Top Members

Non-Muslims for Palastine

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
abu mohammed
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 19th September 2015 06:23
Jonathan Ofir


A Facebook friend once shared a post by Jonathan Ofir about Palastine problem.
Being Jewish himself it is exceedingly courageous of Jonathan to take the stand that he has taken on this issue that has the world in its grip today.

There are many other Jewsih intellectuals who have taken, even before him, similar stand.
And we Muslims have to be thankful to these brother - for whatever be their own reasons to take up this matter their stand is a sine qua non for us because any non-Jewsih person speaking against Zionism is sure to be termed anti-Semitic by the vested interests.

Source : (Can someone kindly halalify the video?)

Auth Edit: Post updated with Halaified video.

Halalified YT Audio
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 20th May 2017 08:36
Jonathan Ofir's Recommended Reading on the Palestine Issue


Ilan Pappe : The Ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Walid Khalidi : All That Remains
Nur Masalha : Expulsion of the Palestinians
Norman Finkelstein : Image and Reality
Tom Segev : 1967

Justine Saracen Added

Miko Peled : Anything
Kevin Squires Added

Ben White : Israeli Apartheid - A Beginners Guide
Bobby Schiff Added

Ilan Pappe : Out of the Frame
Rune Lombardo Added

Documentaries : (1) Occupation 101, (2) Peace, (3) Propganda and the Promised Land, (4) Five Broken Cameras, (5) Roadmap to Apartheid for instance, (6) (By Channel 4) The Promise.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 5th June 2017 08:54
The Six Day War from the Perspective of Jewsih Soldiers


This documentary is based on soldiers perspective soon after the 1967 Six Day war.

Jonathan Ofir says

Quote:
It's 50 years since that war.

I want to share the recent documentary film 'Censored Voices'.

This film contains many of the stories which didn't make it to the compilation from the time called 'The Seventh Day'. 70% of the 200 hours of tape was censored.

Here we get a glimpse into that which was deemed unfit for publication.

I have to point out, that the film begins with a misleading narrative from the very start. Notwithstanding, it does provide a lot of testimonies which speak for themselves.

The tales of systematic murder of civilians, the massacring of POW's in Egypt, falling into the mass grave that they were just forced to dig for their comrades, the massive ethnic cleansings (aye, 1967 also involved these, hundreds of thousands of people), these begin to appear around minute 38.

We also get interspersed reports from western media, and these are also particularly interesting, in how they often uncritically voice an ultra-nationalist, Zionist glee.[/quote]

[quote] I want to also point out, that the talk does come to address the question of Zionism. Here we get people doubting whether it was a good idea at all. We get the liberal-Zionist vein (from Oz), that there are 2 sides and each are "100% right", and we also get one point where a man says that the expulsions (ethnic cleansing) are inherent to Zionism - pretty much the Benny Morris point ('inbuilt in Zionism'), hence concluding that no repentance should apply.


Ten months after its posting only two thousand views have been gathered by the video. It shows that pathetic Muslims don't even have the courage to know about their humiliating defeat.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 5th July 2017 09:54
There are Dangers for India in Modi’s Embrace of Israel

By Sukumar Muralidharan on 04/07/2017

What could the bond between Modi and Netanyahu, who seem to have a degree of unquestioned authority within their countries, be?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is travelling to Israel on July 4 for a three-day visit while avoiding any manner of contact with Palestinian political authorities or civil society. This visit is widely heralded as a key moment in India’s foreign relations. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his eagerness to host an event to mark a quarter century of diplomatic ties. “My friend” is how Netanyahu has addressed Modi on Twitter. The Israeli media is in a mood of high expectancy, with one paper priming public opinion for a person described as the “most important prime minister in the world”.

What could the bond between these two leaders, both of whom seem at this time to have a degree of unquestioned authority within their countries, be?

Perhaps it is their shared susceptibility to myths of national glory. Modi functions in campaign mode at most times, where declamation and exhortation substitutes for seriously engaged or reflective speech. In rare moments of reflection he has allowed himself certain fantasies, as with the legend of Lord Ganesha being evidence that advanced surgical transplants were done in ancient India.

Modi may have spoken in jocular vein, but Netanyahu would surely never seek that alibi. His own references to mythology are underpinned, at all times, by dead serious intent.

In damage control mode following the bloody Israeli military raid on a flotilla bringing aid to besieged Gaza in 2010, Netanyahu flew a group of American reporters to Jerusalem. Among the artefacts he proudly displayed was a millennia old signet ring, excavated in Jerusalem and bearing the name “Netanyahu,” identified in turn, to have belonged to a Jewish official of the time. That for him and his gullible American audience was sufficient proof of Israel’s historic claim to the land of Palestine.

Israel under pressure

The signet ring soon became a part of standard Netanyahu spin. He repeated the same claim in the UN General Assembly in 2011, adding the leavening that his first name Benjamin, or Binyamin – son of Jacob – was also understood in Biblical scripture as Israel.

American journalist Max Blumenthal explains the truth behind this claim in his 2013 book Goliath, an indispensable guide to the current state of Israeli politics and society: “What was Netanyahu’s connection to the ring, and by extension, to the ancient land of Israel? There was none. Netanyahu’s grandfather, Nathan Milikovsky, had merely changed his name to Netanyahu after he emigrated from Lithuania to Palestine. Thus Netanyahu had a much closer relation to the former Alaskan governor and vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, whose Lithuanian maternal grandfather was rumoured to be a Jew”.

In recent times, Netanyahu has not had a very easy time with his western allies. After years of indulgence for Israel’s expansionist urges, the West is showing a faint glimmer of awakening to the disastrous denial of Palestinian rights. In circumstances where Israel’s intent to render Palestinians into a state of permanent displacement are abundantly clear, global civil society has stepped up to shame weak-kneed governments. The “boycott, divestment and sanctions” (BDS) movement was launched by a broad coalition of Palestinian civil society actors, to hold Israeli entities to account – where culpability was proven – for the occupation and the daily violations of the human rights of Palestinians. Since the call went out from Palestine in 2005, BDS has gained traction especially in Israel’s traditionally unquestioning allies in the West.

