Israel is a terrorist state, and those who support…

Israel is a terrorist state, and those who support it are terrorists too.

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Israel is a terrorist state, and those who support…

  1. There were Zionist terror gangs in 1945, but as soon as the Israeli state was established, Ben Gurion closed them down. There is room for only one force in a state, and that is the official one. ____Although there is no agreed definition of “terrorist”, it surely does not include regular uniformed troops. So, no, I don’t think Israel is a “terrorist state”. And I do support Israel against the vicious anti-semitism of the extreme Islamists and some extreme Christians. I think the Jews have as much right to have their own country as the Irish, or the Poles, or the Kurds, or the Armenians. And I can’t see where else in the world it could be. And I think they have a reasonable right to not have rockets fired at them all the time.

  2. Its amazing how you guys blame Israel for all the problems in the middle east. Who started the war? who kidnapped and killed the soldiers?
    Hmm .. grow up .. Your religion has 1.2 billion population .. what have you contributed to the world and how many nobel prizes have you won .. Israel with just 5 millions population has more than a 100..

  3. I think Zionism as the notion of Heaven in Christianity is a metaphysical one (not every Christian believes in heaven as if it is the after life’s club med). In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Martin Buber, one of the Jewish philosophers associated with zionism thought of zionism as a state of being, a way of thinking, rather than an actual, claimed geographical space. To think that, before ‘claiming’ Palestine to be the repatriated place of choice, the European Jews even considered Ethiopia. Just think how the world’s history could have been so different if that would have happened. At that time, I don’t think they knew of any oil in africa..
    Ingrid

  4. In all fairness, please also link to photos of innocent civilians that Hezbollah & Hamas have killed in Israel. Also, how about an article on the suicide bombings of civilian busses and restaurants in Israel (Peace be upon her). How biased & blind the Muslim world is to the deeds of her own. Of course, any pro-Israel sites are “fobidden” by the ISP in the KSA. When one hears just one side all of thier lives, it is no wonder they would villify Israel.

  5. without referring to arab and muslim weaknesses. you zionist will never understand:
    ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST!

  6. Anyone who condemns Israel’s attacks is instantly labelled as antisemitic. Now, if Israel stands for democracy and social “good” how can it mimic methods of terrorists organisations? Terrorism: “the use of violence, in a sistematic and indiscriminate way in a social or political fight”. I’d say Israel’s actions do indeed fit that definition.

    • Dear Nuri
      did you read the history of the problem with israel and the arabs country? if yes, please answer me to one quastion before we continue talking about other things.
      in 1948 israel and palestin was created by UNited nation, it was a small place for isreal and a big place for the palestin pepole, in this moment there was no ocupid teritory , no GAZA camp, no refugis, and the borders were better than what the palestinien want today (border of 1967)and BEN GURION in his TV presentation give his hand for living in peace with the arabs countrie. WHY IN THIN DAY 6 ARABS COUNTRIES ATTACKED (FIERST WAR 1948) ISRAEL? could you answer me to this quastion? best regards

  7. Thanks for saying what almost the entire world is thinking. Keep in mind it is American bombs, with American support that made this happen.

    Business as usual.

  8. O.K…killing innocent people and sleeping children in Qana not consider as terrorism!!!

    can you define”terrorism” for me???

    cause I think your government washed your brain…and you are not able to use it anymore

  9. Anonymous | 31/7/06 06:02

    I second your opinion on this. As long as generations are being taught to use violence to resolve differences and conflicts, you will not be able to focus your energy to better the livelihood of the people. The ‘West’ is always blamed for every ill of your societies. There is no justification for the Israelis excessive collective punishment over the Lebanese people. At the same time, it was the Hezbollah who provoked and escalated this latest confrontation.

