing the existence of Israel or changing the continued goal of removing the state of Israel eventually. Hurray moderates!

 

[ChristineM]

A claim that this is the western mainstream media that perpetuates this notion fails when you read Al Jazeera, unless you see a-j as western and mainstream:

Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders

"
While Hamas' 1988 founding charter called for the takeover of all of mandate Palestine, including present-day Israel, the new document says it will accept the 1967 borders as the basis for a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to their homes.

The 1967 borders refer to those that existed before the war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

But it does not go as far as to fully recognise Israel and says Hamas does not relinquish its goal of "liberating all of Palestine".

"Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland is an agreeable form that has won a consensus among all the movement members," Meshaal said.

The document also falls short of accepting the two-state solution that is assumed to be the end product of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
"

So a two state solution without recognizing the existence of Israel or changing the continued goal of removing the state of Israel eventually. Hurray moderates!

So capitulating to and accepting the theft of land prior to 1968 while Israel aren't satisfied.

And violence works both ways,

Thousands Of Israelis Take To The Streets Calling For Palestinian Genocide

 

[rosends]

So capitulating to and accepting the theft of land prior to 1968 while Israel aren't satisfied.

And violence works both ways,

Thousands Of Israelis Take To The Streets Calling For Palestinian Genocide

2 points:
1. What you call land theft wasn't actually so. If you want to, blame the British, blame the Ottomans, blame the UN. But it wasn't land theft.
2. Are you equating a random (and isolated) rally in support of a soldier who might or might not have committed a crime with actual violence?

 

[ChristineM]

2 points:
1. What you call land theft wasn't actually so. If you want to, blame the British, blame the Ottomans, blame the UN. But it wasn't land theft.
2. Are you equating a random (and isolated) rally in support of a soldier who might or might not have committed a crime with actual violence?

Note the dates, and it's still going on.

I am quoting valid news from the same source as you.

 

[icehorse]

A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two-state solution.

And yet the charter - updated in 2017 - still seeks "the liberation of all Palestine".

In your opinion, why didn't Jordan turn the WB into "Palestine" sometime between 1949 and 1967?

 

[ChristineM]

And yet the charter - updated in 2017 - still seeks "the liberation of all Palestine".

In your opinion, why didn't Jordan turn the WB into "Palestine" sometime between 1949 and 1967?

To the borders laid down in 1967

I have no opinion on the subject.

 

[icehorse]

To the borders laid down in 1967

I have no opinion on the subject.

Your own map! You know, the one labeled "1949-1967". Why didn't Jordan and the "Palestinians" create an official "Palestine" during the almost 20 years that they held the WB uncontested?

So are you saying that you provided evidence (your maps), but you have no opinion about them?

 

[rosends]

Note the dates, and it's still going on.

I am quoting valid news from the same source as you.

I have trouble with any ap that starts by labeling the area "Palestine" and referencing "Palestinian land." It then, without indicating cause, tries to represent a shrinking "Palestine".

If you want maps and references about the subject, try https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=77

If the right page doesn't open, scroll down to page 69 (chapter 7) and feel free to check all the footnotes.

 

[ChristineM]

Your own map! You know, the one labeled "1949-1967". Why didn't Jordan and the "Palestinians" create an official "Palestine" during the almost 20 years that they held the WB uncontested?

So are you saying that you provided evidence (your maps), but you have no opinion about them?

Perhaps you have problems reading

The map shows loss of Palestinian land to Israeli theft. Nothing moire,nothing less

 

[ChristineM]

I have trouble with any ap that starts by labeling the area "Palestine" and referencing "Palestinian land." It then, without indicating cause, tries to represent a shrinking "Palestine".

If you want maps and references about the subject, try https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=77

If the right page doesn't open, scroll down to page 69 (chapter 7) and feel free to check all the footnotes.

The Jewish library? Surely you can come up with an indipendent source?

Without cause? Tries to indicate? Ok woooooo

 

[icehorse]

Perhaps you have problems reading

The map shows loss of Palestinian land to Israeli theft. Nothing moire,nothing less

The map shows that "Palestinians" under Jordan's wing, held the WB uncontested for almost 20 years. During that period, why didn't they turn that area in to "Palestine", if - as you claim - they are willing to create a two-state solution?

 

[ChristineM]

The map shows that "Palestinians" under Jordan's wing, held the WB uncontested for almost 20 years. During that period, why didn't they turn that area in to "Palestine", if - as you claim - they are willing to create a two-state solution?

Already was Palestinian land. Hence the reason the map labels it Palestinian land

 

[icehorse]

Already was Palestinian land. Hence the reason the map labels it Palestinian land

Why didn't they make it an official state?

 

[rosends]

The Jewish library? Surely you can come up with an indipendent source?

Without cause? Tries to indicate? Ok woooooo

When you assail a source without looking at references you reveal a bias. I earlier quoted from al-jazeera and you didn't have any problem with that despite their known bias. And you also didn't address what they said. So if you wish to ignore history because it is inconvenient, feel free.
Misleading and Harmful: the "Palestinian Loss of Land" Maps

 

[rosends]

Already was Palestinian land. Hence the reason the map labels it Palestinian land

Actually, it was labeled "Palestinian" to create facts on the ground. If you want some history of the term "Palestinian" you can start by reading the newspaper, the Palestine Post http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/Palestine-Post.aspx or checking out the Palestinian soccer team from 1939 and 1947.
Maybe you should look at the postage stamps and coins (https://www.bonanza.com/listings/Pa...&ad_type=pla&gclid=CNGr9KrBldQCFVyBswod36IGEA if you need help figuring out what it says in parentheses on the 3rd line of the coin and the bottom left of the stamp, let me know).

So "Palestinian land"? Not so much.

 

[wizanda]

Rather than making sides, why not recognize the innocent people getting killed in the process of trying to defend against all this hate mongering:

‘Final act of bravery’: Men who were fatally stabbed trying to stop anti-Muslim rants identified

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

Lets not have WW3 by insighting more hate.

People wanting to create hate towards an individual or group, rather than to understand their actions, and reasoning behind it, are missing the bigger picture in someway.

I want to ask a very logic based question here. Not that my question and the answers from the enlightened members of this forum will be seen and debated by the leaders of this earth's nations and the United Nations Security Council for their future steps to prevent the outcome of a nuclear world war or more closely and practically foreseen, a nuclear conflict between two such nations already at loggerheads in military engagement for quite some time. For example India against Pakistan; North Korea against South Korea and Israel against Palestine.

My first and third instances include belligerents that are both armed to the teeth with a lethal nuclear arsenal that once employed by either one will certainly annihilate the receiving country but itself because the other will retaliate seconds later.

The resultant nuclear fallout will not be that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never affecting London and Washington. These are far more devastating creations of modern science. The fallout will slowly but surely engulf the earth totally and leave nothing to live and be sustained by mother nature.

So what measures shall the high and mighty Donald J Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and the stalwarts of Europe and the UN Security Council take to forestall this calamity that has started to stare at all of our eyes?

 

[wizanda]

I want to ask a very logic based question here.

We're dealing with an illogical world, personally don't expect much other than destruction, with many thinking they're fulfilling prophecy to get something, when really many will get nothing.

Watch Videos Online | The Doomsday Code | Veoh.com

The documentary 'The Doomsday Code' by Tony Robinson, explains how politicians, and people we put in charge to use logic, are just following what their Bible believing constituency has planned.