• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Palestine

Picasso

Picasso

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
"‏جمال ريان‬ لشمعون بيريز: "بيتك على أرضي.. عندي وثائق

 
  • Advertisement
  • Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think the issue that is brought out in this video is strictly associated with one problem that should haunt the conscience of Christians and Muslims and their worlds.

    The issue that is to be resolved is the Palestinian refugees issue. The Resolution that may be considered as the world's best kept secret is Security Council Resolution 73(II) 1949.

    Books and papers are written by Zionists claiming that Resolution 149 (III) is not binding because it is a General Assembly Resolution.

    Hezbollah is mobilizing to destroy Israel, the state, by war because because they believe the Palestinians should return.

    We have the Resolution that is making this demand operational, why aren't we asking for the implementation of SC Resolution 73.

    We have a Security Council Resolution demanding negotiations to resolve the issue of the Palestinian refugees.

    I shared this with some of HA people in Lebanon, They were not ecstatic. This is because Hezbollah just like the Zionists want any Resolution that calls for negotiations be hidden. They want the confessional state system to emerge out of the war in Syria. The war in Syria is the evidence.


     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    الجليل الأعلى هو مصطلح جغرافي سياسي أستخدم منذ نهاية عهد الهيكل الثاني، وهو يشير في الأصل إلى منطقة جبلية متداخلة في الوقت الحاضر تتكون من شمال اسرائيل وجنوب لبنان، حدودها من نهر الليطاني في الشمال، والبحر الأبيض المتوسط في الغرب، أما الجليل السفلى فهو يقع جنوب نهر الأردن ووادي الحولة في الشرق.

    كان الجليل في خطة التقسيم 181-1947 من حصة العرب . في عام 1948 أندلعت الحرب بين أسرائيل ولبنان مما أدى ألى لجوء مئات الألاف من سكان الجليل ألى لبنان. في سنة 1949 أعلنت الأمم المتحدم هدنه بين لبنان وأسرائيل. وأصدر مجلس الأمن قرار 73 اللذي يطالب برجوع سكان الجليل ألى منازلهم عن طريق التفاوض مع أسرائيل ورفض العرب التفاوض والتقسيم. ضمت أسرائيل الجليل الى أراضيها و أعطت العرب من سكان الجليل الجنسيه الأسرايليه و بقي اللاجئين من الجليل يعيشون في المخيمات اللبنانيه حتى يومنا هذا في حاله مزريه. ومنذ ذللك التاريخ لم يعرف الجليل وسكان الجليل السلام.

    لذالك نحن سكان الجليل الأعلى نطالب بالسلام العادل للجليل و نبدأ بنشر رسالة للسلام و حق العيش الكريم. ما نطرحه هو طرح واقعي نابع من مبدأ أن العيش المشترك والتبادل الحضاري والثقافي هو أساس السلام وفقط حين يحل السلام سننبذ سياسة السلاح والحرب. فيدرالية الهلال الخصيب هي الحل الواقعي لمشكلة اللاجئين الفلسطينيه والمستوطنات اليهوديه. السلطه المشتركه بين لبنان وأسرائيل وسوريا أمر قابل للتفاوض على المستوى الأقليمي.السلام لأن الأنسان و الكرامه الأنسانيه تتطلب أن ننبذ الحرب و نتعايش بسلام كمسلمين ومسيحيون و يهود.
     
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

    By Michelle Alexander

    Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time.

    On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up to the lectern at the Riverside Church in Manhattan. The United States had been in active combat in Vietnam for two years and tens of thousands of people had been killed, including some 10,000 American troops. The political establishment — from left to right — backed the war, and more than 400,000 American service members were in Vietnam, their lives on the line.

    Many of King’s strongest allies urged him to remain silent about the war or at least to soft-pedal any criticism. They knew that if he told the whole truth about the unjust and disastrous war he would be falsely labeled a Communist, suffer retaliation and severe backlash, alienate supporters and threaten the fragile progress of the civil rights movement.

    King rejected all the well-meaning advice and said, “I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.” Quoting a statement by the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, he said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and added, “that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.”