Israel’s response has been to deploy the jaded political insult of “anti-semitism” against the BDS campaign, to rudely rebuff even the friendly advice of western allies, and double down on the moral righteousness of its claim to the whole of Palestine. It has unleashed a propaganda barrage, dignified as public diplomacy or hasbara, which Netanyahu has emerged as the principal exponent of, with his slick manner and fluent American-accent.

Didactic lectures in history suffused with claims of Israel’s Biblical antiquity as a nation, have been a regular part of Netanyahu’s propaganda effort. This is usually accompanied by dire warnings against conceding any ground to radical Islam. The Palestinian struggle for recognition is wrapped within the global menace of terrorism, which in turn is traced to a number of sources, though none more malign than Iran. After the elaborate contrivance of spotting an Iranian hand behind every evil stalking the world, an obsessive warning is sounded that the menace could soon acquire a nuclear dimension.

These anxieties of the Zionist state really sharpened after the US invasion of Iraq produced the partly anticipated outcome of vastly boosting Iran’s regional clout. Reflecting on how the US in Iraq had transformed relative stability into nightmarish confusion, two respected American political scientists, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authored a landmark paper titled ‘The Israel Lobby’ in 2006. With solid and rigorous reference to fact rather than myth, Walt and Mearsheimer argued: “The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States have worked together to shape the (US) administration’s policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East…. Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical”.

The Walt-Mearsheimer critique was banished by a vast and orchestrated campaign attacking it as “anti-semitic”; and then the authors of the Iraq fiasco went back to the same old playbook: demonising the leaders of a country seen as adversarial, characterising them as irrational beings unamenable to normal diplomatic practices. Netanyahu has in the course of his annual exertions in the cause of hasbara in the UN, described an incumbent Iranian president as a “madman” and his successor as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

When ISIS cut a swathe through the chaos fomented in the Arab world by western military intervention, Netanyahu stuck to his insistence that Iran was the greater threat. As he put it in his 2015 address to the UN: “Many in our region know that both Iran and ISIS are our common enemies. And when your enemies fight each other, don’t strengthen either one – weaken both”.

ISIS has no clear parentage, except the chaos that followed the US invasion of Iraq. For reasons unfathomed, Israel has been rather complacent about this army of aroused religious warriors in its near neighbourhood. Part explanation may be available from Efraim Inbar, an Israeli security analyst who for long headed that vacant symbol of reconciliation: the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Affairs (BESA).

In a paper written last October, Inbar argued that the destruction of ISIS would be a serious “strategic mistake,” since an ISIS that was active in propagating the “caliphate” would bring discredit to the notion while attracting disgruntled terror-prone individuals from the west to its flag. There were simultaneously with the ideological purpose, a tactical police purpose achieved, of tracking radical elements in the west and preventing their mischief.

The best strategy for Israel then was “the further weakening” but not the “destruction” of ISIS. An ISIS reduced but not eliminated would undermine its cause among “radical Muslims”, while locking up “bad actors” in fierce internecine warfare, which would leave them little room to target the west. The biggest bonus of the whole strategy of course, was that it would also “hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony”.

A more recent contribution to the BESA dialogue speaks of the many reasons it is absolutely essential for Israeli interests to keep the Syrian civil war on an indefinite boil. Amid growing apprehensions within Israel’s strategic establishment that the six-year long conflict may destabilise the entire neighbourhood, Inbar wrote: “Common sense tells us that weak enemies are preferable because they can do less damage. Violent conflict is about exacting pain from the other side. States are more dangerous than militias and terrorist groups. A weak Syria can cause less pain than a strong Syria”. It made sense to let the chaos continue, since a “dysfunctional Syrian state torn by civil war is not a result of Israeli machinations, but a positive strategic development from an Israeli point of view”.

Nobody can tell what substantive influence these reflections exerted on Israeli policy. It is sufficient to know that Israel’s obsessive pursuit of its Biblical fantasies involves fomenting a state of chaos in its near neighbourhood and perhaps even beyond.

Modi’s visit is a historic event for the Israeli military-security industry complex that lurks behind these partly revealed acts of sabotage against neighbourhood nations and an actual catalogue of atrocities on the Palestinians. It sends out a message to the world, that India is now eager to be seen in public embrace of a state that celebrates not just colonial occupation and oppression but also the regular use of violence in contravention of international law against civilians.

Humanitarian crisis

Does the absence of a Palestinian point of contact in this entire three-day visit represent a serious affront? Perhaps not. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, by all accounts went back quite happy after he was received in Delhi on a short visit that was high on ceremony but short on substance. Since going back, he has green-flagged Israel in the brutal tightening of the siege of Gaza by declining to pay the electricity bill for the narrow strip’s teeming population of two million from Palestinian Authority resources. The electricity cut, as some observers point out, has escalated Gaza’s humanitarian crisis to possibly a “point of no return”.

The broader civil war within the Arab world, eagerly promoted as part of Israeli strategic ambitions, has clearly impinged deeply on the politics of the Palestinian struggle.

The abject and unfortunate Abbas derived little benefit from his betrayal of Gaza. Israel has just announced one of the largest expansions of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, dwarfing all the land-thefts done over a half-century of occupation.

Following an armed encounter between militants and occupying forces in the old city of Jerusalem on June 19, Israel tightened its blockade of the West Bank, immediately revoking permits for Palestinians to travel into Israel to visit relatives during the Ramzan month of prayer and fasting. In a Facebook post, Major General Yoav Mordecai, who bears the title of “Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories” in the Israel Defence Force (IDF) directly put the blame on Abbas’s political faction Fatah: “Three bastards who undertook this cowardly terror attack received praise from Fatah who falsely claimed they were innocent. This is incitement to terror”.