  10. “can you define”terrorism” for me?”___Attacks directly aimed at civilians, carried out by non-government forces, and aimed at demoralising one sector of a population.___Deaths of civilians as a byproduct of bombing raids on military installations or strategic targets (such as rocket sites, docks, railways) are not terrorism. DEaths caused by battles or operations of organised, stste-controlled forces are not terrorism. The IRA campaigns in Britain are a good example of terrorism.

  11. When terrorism is carried out by a state then it’s a terrorist state. Hitting hospitals and buses of fleeing refugees is terrorism, not a byproduct of war.

  12. Terrorism by definition – The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

  13. Hitting hospitals and buses of fleeing refugees is terrorism, not a byproduct of war.

    **It’s called civilian casualties of the war. It’s carried out by the military regardless of its intended targets. War is about death and destruction, not martyrdom. There are no winners in each and every war.

  14. Don Cox, are you reshaping the definition of terrorism?
    From Britannica:
    Terrorism: “the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective”

  15. If 3/4 of the world jumped off a bridge, would you?

    I don’t judge actions based on Mob Morality. Israel targets military targets, and in the proccess kills civilians. Hezbolah and Hamas target civilians, or they fire rockets randomly. No matter how you look at it, Israeli actions have a clear and attainable military goal in mind, giving their actions legitemacy, while their opponents kill only for the sake of killing. If you’re too blind to see the difference, perhaps you should pick up a rifle and join the other side. One more target in my sights wont make much of a difference, but one less immoral asshole on this planet would deffinitely be a good thing.

  16. Israel targets military targets, and in the proccess kills civilians.

    Military targets? What military targets? If hospitals and children’s shelters are military targets then you are the one who is too blind to see.

    • Dear ahmed
      IF the israely army attack an arab target it was allways a response on rocket or a human bomb inside israel, can you give me only one example where the israely army attacked before rockets or bombs killed civil pepole in israel?
      thanks

  17. you zionist will never understand:
    ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST!

    … (sigh)

    It’s not so simple as you make it out to be.

    After all, pray tell, by what logic does “Palestine” have a right to exist?

    Or Australia, for that matter?

    What gives the “right” for any political entity to exist?

    ———–

    Anyway… I come not to condemn terrorism, but to defend it.

    One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter” after all, right?

    But in order for terrorism to be legitimate, it cannot simply be violence for the sake of violence – it must only be an interim tactic. It must have a substantive, achievable goal.

    This was true of the Algerian terrorists, and it was equally true of the Israeli terrorists like the Stern gang. Both groups used terrorism as an interim tactic exclusively designed to bring about a political objective, namely, the civic freedom of their respective communities. They were using terrorism not as an end in itself, but as a mere makeshift device, so that once their political objectives had been achieved, those who had used terrorism stopped using it.

    You are free to deplore such use of terror; and yet, if you go back to the founding of any lasting state, you will discover lawless violence and illegitimate uses of force – in short, terror. I will go so far as to accept the idea that such terror could be dialectically justified by the results achieved through it.

    However, let us be clear – there is a sharp distinction between terror as a means to an end, and terror as an end in itself. The crisis facing Pelstine is the failure to understand the chasm that separates the instrumental terrorism employed by the Algerians and Israelis to found nation states of their own from the ritual terrorism of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc – a terrorism designed not to create but to destroy. The primary goal of such terrorism is not a Palestinian state – such is merely a by-product, a bonus. The goal of Palestinian terrorism is to perpetuate a fantasy agenda whose ultimate end is the liquidation of the state of Israel.

    The failure to distinguish between these two types of terrorism is not due to a liberal bias or to a conservative one, or even a pro-Israeli or a pro-Palestinian one. Everyone from Noam Chomsky to George W. Bush tacitly assumes that Palestinian terrorists should be treated differently than Al Qaeda terrorists. From the left, it is due to a a mistaken sympathy for the Palestinian terrorists out of a belief that they are like the Algerian freedom fighters. Many on the right feel that political realism forces them to distinguish between these two forms of terrorism.