    It was a lonely, moral stance. And it cost him. But it set an example of what is required of us if we are to honor our deepest values in times of crisis, even when silence would better serve our personal interests or the communities and causes we hold most dear. It’s what I think about when I go over the excuses and rationalizations that have kept me largely silent on one of the great moral challenges of our time: the crisis in Israel-Palestine.

    I have not been alone. Until very recently, the entire Congress has remained mostly silent on the human rights nightmare that has unfolded in the occupied territories. Our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel's political lobby holds well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected criticism of the State of Israel, even as it has grown more emboldened in its occupation of Palestinian territory and adopted some practices reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States.

    Many civil rights activists and organizations have remained silent as well, not because they lack concern or sympathy for the Palestinian people, but because they fear loss of funding from foundations, and false charges of anti-Semitism. They worry, as I once did, that their important social justice work will be compromised or discredited by smear campaigns.

    Similarly, many students are fearful of expressing support for Palestinian rights because of the McCarthyite tactics of secret organizations like Canary Mission, which blacklists those who publicly dare to support boycotts against Israel, jeopardizing their employment prospects and future careers.

    Reading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

    And so, if we are to honor King’s message and not merely the man, we must condemn Israel’s actions: unrelenting violations of international law, continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, home demolitions and land confiscations. We must cry out at the treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the routine searches of their homes and restrictions on their movements, and the severely limited access to decent housing, schools, food, hospitals and water that many of them face.

    We must not tolerate Israel’s refusal even to discuss the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, as prescribed by United Nations resolutions, and we ought to question the U.S. government funds that have supported multiple hostilities and thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel.

    And finally, we must, with as much courage and conviction as we can muster, speak out against the system of legal discrimination that exists inside Israel, a system complete with, according to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinians — such as the new nation-state law that says explicitly that only Jewish Israelis have the right of self-determination in Israel, ignoring the rights of the Arab minority that makes up 21 percent of the population.

    Of course, there will be those who say that we can’t know for sure what King would do or think regarding Israel-Palestine today. That is true. The evidence regarding King’s views on Israel is complicated and contradictory.

    Although the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee denounced Israel’s actions against Palestinians, King found himself conflicted. Like many black leaders of the time, he recognized European Jewry as a persecuted, oppressed and homeless people striving to build a nation of their own, and he wanted to show solidarity with the Jewish community, which had been a critically important ally in the civil rights movement.

    Ultimately, King canceled a pilgrimage to Israel in 1967 after Israel captured the West Bank. During a phone call about the visit with his advisers, he said, “I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt.”

    He continued to support Israel’s right to exist but also said on national television that it would be necessary for Israel to return parts of its conquered territory to achieve true peace and security and to avoid exacerbating the conflict. There was no way King could publicly reconcile his commitment to nonviolence and justice for all people, everywhere, with what had transpired after the 1967 war.

    Today, we can only speculate about where King would stand. Yet I find myself in agreement with the historian Robin D.G. Kelley, who concluded that, if King had the opportunity to study the current situation in the same way he had studied Vietnam, “his unequivocal opposition to violence, colonialism, racism and militarism would have made him an incisive critic of Israel’s current policies.”

    Indeed, King’s views may have evolved alongside many other spiritually grounded thinkers, like Rabbi Brian Walt, who has spoken publicly about the reasons that he abandoned his faith in what he viewed as political Zionism. To him, he recently explained to me, liberal Zionism meant that he believed in the creation of a Jewish state that would be a desperately needed safe haven and cultural center for Jewish people around the world, "a state that would reflect as well as honor the highest ideals of the Jewish tradition.” He said he grew up in South Africa in a family that shared those views and identified as a liberal Zionist, until his experiences in the occupied territories forever changed him.