The venomous rhetoric against Palestinians, always part of the mainstream discourse in Israel, has long been recognised as expression of deeply embedded racism. To cite a similar locution from a time when the pretence of a peace process was still being sustained, Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon, then the chief of staff of the IDF, spoke in 2003 of the Palestinians as an existential threat to Israel, like a cancer requiring chemotherapy.

The “demographic problem” is what it is called in Israeli political discourse, an almost obsessive concern since the Zionist state was founded. Israeli strategy was typically framed around the necessity of large-scale population transfers (otherwise known as “ethnic cleansing”) to firmly establish the Jewish identity of the land. When that proved impractical, unilateral separation was dreamed up. In the spaces between these two, a “two-state solution” has occasionally been conceded as a possibility, always in a manner to be determined at Israel’s discretion. David Bar-Illan, an adviser to Netanyahu in 2008 summed it up: Israel would choose what to give the Palestinians. They could call it a state or even “fried chicken”.

The peace that Israel has to offer Palestine is basically a choice between apartheid regimes of varying severities.

Substantively, India’s relationship with Israel has been conducted under the shroud of national security, immune to public scrutiny and accountability. Credible stories have appeared in the Indian media that India has been shopping for surveillance systems to be deployed along its most sensitive borders, which would link into automatically triggered guns to stop any breaches. This would be similar to the weapon systems deployed by Israel along the apartheid wall that snakes through much of the West Bank, which kill indiscriminately, not sparing children who stray out of the narrow confines in which they are confined by the Israeli occupation.

The real danger of India’s burgeoning relationship with Israel is that Israeli equipment perhaps comes bundled with its doctrines and are designed for use against an occupied people and neighbours whose territorial integrity Israel has repeatedly violated with absolute impunity. These are a world removed from India’s security challenges and could end up compromising its interests.

Sukumar Muralidharan is a senior journalist and currently teaches journalism at O.P. Jindal Global University.

Source : The Wire
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 5th July 2017 11:23
Maripat wrote:
View original post


Just while I was reading above article two of my friends asked me to delete a Facebook post of mine that was critical of Zionists. I have included more details in another post today.

But above article is a wonderful one that sees through the Zionist perfidy and goes straight to the crux of the matter after cutting all the massive c-r-a-p. For getting the issues clarified for myself and brothers and sisters let us go through it in our usual style developed by brothers and the Sunni Forum and practiced to an elan by late Dr Malih Ahmed Siddiqui (Abu Tamim).

Quote:
What could the bond between Modi and Netanyahu, who seem to have a degree of unquestioned authority within their countries, be?


Our dear brother journalist Sukumar Muralidharan knows it but his decency does not allow him to say the obvious that Israeli and Indian Prime Ministers are united by their common hatred of Islam and Muslims.

Quote:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is travelling to Israel on July 4 for a three-day visit while avoiding any manner of contact with Palestinian political authorities or civil society. This visit is widely heralded as a key moment in India’s foreign relations. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his eagerness to host an event to mark a quarter century of diplomatic ties. “My friend” is how Netanyahu has addressed Modi on Twitter. The Israeli media is in a mood of high expectancy, with one paper priming public opinion for a person described as the “most important prime minister in the world”.


This quarter of a century should be counted from the earlier stint of BJP at center in India around the end of the last century. That is when the then ruling party warmed up to Israel and it was clear to all thinking people that the common cause can only be the common hatred for Islam and Muslims. The marriage of common hatred looked, as it does today, all the more loathsome because the second high priest of RSS, Guruji MS Golwalkar, had at one time opined that what Hitler did to the Jewish people was an example for the Hindus to follow and profit by.

Quote:
What could the bond between these two leaders, both of whom seem at this time to have a degree of unquestioned authority within their countries, be?


LOL. I know Sukumar sir you can not say it in black and white and I not only understand your contingency but even love your decency.

Quote:

Perhaps it is their shared susceptibility to myths of national glory. Modi functions in campaign mode at most times, where declamation and exhortation substitutes for seriously engaged or reflective speech. In rare moments of reflection he has allowed himself certain fantasies, as with the legend of Lord Ganesha being evidence that advanced surgical transplants were done in ancient India.


Actually Mr Muralidharan is here exploring a tangential theme and we shall go along with him for he does come to the real issue in the rest of the article.

Quote:
Modi may have spoken in jocular vein, but Netanyahu would surely never seek that alibi. His own references to mythology are underpinned, at all times, by dead serious intent.


Modi is a comic figure, Netanyahu is another and we remember several from US Presidents who were at the same level of sincerity, seriousness, maturity and depth of discourse. It is eerie how the world accommodates so many people being sloppy and flippant with serious issues and get away with it. I saw a You Tube video where an American cop is arresting a particularly obnoxious jay walker and the public making a hue and cry over it in spite of the fact that the cop was doing the right thing. An honest cop can not do even his routine duty in peace but the men, so many of them, at the top get away with utmost carelessness on issues that involve very serious violations of human rights.

Most unfortunately the victims in far too many of these cases are Muslims.

Quote:
In damage control mode following the bloody Israeli military raid on a flotilla bringing aid to besieged Gaza in 2010, Netanyahu flew a group of American reporters to Jerusalem. Among the artefacts he proudly displayed was a millennia old signet ring, excavated in Jerusalem and bearing the name “Netanyahu,” identified in turn, to have belonged to a Jewish official of the time. That for him and his gullible American audience was sufficient proof of Israel’s historic claim to the land of Palestine.


I had the impression of Netanyahu as a ruthless Zionist politician like every single one of past Israeli PMs. That he is also a joker came as a news to me and it unnerves me that I never paid attention to this angle. That American journalists are completely gullible when it comes to Zionism is, of course, well known to us all and is one of the most pathetic realities of the now former super power - the US. The whole complex of American psychology related to Zionism is so obtuse and dense that in spite of huge loss of human lives in Palastine we have simple little progress in the right direction for last seventy years.

Quote:
Israel under pressure

The signet ring soon became a part of standard Netanyahu spin. He repeated the same claim in the UN General Assembly in 2011, adding the leavening that his first name Benjamin, or Binyamin – son of Jacob – was also understood in Biblical scripture as Israel.