    It ties into our unwillingness to accept that there are two types of violence – that all violence, regardless of intent, is deplorable. Thus phrases like “cycle of violence” – phrases which serve only to pass the buck, to make it easy not to take sides.

    This is similar to the policy on violence in American public schools. If two boys are found fighting, both are punished equally, and no attention is paid to the question, “Who started it?” All violence is equivalent. The violence of the bully, and the violence of the boy who is determined to put the bully in his place, are one and the same. The heroic kid, who is prepared to stand up to the bully, is not honored, but sent to detention or expelled.

    Psychologically, it is understandable why so many Westerners feel this way about the Middle East. It just looks like kids fighting to them, and no one can make head nor tail of who is at fault. Those, for example, who have gone back to the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict inevitably discover that their sincere efforts to solve the question, “Who started it?” are baffled by the bloody and violent historical track record of both Israelis and Palestinians.

    But, in fact, it is not necessary for us to try to determine the question of who started it. Because even when we cannot be clear, when good-minded people cannot come to agreement about who started it, we can be absolutely certain about who is not trying to stop it.

    Simply put, the very existence of Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah depends on maintaining a condition of anarchy and disorder. Any stable and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would, in and of itself, rob their leaders and their followers of their power and importance. Thus, they have a vested interest in keeping uproar and violence alive. This is why despite Palestinian national elections and concessions made by the Israelis, they have deliberately disrupted attempts at a peaceful solutions for decades.

    Yet despite this painfully obvious fact, the apologists of Palestinian terror argue that, unlike the Israelis who have tanks and airplanes, the Palestinian militants lack the means to express their political aspiration, except through acts of terrorism.

    But couldn’t Timothy McVeigh have said the same thing? “Yes,” he might have said, “I would have declared war on the Federal government if I had been equipped with my own military force, but, lacking that, I did the best I could: I blew up lots of perfectly innocent people.”

    The argument does not work, of course – in McVeigh’s case we do not accept the legitimacy of his aspirations: we do not see the point of his act of terror, nor do we see any link between the point he was trying to make and the means he elected to make it with.

    This, however, is not the way that most of the world views Palestinians acts of terror. These atrocities are looked upon as the expression – perhaps immature or misguided – of what is called “the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

    But really, what are the “legitimate aspirations” we speak of?

    It’s short hand – it says that while, of course, we can’t approve of all the aspirations of all the Palestinian people, such as the liquidation of the state of Israeli, we can approve of their legitimate aspirations, such as the desire to have a state of their own. We can find, with them, a middle ground of sorts.

    But this is like telling a young man who has his heart set on marrying your daughter that you approve fully of his desire to find himself a bride, but that you have no intention of offering him your daughter’s hand in marriage. You are not recognizing his actual aspirations; you are trying to get him to aspire to something quite different – something that you are prepared to regard as his legitimate aspiration. When apologists for Palestinian terror use this cant phrase what they really mean is this: If the Palestinians were interested in establishing a state next to Israel that did not continue using terrorism against Israel in the hope of driving it into the sea, then this would be fine with them.

    But it is absurd to suggest that a people who have passionately dedicated themselves to an unacceptable goal, such as the destruction of the Jewish state, are really expressing a reasonable goal cunningly hidden from view within the unacceptable goal.

    And it is this that deceives many well-meaning people into believing that such terror has a realistic and acceptable goal, namely, for the Palestinian people to have a state of their own. When, in fact, that is not the aspiration of the militants and terrorists – their aspiration is the liquidation of Israel.

    Here, as so often, sympathetic Americans and Europeans see the plight of the Palestinian people and think to themselves, “What would be my aspirations if I were in such a situation?” And from this premise, they conclude that the Palestinians would aspire to the same kind of thing that we would aspire to under the same circumstances: to create our own state, to operate it independently, and to live in peace alongside Israel. But this is a classical example of the sympathetic illusion that prevails in so much Western thinking.