    During more than 20 visits to the West Bank and Gaza, he saw horrific human rights abuses, including Palestinian homes being bulldozed while people cried — children's toys strewn over one demolished site — and saw Palestinian lands being confiscated to make way for new illegal settlements subsidized by the Israeli government. He was forced to reckon with the reality that these demolitions, settlements and acts of violent dispossession were not rogue moves, but fully supported and enabled by the Israeli military. For him, the turning point was witnessing legalized discrimination against Palestinians — including streets for Jews only — which, he said, was worse in some ways than what he had witnessed as a boy in South Africa.

    Not so long ago, it was fairly rare to hear this perspective. That is no longer the case.

    Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, aims to educate the American public about “the forced displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians that began with Israel’s establishment and that continues to this day.” Growing numbers of people of all faiths and backgrounds have spoken out with more boldness and courage. American organizations such as If Not Now support young American Jews as they struggle to break the deadly silence that still exists among too many people regarding the occupation, and hundreds of secular and faith-based groups have joined the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

    In view of these developments, it seems the days when critiques of Zionism and the actions of the State of Israel can be written off as anti-Semitism are coming to an end. There seems to be increased understanding that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government is not, in itself, anti-Semitic.

    This is not to say that anti-Semitism is not real. Neo-Nazism is resurging in Germany within a growing anti-immigrant movement. Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose 57 percent in 2017, and many of us are still mourning what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history. We must be mindful in this climate that, while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, it can slide there.

    Fortunately, people like the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II are leading by example, pledging allegiance to the fight against anti-Semitism while also demonstrating unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people struggling to survive under Israeli occupation.

    He declared in a riveting speech last year that we cannot talk about justice without addressing the displacement of native peoples, the systemic racism of colonialism and the injustice of government repression. In the same breath he said: “I want to say, as clearly as I know how, that the humanity and the dignity of any person or people cannot in any way diminish the humanity and dignity of another person or another people. To hold fast to the image of God in every person is to insist that the Palestinian child is as precious as the Jewish child.”

    Guided by this kind of moral clarity, faith groups are taking action. In 2016, the pension board of the United Methodist Church excluded from its multibillion-dollar pension fund Israeli banks whose loans for settlement construction violate international law. Similarly, the United Church of Christ the year before passed a resolution calling for divestments and boycotts of companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

    Even in Congress, change is on the horizon. For the first time, two sitting members, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, publicly support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In 2017, Representative Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced a resolution to ensure that no U.S. military aid went to support Israel’s juvenile military detention system. Israel regularly prosecutes Palestinian children detainees in the occupied territories in military court.

    None of this is to say that the tide has turned entirely or that retaliation has ceased against those who express strong support for Palestinian rights. To the contrary, just as King received fierce, overwhelming criticism for his speech condemning the Vietnam War — 168 major newspapers, including The Times, denounced the address the following day — those who speak publicly in support of the liberation of the Palestinian people still risk condemnation and backlash.

    Bahia Amawi, an American speech pathologist of Palestinian descent, was recently terminated for refusing to sign a contract that contains an anti-boycott pledge stating that she does not, and will not, participate in boycotting the State of Israel. In November, Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for giving a speech in support of Palestinian rights that was grossly misinterpreted as expressing support for violence. Canary Mission continues to pose a serious threat to student activists.

    And just over a week ago, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in Alabama, apparently under pressure mainly from segments of the Jewish community and others, rescinded an honor it bestowed upon the civil rights icon Angela Davis, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and supports B.D.S.

    But that attack backfired. Within 48 hours, academics and activists had mobilized in response. The mayor of Birmingham, Randall Woodfin, as well as the Birmingham School Board and the City Council, expressed outrage at the institute’s decision. The council unanimously passed a resolution in Davis’ honor, and an alternative event is being organized to celebrate her decades-long commitment to liberation for all.

    I cannot say for certain that King would applaud Birmingham for its zealous defense of Angela Davis’s solidarity with Palestinian people. But I do. In this new year, I aim to speak with greater courage and conviction about injustices beyond our borders, particularly those that are funded by our government, and stand in solidarity with struggles for democracy and freedom. My conscience leaves me no other choice.

    NYTimes
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

    By Michelle Alexander

    Martin Luther King Jr. courageously spoke out about the Vietnam War. We must do the same when it comes to this grave injustice of our time.