American journalist Max Blumenthal explains the truth behind this claim in his 2013 book Goliath, an indispensable guide to the current state of Israeli politics and society: “What was Netanyahu’s connection to the ring, and by extension, to the ancient land of Israel? There was none. Netanyahu’s grandfather, Nathan Milikovsky, had merely changed his name to Netanyahu after he emigrated from Lithuania to Palestine. Thus Netanyahu had a much closer relation to the former Alaskan governor and vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, whose Lithuanian maternal grandfather was rumoured to be a Jew”.


My question here is why the world does not feel insulted at this perfidy? Why is the world indulgent about silly vanities and why does it not put the Palastinian agony in the fore?

Quote:
In recent times, Netanyahu has not had a very easy time with his western allies. After years of indulgence for Israel’s expansionist urges, the West is showing a faint glimmer of awakening to the disastrous denial of Palestinian rights. In circumstances where Israel’s intent to render Palestinians into a state of permanent displacement are abundantly clear, global civil society has stepped up to shame weak-kneed governments. The “boycott, divestment and sanctions” (BDS) movement was launched by a broad coalition of Palestinian civil society actors, to hold Israeli entities to account – where culpability was proven – for the occupation and the daily violations of the human rights of Palestinians. Since the call went out from Palestine in 2005, BDS has gained traction especially in Israel’s traditionally unquestioning allies in the West.

This is the most significant push in this article so far. The BDS movement is by now well known the world over and it has done a lot to bring the Palastinian plight to the world public notice as well as doing things that help in changing the things for good at the ground level. Unfortunately the Zionist paradigm remain unfazed in spite of quite visible mobilization of public opinion. The pesky thing about any Chosen People paradigm is that it never cares about public opinion, morality or decency. These are simply temporary hurdles and the task for them is not to accommodate any of these into changing their own behavior but to work out a way round each one of these. The BDS movement has to take this into consideration.

It is certainly a positive sign that Israel feels under pressure and this advantage must be pushed to its logical conclusion so as to negotiate a breathing room of the beseiged Palsatinian population.


Quote:
Israel’s response has been to deploy the jaded political insult of “anti-semitism” against the BDS campaign, to rudely rebuff even the friendly advice of western allies, and double down on the moral righteousness of its claim to the whole of Palestine. It has unleashed a propaganda barrage, dignified as public diplomacy or hasbara, which Netanyahu has emerged as the principal exponent of, with his slick manner and fluent American-accent.

Another heart warming paragraph by the writer. The Zionist perfidy has taken enormous time to sink in public view. It is only now we are seeing analysis like above paragraph otherwise most of the time the wold was simply in a state of stupefaction when it came to giving a response to Zionist machinations at verbal, logical, emotional, discussion level.

Perhaps the game is up but not completely. And we simply do not know how much more time it will take.

Quote:
Didactic lectures in history suffused with claims of Israel’s Biblical antiquity as a nation, have been a regular part of Netanyahu’s propaganda effort. This is usually accompanied by dire warnings against conceding any ground to radical Islam. The Palestinian struggle for recognition is wrapped within the global menace of terrorism, which in turn is traced to a number of sources, though none more malign than Iran. After the elaborate contrivance of spotting an Iranian hand behind every evil stalking the world, an obsessive warning is sounded that the menace could soon acquire a nuclear dimension.

Again an accurate assessment by the author. Only one clue is missing here. Terrorism is no doubt a menace but the origin of this can be pinpointed with accuracy - it is Zionism. The world public opinion has to put the horse before the cart in this matter and not the other way round. The first trap a craft ideology creates for you is to deprive you of any locus standi, any place to stand on, any place to put your foot down. Zionists do that the best. Unless the world academia learns to see through it the Palstine problem can not even be discussed - solution is the next part.
Quote:

These anxieties of the Zionist state really sharpened after the US invasion of Iraq produced the partly anticipated outcome of vastly boosting Iran’s regional clout. Reflecting on how the US in Iraq had transformed relative stability into nightmarish confusion, two respected American political scientists, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authored a landmark paper titled ‘The Israel Lobby’ in 2006. With solid and rigorous reference to fact rather than myth, Walt and Mearsheimer argued: “The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States have worked together to shape the (US) administration’s policy towards Iraq, Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East…. Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical”.

We, thankfully, see the world opinion seeing through the mighty maze of lies, half-truths and deception once again. Once again one feels that may be, may be the Zionist game is up.

Quote:

The Walt-Mearsheimer critique was banished by a vast and orchestrated campaign attacking it as “anti-semitic”; and then the authors of the Iraq fiasco went back to the same old playbook: demonising the leaders of a country seen as adversarial, characterising them as irrational beings unamenable to normal diplomatic practices. Netanyahu has in the course of his annual exertions in the cause of hasbara in the UN, described an incumbent Iranian president as a “madman” and his successor as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.


Clearly the way forward for the world community is to pursue the deception mongering into its logical conclusion. It is clear that they have no place anymore to hide. The game is completely lost by the Zinoists at the cademic level and the UN only has to move in physically to set the things right at the ground level.

The US might still prove to be a hurdle but it will be a small one. Only if the BDS peopel could mobilize Germany and Russian opinion in their favour then US will simply keep her peace in face of strong world opinion.

Quote:
When ISIS cut a swathe through the chaos fomented in the Arab world by western military intervention, Netanyahu stuck to his insistence that Iran was the greater threat. As he put it in his 2015 address to the UN: “Many in our region know that both Iran and ISIS are our common enemies. And when your enemies fight each other, don’t strengthen either one – weaken both”.


The issue to disentangle here is that Israel is scared of both Iran and the IS. On this matter Israel is smarter than the US or the combine world opinion operating in Syria. That Israel loses either way can not be the world concern at the moment because if Iran is problem, Asad is a problem, IS is a problem then so is Israel.

