Muslim, Zionist and proud

reply to post by samsamm9


And these fools are the loosing side of history.

This is just more of the same, history re-writting and clamoring at straws that people do when they know the other side is right.

There's a wonderful meme that exists which reads:

"Oh loosing a debate? Just cry anti-semitism then. That always works."

They seem to use that one quite a bit.

~Tenth

_____________________

The import of Russians into Palestine was/is a crime.


_____________________

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


The Hebrew Israelites conquered the Canaanites and occupied the 'Land of Milk and Honey' after their exodus from Egypt. After a few exiles, some captivities, and a holocaust, the Jews come back after WWII to reconquer the 'Promised Land'.

Do you think these Canaanites, Philistines, Hittites, Girgash.ites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Phoenicians are the forefathers of the Palestinian people?

If yes:

1. The land belonged to "Palestinians" before the Hebrew people even envisioned a homeland.

2. The Hebrew people committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Biblical times and then modernly since the end of WWII.

reply to post by Bosniaque


thats not my point my point is youre acting like ww2 was some big plan to create a jewish state.........

LIke its some huge conspiracy for them to take over the world and to take palestenian land......

Atleast to me thats what it looks like......


Ive never heard of a Zionist Muslim.........can you explain this?

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

The Hebrew Israelites conquered the Canaanites and occupied the 'Land of Milk and Honey' after their exodus from Egypt. After a few exiles, some captivities, and a holocaust, the Jews come back after WWII to reconquer the 'Promised Land'.

Do you think these Canaanites, Philistines, Hittites, Girgash.ites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Phoenicians are the forefathers of the Palestinian people?

If yes:

1. The land belonged to "Palestinians" before the Hebrew people even envisioned a homeland.

2. The Hebrew people committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Biblical times and then modernly since the end of WWII.

edit on 4/25/12 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

There were no "palestenians"

The Romans named the state Palestine, they did this in retrebution to Israel , naming it after the continuing fued the Jews had with the Philistines.......

All this is common history........I dunno how this is so distorted for some people or WHY they chose to ignore it

Its not like the jews LEFT .....

They WERE "Palestinians"...thes "zionist" were the original people there in Palestine, after they lost the fight to the Romans.......they only returned to the NAME of ISRAEL after it was designated that name AGAIN after WW2......

You guys claim this genocide and all this rubbish.......its simply not true.......im not saying they werent treated badly by any means........or that it wasnt horrible how mass the displacement was......, not by a long shot...

you guys also claim that they just want their land "Back"

Israel has offered up to 90% of that land back, and they were turned DOWN........

This isnt about anything other then Hamas led palestine wanting the complete eradication of the Jewish state and people....

if that WASNT the case they would have taken the multiple peace offerings extended to them......

PR STRATEGY 06: Myth of the Generous Offer

Narrator: 1991 marked the beginning of a series of Peace Efforts. Of the most recent and well known, were the negotiations that took place in the summer of 2000 at Camp David, with then-President Bill Clinton, PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.The aftermath of their breakdown is perhaps the clearest example of the Israeli PR Machine at work.

Alisa Solomon: There are two pieces of this narrative that the Israeli Propaganda Machine has been very effective in convincing everybody of. The first is that what happened at Camp David was that Barak made the most generous offer that any Israeli ever had or would make, Arafat answered with violence.

Cutaway/news montage: The charismatic crusader for a Palestinian homeland has rejected what many thought was the best peace deal he could get, and he's failed to stop the terror...In fact, two years ago, Ehud Barak did lay it all out on the table. A Palestinian homeland, giving back over 90% of Jewish settlements, even a plan, which divided Jerusalem.

Rabbi Michael Lerner: What was being offered to the Palestinians was an impossible deal that no Palestinian leader could have possible accepted.