    Ans so we replace the Palestinian fantasy aspirations of total victory over Israel with our own modest “Live and let live” attitude, thereby creating the mirage of a legitimate goal to which our imaginary Palestinians would be aspiring if they were just like us.

    This mirage is essential to all apologetics for Palestinian terrorism. It is only thus that an organization like Hamas is seen as seeking a legitimate objective – the creation of an independent Palestinian state – but is simply going about it the wrong way. So get them to stop using terror, engage them in the peace process, and that way, the state of Israel will find peace and the “legitimate aspirations” of the Palestinians would be accommodated.

    But it’s a mirage.

    And the mirage is supported by an underlying theme: that underneath it all, the Palestinians militants – though we deplore their methods – are in the right. That Israel does not, in fact, have a “right to exist”
    – that the Palestinian struggle against “the Zionist occupation” is no different from the struggle of any other indigenous people to liberate themselves from colonial oppression.

    The spell that this model casts over minds in the West, including minds that should know better, can hardly be overemphasized.

    The Palestinian use of terror is legitimate because of the noble ends that it serves. Palestinian terror is nothing more than the egg breaking that is necessary in order to rid the Palestinian people from the yoke of European subjugation, with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state playing the role of the omelet. The Palestinian struggle is the last great battle for independence from European colonialism. It is, in effect, simply an updated version of the Algerian struggle for national independence half a century earlier.

    The Algerian revolutionaries used terror; the Palestinians use terror. Both forms of terror, it is claimed, aim at the same end — liberation from colonial oppression. Therefore, if the Algerians were justified in breaking eggs because of the omelet that resulted, why shouldn’t the same culinary logic apply to the Palestinians?

    Well… let’s examine the original proto-type:

    Algerian terrorism was developed out of the concrete historical circumstances of the Algerian independence movement, concerning which three factors stand out as having a critical bearing on the analogy between Algerian and Palestinian terrorism.

    First, there was never any doubt what the Algerian terrorists wanted. From the initial use of terror, it was clear that the desired political objective was the severing of all ties to France, and the establishment of complete independence.

    Second, independence was a demand that – however painful its satisfaction may have been to many Frenchmen – was still a demand that the French could afford to pay. It required no drastic alteration in the life of the average Frenchmen, provided he lived in France and not Algeria. The French, in short, only needed to give up Algeria; they did not need to give up France.

    Third, all parties knew that once France had acceded to the demands of the Arab nationalists, that the terror would stop. The French knew this because the nationalists, though still not representing a sovereign nation, acted as if they were already one. Though there were quarrels among them, these never rose to a point where the French government had to wonder, who really represents the nationalists? They were assured that once the nationalists had obtained what they demanded, no splinter group will come along to make a new set of demands.

    Besides, what would be the point of these new demands if the French pulled out of Algeria?

    Terror, in this case, was a form of war used to obtain realistic political ends. Indeed, the only difference between classical Clausewitzian war – that is, war between independent nation states – and the Algerian war of independence, was terminology. Algeria was still recognized by most of the world as a colony. But in the same way that certain modern states are merely honorific states, and not states in substance, Algeria might have been called a merely honorific colony, since it proved it was not a colony by fighting a war the same way that any genuine nation fights a war. It behaved like a state first, and got recognition as a state second.

    In this sense, Algeria was the mirror image of those failed states that are called “states” simply because their existence has been formally recognized by the United Nations. In this case, what was called a colony was in fact already a real state – and it proved this by acting enough like a real nation state to make demands on France, and to force France to yield to these demands.

    Algerian terrorism, whatever else you may say about it, was the breaking of eggs for the purpose of making an omelet, not merely for the joy of breaking eggs. But this kind of terrorism was only available as an instrument of policy because it was terrorism that had a realistic chance of working to achieve its goal.