Quote:

ISIS has no clear parentage, except the chaos that followed the US invasion of Iraq. For reasons unfathomed, Israel has been rather complacent about this army of aroused religious warriors in its near neighbourhood. Part explanation may be available from Efraim Inbar, an Israeli security analyst who for long headed that vacant symbol of reconciliation: the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Affairs (BESA).

In a paper written last October, Inbar argued that the destruction of ISIS would be a serious “strategic mistake,” since an ISIS that was active in propagating the “caliphate” would bring discredit to the notion while attracting disgruntled terror-prone individuals from the west to its flag. There were simultaneously with the ideological purpose, a tactical police purpose achieved, of tracking radical elements in the west and preventing their mischief.

The best strategy for Israel then was “the further weakening” but not the “destruction” of ISIS. An ISIS reduced but not eliminated would undermine its cause among “radical Muslims”, while locking up “bad actors” in fierce internecine warfare, which would leave them little room to target the west. The biggest bonus of the whole strategy of course, was that it would also “hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony”.


Clearly it looks very complex. Luckily it is not. All these years Israel has been smugly and non-challantly exploiting the ground situation in the Gulf region to its advantage. As long as the turmoil is concentrated in Muslim region the damage will be sustained by the Muslims and that is yummy scenario for the Zionists. The role of Israel in Afghanistan is not known to anyone till now but it is known that they did a lot their to train those people who were not with the west. How they managed it under the US nose may never be known to us. Israel does not consider the world worthy of sharing any thing while the US will ultimately go down in the history as the most foolish nation when itcame to dealing with the Zionists.

Quote:
A more recent contribution to the BESA dialogue speaks of the many reasons it is absolutely essential for Israeli interests to keep the Syrian civil war on an indefinite boil. Amid growing apprehensions within Israel’s strategic establishment that the six-year long conflict may destabilise the entire neighbourhood, Inbar wrote: “Common sense tells us that weak enemies are preferable because they can do less damage. Violent conflict is about exacting pain from the other side. States are more dangerous than militias and terrorist groups. A weak Syria can cause less pain than a strong Syria”. It made sense to let the chaos continue, since a “dysfunctional Syrian state torn by civil war is not a result of Israeli machinations, but a positive strategic development from an Israeli point of view”.

Syria is an Iranian protectorate and that is all that is relevant here. Strong Syria mean strong Iran and that is undesirable to Israel. We need not spend too much energy on this angle.

Quote:
Nobody can tell what substantive influence these reflections exerted on Israeli policy. It is sufficient to know that Israel’s obsessive pursuit of its Biblical fantasies involves fomenting a state of chaos in its near neighbourhood and perhaps even beyond.


Let us believe our instincts that Israel finally feels insecure and let us pursue the advantage to solve the Palastine problem. Of course the Chosen People of Zion too are human and they too should be taken care of. Since their population expansion is creating pressure on already gettoised Palastinian people may be the world sjould think of creating another replica of Israel in the desert region of California. Let the US do something at her expenses rather those of Palastine.

Quote:
Modi’s visit is a historic event for the Israeli military-security industry complex that lurks behind these partly revealed acts of sabotage against neighbourhood nations and an actual catalogue of atrocities on the Palestinians. It sends out a message to the world, that India is now eager to be seen in public embrace of a state that celebrates not just colonial occupation and oppression but also the regular use of violence in contravention of international law against civilians.

You said it sir.


Quote:
Humanitarian crisis

Does the absence of a Palestinian point of contact in this entire three-day visit represent a serious affront? Perhaps not. The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, by all accounts went back quite happy after he was received in Delhi on a short visit that was high on ceremony but short on substance. Since going back, he has green-flagged Israel in the brutal tightening of the siege of Gaza by declining to pay the electricity bill for the narrow strip’s teeming population of two million from Palestinian Authority resources. The electricity cut, as some observers point out, has escalated Gaza’s humanitarian crisis to possibly a “point of no return”.

At the moment we can oly thank the writer for saying these things that are knwon to all but few say these at the right time.
Quote:


The broader civil war within the Arab world, eagerly promoted as part of Israeli strategic ambitions, has clearly impinged deeply on the politics of the Palestinian struggle.


This statement includes the issue that I have been breaking my head to bring to the fore for last decade and more. My fellow Muslims are happy telling me about the latest wonderful Bayan on Ablution and the in-depth book on Topi.


Quote:
The abject and unfortunate Abbas derived little benefit from his betrayal of Gaza. Israel has just announced one of the largest expansions of illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, dwarfing all the land-thefts done over a half-century of occupation.


Unfortunately Mahmood Abbas is no Yasser Arafat.


Quote:
Following an armed encounter between militants and occupying forces in the old city of Jerusalem on June 19, Israel tightened its blockade of the West Bank, immediately revoking permits for Palestinians to travel into Israel to visit relatives during the Ramzan month of prayer and fasting. In a Facebook post, Major General Yoav Mordecai, who bears the title of “Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories” in the Israel Defence Force (IDF) directly put the blame on Abbas’s political faction Fatah: “Three bastards who undertook this cowardly terror attack received praise from Fatah who falsely claimed they were innocent. This is incitement to terror”.


The surprising thing in this rhetoric is why they bother at all to explain their side. They always did what they wanted and wished and if they were in a generous mood they informed us.


Quote:
The venomous rhetoric against Palestinians, always part of the mainstream discourse in Israel, has long been recognised as expression of deeply embedded racism. To cite a similar locution from a time when the pretence of a peace process was still being sustained, Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon, then the chief of staff of the IDF, spoke in 2003 of the Palestinians as an existential threat to Israel, like a cancer requiring chemotherapy.


We must still be thankful to God that we know at least part of the thought process that operates behind Israeli actions.

Quote:

The “demographic problem” is what it is called in Israeli political discourse, an almost obsessive concern since the Zionist state was founded. Israeli strategy was typically framed around the necessity of large-scale population transfers (otherwise known as “ethnic cleansing”) to firmly establish the Jewish identity of the land. When that proved impractical, unilateral separation was dreamed up. In the spaces between these two, a “two-state solution” has occasionally been conceded as a possibility, always in a manner to be determined at Israel’s discretion. David Bar-Illan, an adviser to Netanyahu in 2008 summed it up: Israel would choose what to give the Palestinians. They could call it a state or even “fried chicken”.