    On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up to the lectern at the Riverside Church in Manhattan. The United States had been in active combat in Vietnam for two years and tens of thousands of people had been killed, including some 10,000 American troops. The political establishment — from left to right — backed the war, and more than 400,000 American service members were in Vietnam, their lives on the line.

    Many of King’s strongest allies urged him to remain silent about the war or at least to soft-pedal any criticism. They knew that if he told the whole truth about the unjust and disastrous war he would be falsely labeled a Communist, suffer retaliation and severe backlash, alienate supporters and threaten the fragile progress of the civil rights movement.

    King rejected all the well-meaning advice and said, “I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.” Quoting a statement by the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, he said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and added, “that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.”

    It was a lonely, moral stance. And it cost him. But it set an example of what is required of us if we are to honor our deepest values in times of crisis, even when silence would better serve our personal interests or the communities and causes we hold most dear. It’s what I think about when I go over the excuses and rationalizations that have kept me largely silent on one of the great moral challenges of our time: the crisis in Israel-Palestine.

    I have not been alone. Until very recently, the entire Congress has remained mostly silent on the human rights nightmare that has unfolded in the occupied territories. Our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel's political lobby holds well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected criticism of the State of Israel, even as it has grown more emboldened in its occupation of Palestinian territory and adopted some practices reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States.

    Many civil rights activists and organizations have remained silent as well, not because they lack concern or sympathy for the Palestinian people, but because they fear loss of funding from foundations, and false charges of anti-Semitism. They worry, as I once did, that their important social justice work will be compromised or discredited by smear campaigns.

    Similarly, many students are fearful of expressing support for Palestinian rights because of the McCarthyite tactics of secret organizations like Canary Mission, which blacklists those who publicly dare to support boycotts against Israel, jeopardizing their employment prospects and future careers.

    Reading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

    And so, if we are to honor King’s message and not merely the man, we must condemn Israel’s actions: unrelenting violations of international law, continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, home demolitions and land confiscations. We must cry out at the treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the routine searches of their homes and restrictions on their movements, and the severely limited access to decent housing, schools, food, hospitals and water that many of them face.

    We must not tolerate Israel’s refusal even to discuss the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, as prescribed by United Nations resolutions, and we ought to question the U.S. government funds that have supported multiple hostilities and thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel.

    And finally, we must, with as much courage and conviction as we can muster, speak out against the system of legal discrimination that exists inside Israel, a system complete with, according to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinians — such as the new nation-state law that says explicitly that only Jewish Israelis have the right of self-determination in Israel, ignoring the rights of the Arab minority that makes up 21 percent of the population.

    Of course, there will be those who say that we can’t know for sure what King would do or think regarding Israel-Palestine today. That is true. The evidence regarding King’s views on Israel is complicated and contradictory.

    Although the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee denounced Israel’s actions against Palestinians, King found himself conflicted. Like many black leaders of the time, he recognized European Jewry as a persecuted, oppressed and homeless people striving to build a nation of their own, and he wanted to show solidarity with the Jewish community, which had been a critically important ally in the civil rights movement.

    Ultimately, King canceled a pilgrimage to Israel in 1967 after Israel captured the West Bank. During a phone call about the visit with his advisers, he said, “I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt.”

    He continued to support Israel’s right to exist but also said on national television that it would be necessary for Israel to return parts of its conquered territory to achieve true peace and security and to avoid exacerbating the conflict. There was no way King could publicly reconcile his commitment to nonviolence and justice for all people, everywhere, with what had transpired after the 1967 war.

    Today, we can only speculate about where King would stand. Yet I find myself in agreement with the historian Robin D.G. Kelley, who concluded that, if King had the opportunity to study the current situation in the same way he had studied Vietnam, “his unequivocal opposition to violence, colonialism, racism and militarism would have made him an incisive critic of Israel’s current policies.”