    Terror can be realistically effective – like I said, I come to defend ti – but only under certain precisely defined circumstances. First, there had to be a colony that wished to gain its political independence. Second, within this colony there had to be a state apparatus in the form of a nationalist leadership that was capable of acting coherently and for a collective purpose. Third, there had to be a point where the colonizing country would call it quits rather than continue to pay an increasingly costly price for maintaining the colonial status of the native population.

    And thus the day came when the French declared: “Enough’s enough – let them have their independence.”

    But how is any of that relevant to the Palestinian conflict?

    Simply put, it’s not.

    If the three conditions enumerated above do not hold, terrorism becomes utterly pointless, and ceases to have even a quasi-Clausewitzian purpose. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Palestinian use of terror against Israel.

    Joseph la Farina, a 19th Century Italian Nationalist once wrote, “In politics the impossible is the immoral.”

    Palestinian suicide-bombers, and the chickenhawks who send them to their deaths, are in pursuit of a fantasy – the fantasy of Israel abandoning Israel. It is not their use of terrorism that condemns them, but their utter lack of realism.

    The rhetoric of the anti-Israeli left is deliberately customized in order to conflate and confuse. It argues that Israel is to Palestine what France was to Algeria — simply a colonial power occupying territory that does not really belong to it. Israel, on this reading, is transformed from being an independent nation state into being merely a colony of America, or perhaps of the West in general, in which case the model of the Algerian revolution may be piously invoked, as a way of justifying the terror of the Palestinian suicide-bombers. See, the apologists for Palestinian terror exclaim, we are just doing what the Algerians did to gain their independence. If they are justified in what they did, then we are justifying in what we are doing.

    This analogy is based on the curious notion that Zionism was a form of colonialism, as if somewhere outside Israel there was a mother country controlled by Zionists — a contention that can only be made plausible if you accept the argument that America is itself the Zionist mother country. Yet even if you are willing to swallow this absurd premise, the analogy still doesn’t hold water — and a glance back at the Algerian revolution will show us why.

    When it became clear that France was going to pull out of Algeria, the pied noirs, or those Europeans who had made Algeria their home generations before, decided that they were not going to budge, whereupon they themselves began to employ the exact same terror strategy against Metropolitan France that had proven so successful a technique in the hands of the Arab nationalists. The OAS was formed, and the attacks that they carried out were just as ruthless, and often more deadly, than the attacks that had been undertaken by the Algerian revolutionaries – and all of them designed to force France into reversing its policy of de-colonizing Algeria.

    Thus, if the Palestinians wish to evoke the Algerian model of terrorism to justify their own use of terror, they must begin by recognizing that in that analogy the current population of Israel does not represent the supposed American colonial power, but are instead analogous to the pied noirs who refused to leave the land that they themselves regard as their true homeland.

    It does not matter if you believe that they came from elsewhere and have no “right” to the land – a misconception, as some 85% of the Jews in Israel at it’s founding had lived in the area for many, many generations, and were not part of some mass exodus from Europe post-WWII as many think.

    But that’s irrelevant, as it is not necessary to believe that the Israelis are “right” to have such feelings of visceral attachment to Israel – indeed, you can believe their attachment to the land is legitimate or not as you wish; what you cannot deny, though, is that this psychological attachment exists – and, more importantly, you must recognize the intensity of this attachment and what the people of Israel are willing to do in order to defend what they regard as their homeland – for to them, Israel is most decidedly not a colonial outpost of the American Imperium.

    But the nation-state of Algeria eventually put down the pied noirs, right?

    Well, yeah. But this is a little different. For two reasons:

    First, because the Israelis are roughly equal in number to the Palestinians, unlike the pied noirs, who were vastly outnumbered by the Muslim population, at a ratio of about 10 to 1.

    Second, because, unlike the pied noirs, the Israelis have an army, an air force, and a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, with a delivery capacity sufficient to devastate every major city in the Arab world.

    Far from being a vastly outnumbered minority without any means to defend themselves except by copying the terrorism of the Algerian revolutionaries, as the pied noirs were eventually driven to do, the state of Israel possesses the retaliatory capacities that only a handful of states in the history of the world have possessed; they are, militarily, one of the most powerful nations on Earth. It is a joke to suggest they even need America to back them up.