The British and the world created a Zionist state in palstine at the expense of the Palastine people. Israel has since been expanding while more and more Plastinians are being squeezed into smaller and smaller space. Palastinians have been protesting about it and everytime the UN tried to do something about it the despicable US used her veto.

Quote:
The peace that Israel has to offer Palestine is basically a choice between apartheid regimes of varying severities.

True.
Quote:
Substantively, India’s relationship with Israel has been conducted under the shroud of national security, immune to public scrutiny and accountability. Credible stories have appeared in the Indian media that India has been shopping for surveillance systems to be deployed along its most sensitive borders, which would link into automatically triggered guns to stop any breaches. This would be similar to the weapon systems deployed by Israel along the apartheid wall that snakes through much of the West Bank, which kill indiscriminately, not sparing children who stray out of the narrow confines in which they are confined by the Israeli occupation.

Two unscrupulous parties partying together.
Quote:
The real danger of India’s burgeoning relationship with Israel is that Israeli equipment perhaps comes bundled with its doctrines and are designed for use against an occupied people and neighbours whose territorial integrity Israel has repeatedly violated with absolute impunity. These are a world removed from India’s security challenges and could end up compromising its interests.

I wish the author had focussed on this point. Perhaps he will soon do so.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 20th July 2017 10:05
WHEN WE HEAR THE WORD 'ZIONIST'


When 'Westerners' hear the word 'Zionist', most are inclined, via their indoctrination, to immediately associate it with Jews having been historically persecuted, seeking escape from that.

Therefore, when people like US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer or French PM Emmanuel Macron talk about anti-Zionism, they have a rather easy task equating it with anti-Semitism. They easily cement this idea.

But we should remember what Zionism means and has meant for Palestinians. It's often a whole other notion.

For Palestinians, Zionism is the name for the motivation informing their dispossession. It is the ideology behind their expulsion, their demonisation, their disappearance as humans, their massacres, tortures, kidnappings, arbitrary arrests and daily oppression.

That's what Zionism means to so many of them.

So when they hear 'anti-Zionism', there's often a positive notion to it, in that it suggests the liberation from this horror. It's a double-negative turning positive.

So many Palestinians are highly aware of the distinction between Jew and Zionist, although to make that distinction when being so oppresed, when so many Jews support your oppression, requires some serious moral fortitude.

Yet when the Schumers and the Macrons of the world equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, they want to erase that distinction, to make Zionism synonymous with Jews.

Equating Jews with Zionism would mean that Jews and Judaism will inevitably be known as synonymous with oppression and cruelty, amongst those who have experienced the fist of Zionism and the pressure of its boot, first-hand.
This conflation is telling them to aim all of their grievance against Judaism and Jews. It is informing them to become 'anti-Semites'.

The only way for Jews to escape the anger and wrath that comes from those who suffer under the Zionist injustice, is to relinquish Zionism once and for all. Not because they are forced to by practical circumstances, not because they deem it useless, but because it is wrong. It is wrong to use the pretext of persecution to persecute others.

If this is done, then not only will Zionism's victims be liberated - also Jews may finally be saved from its cruel legacy. There may even be some forgiveness, a future may open up, one of peace.

But if the gate is locked, if Zionism and Judaism are one, if anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, then that future is barred. No liberal-Zionist sugar-coating will be able to open it, and we will together be consigned to a future of perpetual horror, oppressed and oppressor together.

It is a highly moral and caring thing to do, to fight the Israeli apologetic conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Those who do so are often regarded anti-Semites (or self-haters) simply due to their attempt. Amongst many Jews today, amongst nearly all of them in Israel, being anti-Zionist is one of the worst things you can be known for. It's often synonymous with treason. But it is for Jews to take this step. Those who pioneer it must for the time being live with the label of being societal outcasts, who bring but shame to their families and many of their old friends. But it's a small price to pay for what it can win for our future. Those people will be known as those who have fought against the gushing river of Zionist propaganda in order to actually forge a better and viable future. A future not only for those oppressed who have been deprived of one by the force of Zionism, but also for Jews and Judaism, so many of whom have deluded themselves, that Zionism would save them.

Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism. It is the opposite. It is a separation of Jews from being oppressors. And you cannot escape oppression by being an oppressor. You can only fight oppression. It's a one thing, and it has to include all.

Source : FB
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 24th November 2017 11:34


Prof. Avi Shlaim has made me aware recently of another article he had published on the Balfour declaration, from a month ago (in Middle East Eye).
In it, he notes: "A petition calling on the government to apologise for the Balfour Declaration was signed by 13,637 individuals, including the present writer. The government responded as follows:
The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG does not intend to apologise. We are proud of our role in creating the state of Israel.
The declaration was written in a world of competing imperial powers, in the midst of the First World War and in the twilight of the Ottoman Empire. In that context, establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do, particularly against the background of centuries of persecution.
Much has happened since 1917. We recognise that the declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination. However, the important thing now is to look forward and establish security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace."

I wrote back:
"Dear Avi,
Thank you very much for the excellent article, which I had missed earlier. [....]

I was struck by the response of HMG to the petition demanding an apology concerning the Balfour declaration.
I had not seen the response before, and it struck me, that in such a short response, there seemed to be two major ‘Freudian slips’, which I think are very telling (you refer to other issues):

HMG wrote in the response that “In that context, establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do, particularly against the background of centuries of persecution.”

Did you notice “homeland” – rather than “national home”? This is precisely the issue that Zionists were arguing avidly with Britain about, as you also noted.