    Indeed, King’s views may have evolved alongside many other spiritually grounded thinkers, like Rabbi Brian Walt, who has spoken publicly about the reasons that he abandoned his faith in what he viewed as political Zionism. To him, he recently explained to me, liberal Zionism meant that he believed in the creation of a Jewish state that would be a desperately needed safe haven and cultural center for Jewish people around the world, "a state that would reflect as well as honor the highest ideals of the Jewish tradition.” He said he grew up in South Africa in a family that shared those views and identified as a liberal Zionist, until his experiences in the occupied territories forever changed him.

    During more than 20 visits to the West Bank and Gaza, he saw horrific human rights abuses, including Palestinian homes being bulldozed while people cried — children's toys strewn over one demolished site — and saw Palestinian lands being confiscated to make way for new illegal settlements subsidized by the Israeli government. He was forced to reckon with the reality that these demolitions, settlements and acts of violent dispossession were not rogue moves, but fully supported and enabled by the Israeli military. For him, the turning point was witnessing legalized discrimination against Palestinians — including streets for Jews only — which, he said, was worse in some ways than what he had witnessed as a boy in South Africa.

    Not so long ago, it was fairly rare to hear this perspective. That is no longer the case.

    Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, aims to educate the American public about “the forced displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians that began with Israel’s establishment and that continues to this day.” Growing numbers of people of all faiths and backgrounds have spoken out with more boldness and courage. American organizations such as If Not Now support young American Jews as they struggle to break the deadly silence that still exists among too many people regarding the occupation, and hundreds of secular and faith-based groups have joined the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

    In view of these developments, it seems the days when critiques of Zionism and the actions of the State of Israel can be written off as anti-Semitism are coming to an end. There seems to be increased understanding that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government is not, in itself, anti-Semitic.

    This is not to say that anti-Semitism is not real. Neo-Nazism is resurging in Germany within a growing anti-immigrant movement. Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose 57 percent in 2017, and many of us are still mourning what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history. We must be mindful in this climate that, while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, it can slide there.

    Fortunately, people like the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II are leading by example, pledging allegiance to the fight against anti-Semitism while also demonstrating unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people struggling to survive under Israeli occupation.

    He declared in a riveting speech last year that we cannot talk about justice without addressing the displacement of native peoples, the systemic racism of colonialism and the injustice of government repression. In the same breath he said: “I want to say, as clearly as I know how, that the humanity and the dignity of any person or people cannot in any way diminish the humanity and dignity of another person or another people. To hold fast to the image of God in every person is to insist that the Palestinian child is as precious as the Jewish child.”

    Guided by this kind of moral clarity, faith groups are taking action. In 2016, the pension board of the United Methodist Church excluded from its multibillion-dollar pension fund Israeli banks whose loans for settlement construction violate international law. Similarly, the United Church of Christ the year before passed a resolution calling for divestments and boycotts of companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

    Even in Congress, change is on the horizon. For the first time, two sitting members, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, publicly support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In 2017, Representative Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced a resolution to ensure that no U.S. military aid went to support Israel’s juvenile military detention system. Israel regularly prosecutes Palestinian children detainees in the occupied territories in military court.

    None of this is to say that the tide has turned entirely or that retaliation has ceased against those who express strong support for Palestinian rights. To the contrary, just as King received fierce, overwhelming criticism for his speech condemning the Vietnam War — 168 major newspapers, including The Times, denounced the address the following day — those who speak publicly in support of the liberation of the Palestinian people still risk condemnation and backlash.

    Bahia Amawi, an American speech pathologist of Palestinian descent, was recently terminated for refusing to sign a contract that contains an anti-boycott pledge stating that she does not, and will not, participate in boycotting the State of Israel. In November, Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for giving a speech in support of Palestinian rights that was grossly misinterpreted as expressing support for violence. Canary Mission continues to pose a serious threat to student activists.

    And just over a week ago, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in Alabama, apparently under pressure mainly from segments of the Jewish community and others, rescinded an honor it bestowed upon the civil rights icon Angela Davis, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and supports B.D.S.