    Hence the manifest – and dangerous – folly of pretending that Israel is a colony of America or of the West. After all, if the possession of an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons does not make you a sovereign state, it is difficult to say what would.

    Hate the Israelis as much as you wish; you must still take a realistic measure of their awesome capacity to inflict damage on anyone who assumes that they could be removed from their land. This single fact renders the Palestinian use of the Algerian model utterly ridiculous.

    Metropolitan France had a breaking point, and the Algerians revolutionaries were able to push them to this point. But the Israelis cannot afford to have a breaking point; and if they did, the achievement of this breaking point by the Palestinians would not result in the evacuation of Israel, but in the destruction of the Palestinians themselves, and perhaps millions in the Arab world as well.

    In short, the pied noirs could not survive where they were by brute force, whereas the Israelis can. And this one indisputable fact is sufficient to topple the Algerian model completely. Hence, those Palestinians who believe that they can secure their goal of driving Israel into the sea are operating on the same level of fantasy thinking that was displayed by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Any who think otherwise are simply being naïve.

    ———–

    Those who have genuine sympathy with the Palestinian people must stop extending sympathy for those who continue to pursue a totally unrealistic fantasy. Those who continue to apologize for or palliate Palestinian terror are betraying the very people that they are claiming to support.

    It is you who encourage their children to explode bombs against their chests. It is you who have turned this death in the name of “desperation” into a ritual deserving of respect, as the Jewish Kaddish or the Catholic Mass for the Dead.

    Other people have despaired, and not one is recorded which decided to express its despair in this particular way: the Armenians persecuted by the Turks, the Jews persecuted by the Cossacks and the Nazis, the Irish persecuted by the English, and down the list, and on, and on, and not a one of them ever thought about immolating their own offspring on such a senseless and bitter pyre.

    But go on with your defenses of Hamas, of Hezbollah. “Israel has no right to exist!” – yes, yes, shout it often, shout it loud. And someday, you will look behind you, and see that your shouts were but the forward to a book of lamentations written in the mangled corpses of Palestine’s children.

  18. I think that what this person is really saying is that the will of the stronger will prevail and that the Palestinians had better accept that fact, lest they be faced with the “mangled corpses” of their own children. It’s quite simple, this argument–that Palestinian resistance to a fair settlement is pointless because some other group has decided they want the land for themselves and are unwilling to grant the same right to exist as they claim for themselves.

    The solution, if you want to talk about what is truly moral, is to give up on the idea of lands belonging to peoples, as if two groups have never co-existed in the same political body before. People in countless other states have learned that, regardless of an ideological movement based on an imagined tribal identity, universal conceptions of morality never approve of purging the majority (or the minority for that matter) from the lands they have inhabited. Take the United States, for example, in which it is unthinkable that either Jews or Arabs could claim the exclusive rights over Brooklyn. Identity is not everything–we have nearly as many Jews here as they have in Israel, proving that Jews can survive without destroying some other community and denying them their home.

  19. Israel is a terrorist state and should be declared as one if not only the Palestinians but the world at large has to live at peace. Look at the catastrophe and chaos they have created backed by their USA masters in Afghanistan, Iraq & erstwhile parts of the USSR. And now the genocide & mass murder of innocent civilians including children in Gaza.

    Lets support the call of Mairead McGuire of Ireland, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 and who has recently talked about the need to mobilise international opinion to demand that the U.N. revoke Israel’s membership over its war crimes. Israel has the dubious distinction of having ignored the largest number of U.N. resolutions.

    Israel carries on its mass attrocities while the world watches. The double standards adopted by the West with false cries of ‘Human Rights’ elsewhere stands exposed.