Hussein Ibish: They proposed creating a Palestinian State in most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but this state was not going to have control over its borders, it was not going to have control over its air space, it was not going to have control of the only resource, natural resource, in that area, which were the major aquifers, and it was going to be bifurcated and criss-crossed by Israeli settlements and Israeli roads. So it was going to be broken up into at least four or five different pieces. It was a nominal Palestinian state within, effectively, a greater Israel.

Sam Husseini: It's as if the Palestinians have been put in the basement of their house and they might be allowed most of the rooms, but Israel gets to control all of the hallways and some of the rooms. So you wanna go from your living room to your bedroom? Then you've got to go through Israeli checkpoints. You know from your kitchen to your bathroom you've gotta go through an Israeli checkpoint. Well do you really control your house under that set of circumstances?

Rabbi Michael Lerner: It did not offer Palestinians unimpeded access to their holy sights, and it did not offer Palestinians any solution to the three million Palestinian refugees who live in these refugee camps under horrendous conditions.

Toufic Haddad: The occupation was not being dismembered, it was being made more efficient. It was being consolidated. Where Israel would maintain its strategic interests, whether it would be hilltops or water, whether it would be different agricultural things that they had interests in, and the Palestinians would have what was left, basically. And if they wanted to call it a state, they could call it a state. If they wanted to print postage stamps, they could print postage stamps. If they wanted to have a national anthem, feel free.

Prof. Robert Jensen: The second myth that the Israeli PR machine was able to spin was that Arafat, having rejected the deal of a lifetime, then incited the Intifada out of spite.

Cutaway/News Montage: The failure of these negotiations which the United States supported, in which the Israelis made serious offers, that the Palestinian leadership decided on a strategy of street fighting as a response.

Seth Ackerman: When this latest round of violence broke out, if you look at the editorials that ran in the big, American newspapers, they overwhelmingly said that the cause of the violence was Arafat's rejection of the Camp David accord, and they blamed the Palestinians, and they sided with Israel.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman: This intifada had very little to do with Camp David. Because, on the ground, parallel to what the leaders were talking about who had become so many talking heads, as far as the average Palestinian was concerned. You had ongoing land expropriation. Tree uprooting. Road building. Settlements were being expanded at a quicker pace under Barak than they had been under Natanyahu. Unfair water allocation!
Which many Palestinians in the summer and fall had approximately two hours of running water a week! When next-door, you could have a settlement with green lawns, and a swimming pool. So what are people supposed to think? Rightly or wrongly, to this set of people, this is not a "peace process." And even if it is, by the time it is concluded, everything is going to be gone, is gonna be expropriated. So what's in it for me?

www.mediaed.org/assets/products/117/transcript_117.pdf

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Hello ManBehindTheMask. Good morning friend.

It is true that there was not a centralized, autonomously consolidated, or unified 'Palestinian' state. However, the Canaanites, Philistines, Hittites, Girgash.ites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites lived in the 'Promosed Land' before Moses or Joshua was even born, before any Israelite even knew that there was a 'Land of Milk and Honey.'

Because the above mentioned tribes never unified under a single state, is this justification for the Egyptian Hebrews to conquer the land and utterly smite the inhabitants thereof perpetually?

There was no 'Palestine,' but there were Canaanites, Philistines, Hittites, Girgash.ites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites living on the land that is now called Israel/Palestine. These tribes (in addition to other Arab and Mediterranean peoples) went on to lay the genetic foundations for the modern, non-Israelite Palestinians.

We conclude that the Hebrew Israelites, under the command of patriarch Joshua, launched a campaign of God-sanctioned genocide against all the native inhabitants of the 'Promised Land.' This is how the Jews took hold of the land in the first place. And this is how the Jews have taken back the land again.


P.S.
I know this is a touchy subject, but I hold no allegiance or sway to any group of people, for truly all humans are one family of mankind. I don't see 'this people' fighting 'that people.' Right or wrong, I see one brother fighting another brother.

Let us discuss this topic as respectfully as we can, in order to get closer to a shared understanding. Let us not make such discussions points of contention between us.

Peace.