    But that attack backfired. Within 48 hours, academics and activists had mobilized in response. The mayor of Birmingham, Randall Woodfin, as well as the Birmingham School Board and the City Council, expressed outrage at the institute’s decision. The council unanimously passed a resolution in Davis’ honor, and an alternative event is being organized to celebrate her decades-long commitment to liberation for all.

    I cannot say for certain that King would applaud Birmingham for its zealous defense of Angela Davis’s solidarity with Palestinian people. But I do. In this new year, I aim to speak with greater courage and conviction about injustices beyond our borders, particularly those that are funded by our government, and stand in solidarity with struggles for democracy and freedom. My conscience leaves me no other choice.


    NYTimes
    "Time to Break the Silence on Palestine"

    I agree - the most obvious and guarantied peace process depends on completion of these two steps:

    1. Arabs should leave Judea.
    2. Jews should leave Arabia.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Never existed. The Holy Land belongs to the Jews and the native Christian population. The Muslim colonizers should go back to where they came from.
    In the same manner, I suggest Muslims in Asia, Africa, Europe and everywhere else should also leave and go back to "where they came from". Don't you think?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    In the same manner, I suggest Muslims in Asia, Africa, Europe and everywhere else should also leave and go back to "where they came from". Don't you think?
    What "Muslims" got to do with anything.

    @Ice Tea
     
    Ice Tea

    Ice Tea

    Active Member
    In the same manner, I suggest Muslims in Asia, Africa, Europe and everywhere else should also leave and go back to "where they came from". Don't you think?
    Depends if they are recent immigrants or the native population who was converted by force long ago. The ones in Europe are recent immigrants and should go back. The ones in the Maghreb are mostly Berbers who were converted by force. In Egypt they are Arabian colonizers and the land belongs to the native Copts. In most of Asia they are natives who were converted by force. And in the Levant, Muslims are mostly immigrants and not natives to the region.
     
    Jorje

    Jorje

    Legendary Member
    The resident racists and fascists are at it again, w ma byeste7o.

    Please don't give their racism and fascism any legitimacy by entertaining their wacky "demands".

    The only thing they deserve is a big old spit.
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    The resident racists and fascists are at it again, w ma byeste7o.

    Please don't give their racism and fascism any legitimacy by entertaining their wacky "demands".

    The only thing they deserve is a big old spit.
    from a camel? :lol:
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Depends if they are recent immigrants or the native population who was converted by force long ago. The ones in Europe are recent immigrants and should go back. The ones in the Maghreb are mostly Berbers who were converted by force. In Egypt they are Arabian colonizers and the land belongs to the native Copts. In most of Asia they are natives who were converted by force. And in the Levant, Muslims are mostly immigrants and not natives to the region.
    So how would you determine who's mostly immigrant and who's mostly native?

    In Lebanon, Muslim populations in Tyr and Sidon have more Phoenician genes than Christians in Bsharre or Akkar How are we going to separate the genes?

    Jews have also gone to Europe and among them (if not most of them) are converts. There is the Khazar link to Ashkenazi Jews. Let's for argument sake don't say most Israeli Jews are converts to Judaism and let's assume they have some genetic connection to Palestine and the Mizrahi Jews. There have been conversions nonetheless and intermarriage of Jews in Europe, thus their European features. How do you solve that? You're using religion not racial descent. In that sense, a Muslim Japanese would have no right to claim possession of any land in Makkah, just as a European convert to Judaism has no right to Palestine, other than visiting holy places and leaving back to Europe.

    There are Palestinians who to this day are identifiable as descendants of Samaritans (Israelites), who converted to Islam and were culturally assimilated/Arabicized. How do you drive them away?

    The Hebrew speaking Jew has no higher moral ground to Palestine than the Arabic speaking Muslim Palestinian or Arabic speaking Palestinian Christian. In fact, we can say that by virtue of the Palestinians having or belonging to a myriad of ethnic and racial descent, Palestinians have a stronger case and bigger right and are more indigenous to Palestine. For the mere fact that Israeli Zionist Jews cherry pick at what junction of history they want to start counting their presence in Palestine. The Palestinians have an indigenous Canaanite link to Palestine too. There are families with a 5,000 years history. Israelites (the progenitors of the Jews) came into Palestine butchering and maiming indigenous tribes and taking over the land by force. Go no further than the Bible narrations. So who's really the first invader?