  20. Israel should be destroyed. Acts of terrorism it has committed. It is a fiscal burden to the United States and a burden to the Middle East. No, I am not Muslim. And you wonder why there is only roughly 5-10 million jews in the world? Because your rabbis don’t convert anyone or rarely do, because gentiles do not deserve to become Jews. What a laugh. If you want to lead to the extinction of your “chosen” people, do not convert anyone as you have been doing. All the jews will be gone in at most 500 years. This is objective, not racist. Get over yourselves.

  21. Israel kom med många brott och terror genom UKs hjälp och stöd 1931-1948..

    Israel 1948-2009, är ett (land) av brott, krig, krigsbrott, ockupation och terror med västvärlden politik häjp och stöd…Stöd och hjälp till Israels alla brott, Israels kärnvapen och förbjudna vapen och till Israels politik i FN…

    Men arabvärlden är ansvarig och den var dålig och feg och svag…Idag vill arabvärlden kräva alla ersättningar från USA, UK och Israel…

    Israel och USA med UK måste stoppas straffas och ersätta alla brott mot Arabvärlden…

  22. Who cares, Israel is a rouge nation of war mongers, I hope Iran accrues it’s nukes and yes goes to War with Israel and in the end I hope they wept Israel off the face of the earth.

    Israel is nothing but a welfare, terrorist state, selling arms to everyone willing to buy them, Iran will soon have the nukes and will keep those blood suckers in deep check and why not.

  23. I am a Muslim but that doesn’t automatically make me anti-Israeli. But I AM anti-Israel and anti-Zionist–not anti-Semitic (I have Jewish companions).
    Any REAL Jew or Christian will tell you that in the Bible and Torah, the Jews are exiled from all lands and cannot created a kingdom “as declared by the Lord.” Zionism was created by a non-practicing Jew. This will open up the eyes of a lot of people.
    Israel is a terrorist state. Palestinian civilians die every day and Hezbollah and Hamas are there to help them. Hezbollah does a better job though at it. I don’t really support the tactics of them but they are really Palestine’s only hope. It’s Hezbollah and Hamas, civil rights groups, humanitarian groups, Iran, and private donors vs. Israel, the US, and most of the UN. Oh and the former uses stones and rocket missiles as weapons and the latter has nuclear energy, tanks, guns, a military, rocket missiles, airplanes, raid jets, a government to man everything, and the UNITED STATES!
    That’s why so many people are Zionists–because the US is on the side of Israel. Why is the US on the side of Israel? Because all the men in the government are Zionists. Every single one of them.
    Palestinians lost their land to some Zions who ATTACKED BRITISH TROOPS AND PALESTINIANS back in 1917 to 1947!!!
    HORRIBLE THINGS THAT ISRAEL DOES TO PALESTINE:
    Israel prevents aid to go to Palestine. Palestinians suffer apartheid. Palestinians can’t get basic human rights. Palestinians did not get electricity, clean water, or shelter for years on end. Palestinians are jailed A LOT! Palestinian children in jail face SEXUAL ABUSE!!! Palestinians can’t drive without special passports. A Palestinian cannot vote in an Israeli election. Palestinians are losing land to Zionist settlers who only care about land rather than people.
    Israel is a terrorist state.

    TERRORISM IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISLAM, JUDAISM, OR CHRISTIANITY BUT NON-RELIGIOUS NATIONS LIKE ISRAEL (WITH A SECULAR GOVERNMENT) AND THE US (WITH THE “SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE,” WESTERNIZATION, AND LIBERAL IDEAS) AND ISLAMIST ORGANIZATIONS LIKE AL QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN ARE USING RELIGION TO JUSTIFY VIOLENCE. THIS IS WRONG!!!

    I have a friend who lived in Palestine. He got killed recently in Palestine to Israel soldiers because he “disrespected the authority of Israeli soldiers after the soldiers attacked and killed his wife”. How do you think I or his children feel, Israel? Is this right?

    May Allah [SWT] bring peace to us all.

Comments are closed.