And they further answered that “Much has happened since 1917. We recognise that the declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine”...
But the declaration DID state that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – alright, it didn’t say ‘political’, and they refer to “ particularly their right to self-determination” in that note of slight ‘regret’ – but when looking at it historically, this is a semantic ‘regret’ – as if the civil and religious rights of the Palestinians really could be looked at separately from those ‘political rights’, when the paradigm was clearly defined as a NATIONAL one in the phrasing ‘national home’ – for the Jews, that is. The implicit meaning is that Palestine was not a national home for the Palestinians in any way to begin with – unless the Brits had stated it, which they regrettably didn’t...

This type of answer reflects the ongoing British official attitude to Israel and Palestine, which doesn’t seem to have changed that much in the past century."

In my own article regarding Balfour (and John Kerry) mondoweiss.net/2017/01/picked-timeline-jewish/ , I had noted precisely how the formulation of 'a national home' was seen to be troubling, even by Britain's own Palin commission. I wrote then:

"The British Palin commission sent to investigate Jerusalem riots in 1920, regarded the ‘Balfour declaration’ to be “undoubtedly the starting point of the whole trouble”. It laid out the full declaration text, and noted as follows:
This is a very carefully worded document and but for the somewhat vague phrase “A National Home for the Jewish People” might be considered sufficiently unalarming, offering as it does, ample guarantees for the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities. But the vagueness of the phrase cited has been a cause of trouble from the commencement. Various persons in high positions have used language of the loosest kind calculated to convey a very different impression to the more moderate interpretation which can be put upon the words. President Wilson brushed away all doubts as to what was intended from his point of view when, in March 1919, he said to the Jewish leaders in America, “I am moreover persuaded that the allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.” The late President [Teddy] Roosevelt declared that one of the Allies peace conditions should be that “Palestine must be made a Jewish State.” Mr. Winston Churchill has spoken of a “Jewish State” and Mr. Bonar Law has talked in Parliament of “restoring Palestine to the Jews”. Of the interpretation put upon the Declaration by all but the most moderate Zionists, it will be necessary to speak in detail later on”."

Now think, that Her Majesty's Government today, in an official response to a petition on such a highly contentious issue, did not even bother to cite the actual term "national home" from Balfour's actual declaration, which is essentially only two sentences long. This further shows, how for Perfidious Albion, these are just words, to which one must not assign too much weight. The second point, about the 'political rights', was also rendered meaningless by Balfour himself, who in 1919, merely two years after his 'declaration', responded to Lord Curzon that “in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

That's how it was then, and that's basically how it is today. Actions speak far louder than words, especially when they are merely a mask for colonialism - also in 2017.

The Balfour Declaration: A study in British duplicity

It's been nearly 100 years since the document changed the course of history, yet Britain still fails to acknowledge Israel's denial of the Palestinian right to national self-determination - and its own complicity


Ian Berman Re: Did you notice “homeland” – rather than “national home”? This is precisely the issue that Zionists were arguing avidly with Britain about, as you also noted.

Are you suggesting "homeland" means all of the territory for Zionist Jews as opposed to a "national home" within a territory of Jews and non-Jews alike?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
110
Sister
91
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 24th November 2017 16:36
Bismillah
I wish you compile your posts in a book format lest it gets lost like in SF. It will be a motley of topics but still InshaaAllah it would be useful.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#9 [Permalink] Posted on 25th November 2017 05:39
Umm Khadeejah wrote:
View original post

Jazakallah for the reminder sister. I myself have the same worry. In fact once I made a list of the titles of the books that can be generated or should be written on the issues that I have been focussing upon. It turned out to be a long one.

I request all brothers and sisters for supplications so that Allah SWT gives me the Taufeeq to do this work.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#10 [Permalink] Posted on 7th August 2018 06:55
Hajo Meyer


Heard of him? Perhaps not.

He was a physicist. He is dead already. Died in 2014.

He was Jewish and he spent months in Auschwitz. He escaped with the help of a guard. Hence he survived.

His father did not. His parents were sent to a concentration camp. When his father succumbed to an illness his mother was taken in 'safe' custody but she chose to bite her cyanide capsule to end her life.

Familiar story?

Wait for the latter twists and turns.

I shall make it short. He became critical of Zionism and Israel. He did not approve of Israel's treatment of palestinian people.

He was accused of anti-Semitism.

For example there is person called Henryk Broder who claims that anti-Zionism in essence anti-Semitism. He, Broder, was imprisoned for his twisted assertions but latter on court decided that after all there exists something called Jewish anti-Semitism.

How much logic itself be twisted?

Anyway Clive Semmens has been sharing items on this latest hopeless twisting of logic and common sense.

Source : My Facebook Post
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#11 [Permalink] Posted on 7th August 2018 07:04
On IQ and EQ


Emotional Intelligence or EQ is related to management of emotions the way IQ is related to intelligence.

There is intelligence and there is this issue of getting the things done. This is where higher EQ wins hands down.

Empathy, self-awareness, curiosity, analytical mind, beliefs, beliefs, needs and wants, to be passionate and optimistic, to adapt to the new environment and to co-operate with others for mutual success are taken to be the hall mark of this trait by the experts.

(This is not the most suitable thread for this post but I do not want to activate too many of my threads today.)

Source : My Facebook Post
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#12 [Permalink] Posted on 7th August 2018 09:09
Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - 1

Ilan pappe published a book in 2006 with above title.

What is the subject matter?
Do the Israeli actions in Palestine amount to ethnic cleansing?
Ilan Pappe might have asked this simple and straight question.

What does Wikipedia do?

Ilan Pappe "want[s] to make the case for the paradigm of ethnic cleansing and use[s] it to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for the scholarly research of, and public debate about, 1948."

It might look mike mere rephrasing of the original assertion.

Is it? Answer : No.

A non-existent nuance, fine tuning and subtlety has been introduced into the discourse to neutralize a very significant case of gross human rights violation.

Author's assertion is that the expulsion of the Palestinians is planned activity and one of the defining characters of the state of Israel.

Walid Khalidi and Nur-eldin Masalha had already advanced these assertions in 1961 and 1991 respectively.