    The point you use against Palestinians and asking them to go away to Arabia, because they have an Arabian gene through intermarriage, or speak Arabic through cultural assimilation or practice Islam through conversion (whether forceful or not), the same point can be used against Jews/Israelites. But of course you'd claim God asked you to butcher people in anceitn days and take over their land. Today, you're also butchering people, who have same Israelite descent as the one you claim, because they no longer speak Hebrew or worship in your own way.

    It isn't my business if your god is a land thief. My point is establishing that you came and conquered and invaded and butchered people right from the time of your progenitors. From the start you're invaders. And later on, those who picked up your religion have also come knocking as invaders. And right before you stepped foot on that land as invaders in ancient history, there have always been Gentile presence in Palestine. The Gentiles preceded your progenitors. You have no moral high ground to preach to anyone about history, originality or indigenousness. You're equally an invader if not more than others. You're indigenous to a lesser extent than others.

    History, religion, and origin aside, based on purely humanitarian and humane considerations, if I am on or have been born in a land, and I toiled all my life to make a living in that land and build a house, and know no where else, someone thousands of miles has no right to come knocking on my door and asking me to leave or bulldozing my house because he claims his ancestors were living on the same land two thousand or more years ago. That is silly. I was not born in Lebanon. And I feel more at home in the country where I was born than in Lebanon. Will the original people deny ne my right as a citizen, even though I was born in their land and have a life and properties in there? I am only speaking here of two generations. How much more if it was more than two generations?

    You have no right to tell me God gave you a land, for which there is no certificate of occupancy signed in heaven. And it wasn't angels that worked to build my house, that you want to take over or bulldoze to build something else. I used my money and labor. So naturally, you will be rejected, resisted and you will be fought. If you can't think that way, then you're not normal and your psyche is so immersed in hatred, and you're beyond redemption. There's no use talking to you because you're blinded by considerations that are both anti history and anti human to support genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing of another population.
     
    Chanklish

    Chanklish

    Well-Known Member
    i doubt any Lebanese christian cares about Palestine .. **** em
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Palestine?
    What's that?
    Palestinian is simply a name of a person who lives in the area called Palestine, Jew, Arabs, etc ...

    Palestine/Palestina is Greek word/name forced on Jews by Romans as punishment for the revolt of 70 AD and the name itself stuck among European Christians as alternative designation for Holy Land.

    Neither Jews nor Arabs like the name and Arabs cannot even pronounce it in Arabic.

    In 1964 (Egyptian) Arafat and (Soviet) Andropov decided to usurp the name for political expediency and because there was no contest they succeeded.

    What we see today is slow correction of political hoax called "Palestinians" and in a generation or two this nonsense will be gone and nobody in the World would attempt to associate "Palestinian" with some kind of nation or state.

    It will eventually only be regarded as failed Arab attempt to create legitimate claims to Jewish Land.
     
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Every reasonable person knows that eventually Israel will cease to exist, and Palestine will return to the Palestinians, who have been forced out of it in the infamous exodus of 1948.

    But the question is, at what cost? and what is the best way to engage this war machine called Israel to bring its downfall with the least damage possible.

    Especially that we're living in a world that provides multiple economic & political opportunities to bring down an enemy such as Israel while avoiding the militarisation of our societies.
     
    Last edited:
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Every reasonable person knows that eventually Israel will cease to exist, and Palestine will return to the Palestinians, who have been forced out of it in the infamous exodus of 1948.

    But the question is, at what cost? and what is the best way to engage this war machine called Israel to bring its downfall with the least damage possible.

    Especially that we're living in a world that provides multiple economic & political opportunities to bring down an enemy such as Israel while avoiding the militarization of our societies.
    "reasonable person" - interesting expression in this context.
     
    Top