Israeli Terrorism

by Ariel Mon Oct 25, 2004 21:00

it is not empty phrase, thats how it is, they do have right to protect themselves.

Lets look at history of Israel:

Fulfillment of the 1947 UN Partition Plan would have divided the mandated territory into two states, Jewish and Arab, giving about half the land area to each state. This plan was rejected by Arab leaders. Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the United Nations General Assembly, the Palestinian Arab leadership vowed to crush the as yet un-named Jewish State and launched a guerilla war.

So it is not jews who started this violence but arabs! They are the ones to blame!

More history:

On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. Hoping to annihilate the new Jewish state, the armies of five Arab nations intervened in the ongoing war between Jews and Arabs in the former Mandate of Palestine.

This is not the only war arabs have started against peace loving people of Israel. All the areas Israel is "occupying" they earned after winning these wars against arabs. I am verry surprised how gently Israel have treated these arabs who have constantly attacked against them. I would have not been so gentle.

by Houlawilly Mon Oct 25, 2004 23:49

Maybe so, but firing rockets from helicopters into overcrowded civilian ghettoes isn't self defence, it's indiscriminate state terror.

The 1947 UN partition plan was a wholly illegitimate document because Britain, the US and the other members of the security council should have had no say in the partition of Palestine. It was only after the Balfour declaration of 1917 that Jews began to settle in Palestine. To argue that they had a right to settle there because thay had lived there in biblical times is ridiculous. It's like trying to justify lebensraum, the theiving of native american lands by the US in the 19th or, to give an example closer to home, the plantations of protestant settlers in Ireland. The land belonged to the Palestinians who lived there.

As regards the question of who started the violence I'm afraid it was 'the peace loving people of Israel''. Zionist terrorist groups had been waging a terrorist campaign for over a year against both Palestinian civilians and British security forces (who had no right to be there in the first place) by the time the UN partition plan was drawn up.

No one can deny that Jews have been treated terribly throughout Europe and much of the world in the last two thousand years.
But the solution to this victimisation isn't to visit the same crimes on a third party.

by TheTroll Tue Oct 26, 2004 00:11

ZIonists are not defending themselves. ZIonists are occupying the Palestinian's homeland. That is an offensive possition to take, regardless of Judeo-christian power broker appeasment of the ZIonist's bloodsoaked crusade. Nazis attacked by Czech freedom fighters were not defending themselves either. They were occupying the Czechs homeland, even if outsiders appeased the OFFENSE.

Screw the Judeo-christian dominated 1947 UN. Judeo-christians also appeased ad supported the judeo-christian crusaders. Doesn't mean Judeo-christian crusaders were innocent victims of Palestinian resistance, does it??? And appeasment of the Zonist bloodsoaked crusade in Palestinian lands is just as offensive. So screw the Judeo-christian UN's appeasment of ZIonist OFFENSES. That didn't change reality.

Try it mathematicly;
Palestine + Zionists = Israel + dead Palestinians + Palestinian refugees

Add the Judeo-christian dominated 1947 UN's appeasment of the Zionist's invasion, and you have ZIonist offenses with Judeo-christian UN appeasment. When a much MUCH more INCLUSIVE UN decided not to appease Bush's war against Iraq, the UN became obsoleat, irrelivant, no longer of significance. But when the Judeo-christian dominated UN appeased the ZIonist's crusade, everything is copasetic.

So, the UN has never been an organization of peace, but an organization of appeasment to America's friends and allies. America's friends? Shit! Would you give your very best friend a gun to MURDER your neighbor, steal his home, and route his breaving widow and kids into the streets??? Or would your aid to your friend just make you OFFENSIVE too??? What if your very best friend were to get a gun on his own, like ZIonist procured thier own firepower, and murdered your neighbor, stole his home, and routed the bereaving widow and kids into the streets, would you give your very best friend more bullets to keep what he stole AND KEEP ON STEALING??? Would it matter 1 damn bit if it was your very best friend and a neighbor you hardly know better than you know the Palestinians??? Or is evil still evil???

And the kids? If THEY knew you gave your very best friend a gun to commit his crime against THEM, you would be lucky if all they did was slash your tires or put sugar in your car's petrol. they would probably burn down your house while you and your family were in it. And I bet they would be dancing in the streets at the sounds of your screams. But they would still be responding to the extream duress of YOUR offenses.

But hey, you, like whore politicians in the US, didn't have to be so OFFENSIVE against your neighbors by giving your very best frined a gun so he could be a succesfull murderous thief. Your offensive actions brought about the kid's reprisals. Deal with the real. BURN, even if only in your soul, a preview of hellfire. God, I sure do love ripping people's souls out, stomping on thier souls, pissing on thier souls, cursing thier souls, and then handing them back to you with a smile on my face and a feeling of doing something good and worthwhile with my time.


And your rationalization that Arabic speeking muslim people started the hostilities. Did England and France start world war 2 when they declared war on Germany. OR did WW2 start when Germans invaded and occupied Poland??? ZIonists invaded Palestinian lands under the Brittish guns as Hungarians invaded Slovakia under Nazi guns. And Arabic speeking nations went to war against the invadors of Palstinian lands as England and France started thier foney war against Germany for invading Poland. But reguardless of how pathetic the French and English foney war effort was, it didn't change who the OFFENDING party was, DID IT???? You know, like your obtuse supposition about the Arabs started the hostilities. Thanks for making it so easy to trash your cherished beliefs.

Defence has too options fight or flight.
Offense has 1 of those, fight, which is just what the Zionist invadors of Palestinian lands chose.