The Wikipedia article, in its present state, is already happy to inform us that this Khalidi and Pappe thesis was already criticized by Yoav Gelber in 2006.

That was quick in succession with Ilan Pappe. Why so much after Khalidi? Well the opinion of a Jewish commentator, Ilan Pappe, seemed for damaging than that of a Muslim, Khalidi.

Then there is this angle that the Zionists work assiduously to maintain the Zionist outlook of the Wikipedia content. ( Course on Wikipedia Editing : Our side of the story, correct side of the story, just side of the story.)

Then there is another distraction - the exodus of Palestinian people is the result of the war and not intent. This disingenuous interpretation is from Benny Morris in 1989. Of course the Wikipedia editing troll adds the fluffy teddy bear without eyesing indictment delivered by Morris but preceding it by an opposite comment that might certainly be there in the original does the needful - distract from the real charge. what is more the blame is shifted from the state of Israel to a commentator who does look impartial. Then the Wikipedia editing troll obfuscates the issue by further details fraught with complexities and one is left in knots as to the push of the comments.

When dealing with the writings of the Zionists be prepared to face massive interference with truth.

Then we are informed that Rosemerie Esber in 2008 concurred with Ilan Pappe that the exodus was planned by the leaders of Yishuv.

This is problematic at several levels. Exodus is an entirely different concept from ethnic cleansing. after that Exodus is a book in the Bible that forms an essential part of Jewish history and it can only conjure up images that will never capture the plight of the Palestinian people. Then Yishuv are the Jewish leaders before the establishment of Israel. Clearly the wordings shift the blame of ethnic cleansing from israel to a group whose trail leads us into vacuum. One is left searching for a black cat in a dark room that is simply not there.

Then we are told about Ben Gurion University professor Uri Ram's review of the Book in the Middle East Journal. "Most important and daring book that challenges head-on Israeli historiography as well ascollective memory and even more importantly Israeli conscience."

Jorgen Jensehaugen : Faulted the book - cleansing was merely one aspect of various war plans rather than the cause of the war.

Ephraim Nimmi commended the book for its polemics. Wow!
Also added that Zionists leaders were not solely responsible for the ethnic cleansing. Who else? Palestinians themselves?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#13 [Permalink] Posted on 9th August 2018 09:28
Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - 2



A Book Review from Amazon

Book : Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Author : Ilan Pappe

Reviewer : E. Buchholz
5 out of 5 stars

About Time the Truth Starts Coming Out

December 29, 2014

Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase

Excellent description of the ethnic cleansing done by European and Russian-Asian Jews against the native people actually living in Palestine. Events closely match what I have heard from my Palestinian neighbors, friends, and colleagues.

I have nothing against the idea of a Jewish homeland. God knows, they've been through enough. (I'd rather my country take in these Jews, most of whom I'd welcome as neighbors, and leave the Palestinians alone to sort themselves out.)

But their treatment of the natives, Zionist nationalism, theft, imprisonment, racism, and murder, WHICH CONTINUE TODAY is totally unacceptable. So are the ongoing lies and covering up of actions that are very similar to what the Nazis did to them. One would expect much, much better from the Israelis, but it seems that the self-proclaimed "God's Chosen People" chose vicious nationalism instead of compassion.

And we Americans continue to blindly support this evil with $5 billion per year. That's about $130 million per day that goes to welfare in a foreign country that we could spend on our own hospitals, schools, and national debt. Who pays for this ethnic cleansing? The USA does. My involuntary tax money pays for it.

What is most shocking is many peoples' resistance to abandoning the Zionist fairy tales of saintliness and victimhood.

We all know about the self-defeating idiocy of American PC-ism, keeping people from discussing contentious issues or challenging the official view. This topic, however, seems to cause even more painful cognitive dissonance when someone encounters really obvious and simple challenges to the Zionist narrative than anything else I've experienced.

I cannot believe that people actually buy these dehumanizing myths:
- that there never were a Palestinian people (yes, they are the non-Jewish natives, mostly Sunni, who were dispossessed by the Jewish European colonists and who did not accept their new rulers)
- that the natives never belonged there (yes, they have been there for many centuries.)
- that Jews were the original inhabitants of the region and therefore the land belongs to them (nonsense, the ancient Israelites, following the Exodus, murdered, raped, destroyed, and "cleansed" the region of the inhabitants - much like ISIS does today. This is all quite clear in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.)
- the natives just up and left, giving the land to the Jewish colonists (read Pappe and learn about Jewish mobs driving out the natives at gunpoint, putting them in camps, and even poisoning water supplies with typhus)

America needs to cut ties to this fascist country and extricate itself from Arab oil. After the blood and dust settle we will find ourselves in a safer and more ethical, albeit still imperfect, world.

It is important to read and understand this book as well as to know where our tax money is going as we are also culpable of these ongoing crimes against humanity.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#14 [Permalink] Posted on 9th August 2018 09:32
Amazon Review Data of above book

Positive Reviews 256
Critical reviews : 53

Clearly positive reviews overwhelm the critical ones.

Yet it is still surprising to see the quantum of effort put in by the Zionists in maligning any view that runs counter their narrative.

I wish Muslims were doing proportional work for defending their point of view.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,558
Brother
1,688
Maripat's avatar
#15 [Permalink] Posted on 27th August 2018 13:40
Who Killed the Tsar and His Family


In four weeks’ time we will mark the hundredth anniversary of the massacre of Imperial Russia’s Tsar Nicholas II and his Family. On 17 July 1918 their foreign captors herded the family into a basement of a house in Ekaterinburg, at the meeting point between Europe and Asia.

The so-called Russian Revolution was a coup similar to most other Western-engineered ‘regime changes’ before and since. Jacob Schiff, (1847-1920), the Wall Street banker who had financed Japan during the Japanese War against Russia (1904-1905), publicly boasted of his success in bringing about the coup, with the help of mainly aristocratic Russian traitors and apostates.

Source 1 : Russia Insider

Source 2 : Wikipedia on J. Schiff
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top