Jews for Justice..... If Americans really Knew

[toastman]

Also, in the examples of Arabs massacring Jews that I have provided, can you show me where it says they were defending themselves?

 

[montelatici]

Since you have only had propaganda to relate to, the end of the article tells it all:

"This is the first time we see how they describe things from their point of view, "Ben Bassat says." It's not a matter of being for or against Zionism – it simply shows how complex this meeting was, and that can't be learned anywhere else."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz

What propaganda are you talking about Monti ? It seems that whenever I provide you with facts that you don't like, you accuse me of posting propaganda.
The fact STILL remains that the first documented massacre was of Arabs killing Jews. Deal with it

The first documented killing was of the Europeans killing the locals, as stated in the article. But it does not matter. Europeans attempting to settle a country with other people living in the place, with the intention of taking the land and creating a colony are the aggressors. Why can't you understand that?

 

[montelatici]

Also, in the examples of Arabs massacring Jews that I have provided, can you show me where it says they were defending themselves?

They came from Europe to take the land for themselves. There were no massacres, just defending their land from Europeans.

 

[toastman]

Since you have only had propaganda to relate to, the end of the article tells it all:

"This is the first time we see how they describe things from their point of view, "Ben Bassat says." It's not a matter of being for or against Zionism – it simply shows how complex this meeting was, and that can't be learned anywhere else."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz

What propaganda are you talking about Monti ? It seems that whenever I provide you with facts that you don't like, you accuse me of posting propaganda.
The fact STILL remains that the first documented massacre was of Arabs killing Jews. Deal with it

The first documented killing was of the Europeans killing the locals, as stated in the article. But it does not matter. Europeans attempting to settle a country with other people living in the place, with the intention of taking the land and creating a colony are the aggressors. Why can't you understand that?

y
No, your article does not provide any evidence of a documented killing. If it was documented, what was the name of the event ?
And in the attacks taking place, there was no land being taken awaya nd it was not Arabs defending themselves. You are simply making that up because you cannot handle the truth.

 

[toastman]

Also, in the examples of Arabs massacring Jews that I have provided, can you show me where it says they were defending themselves?

They came from Europe to take the land for themselves. There were no massacres, just defending their land from Europeans.

.
Then prove to me that the massacres I provided to you were Arabs defending themselves from getting land taken away.

 

[montelatici]

Were the Zionists not planning to to establish a state in Palestine?

 

[toastman]

Were the Zionists not planning to to establish a state in Palestine?

Like the British promised them, yes.

Your point ?

You are basically saying that because of this, all Jews were targets.

 

[montelatici]

Were the Zionists not planning to to establish a state in Palestine?

Like the British promised them, yes.

Your point ?

You are basically saying that because of this, all Jews were targets.

How could the British promise land in the Middle East that others were living on to Europeans? That is insane.

 

[toastman]

Were the Zionists not planning to to establish a state in Palestine?

Like the British promised them, yes.

Your point ?

You are basically saying that because of this, all Jews were targets.

How could the British promise land in the Middle East that others were living on to Europeans? That is insane.

Because the British were the successors of the war and could do whatever they want with it. Do you think that it was the only time land was partition post war ??,

What's wrong with the British promising the Jews their own country, specially considering how many countries Arab Muslims have ? Not to mention the region was not under Arab control and Arabs never had any sovereignty over the land. They just owned land and lived there.

 

[Phoenall]

"When asked if that means a Palestinian state will not be established if he is elected, Netanyahu said "indeed."

Fox News no less!

Netanyahu trailing in polls promises no Palestinian state if elected Fox News

From your link the truth that you dont want others to know


In an interview published Monday in the nrg news website, Netahyahu said withdrawing from occupied areas to make way for a Palestinian state would only ensure that territory will be taken over by Islamic extremists. When asked if that means a Palestinian state will not be established if he is elected, Netanyahu said "indeed."



Only a complete idiot would try and claim this meant NEVER. Are you a complete idiot Abdul ?

 

[Phoenall]

No use arguing with two Israel ass-kissing idiots......

Mohammed turned on the Jewish tribes in Median because ....for just a bit of money....they betrayed Mohammed and opened the gates of the city to enemies of Mohammed's own people.....

Secondly, the Hebron Massacre was sparked by rumors that some Jews had blown up a Mosque in Jerusalem.....Sad occurence, no doubt. But, Muslims did not just wake up one day and decided to kill Jews....As a matter of fact, many Muslims sheltered Jews and avoided further killings.

Read the hadiths and see what they say about it before showing your stupidity. The Hebron massacre was sparked because of a BLOOD LIBEL started by the Grand Mufti that Jews had murdered muslims at the west wall and were marching on the Temple mount.

 

[Phoenall]

Were the Zionists not planning to to establish a state in Palestine?

Like the British promised them, yes.

Your point ?

You are basically saying that because of this, all Jews were targets.

How could the British promise land in the Middle East that others were living on to Europeans? That is insane.

If they owned the land they could do what they wanted with it, and anyone living on it without their permission had no legal footing to claim ownership.

 

[Phoenall]

I only post fact Toast, you know that. Fact is not propaganda.

It is when it is used wrongly to define another meaning to that intended. So you post propaganda because you manipulate fact

 

[Phoenall]

I only post text from official documents from governmental or academic archives to support my claims. If my claims are contradicted by the official facts, I want to know.

You have been shown all the time, and all you do is hide the parts that disagree with your POV.

 

[Phoenall]

I found it Toast.

"Petitions sent by locals to the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul reveal the complexity of early encounters between local villagers and new European immigrants."


"As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side. At times, one could find another narrative – the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration. Still, a new document referring to the Zarnuka incident was discovered recently by researcher Yuval Ben Bassat, in the Istanbul Archives, a petition written to Sultan Mehmet V by heads of families in the area....The petitioners present themselves as, "We, the residents of villages neighboring with the Jewish colonies of Daran [Rehovot] and Lun Kara (Rishon Leztion)," and complain that the Jews "wanted to strip the camel owner of their clothes, money and camels, but these men refused to give their camels and escaped from Lun Kara with their camels, protecting each other [to seek refuge with] men of the law… The above mentioned Jews attacked our villages, robbed and looted our property, killed and even damaged the family honor, all this in a manner we find hard to put in words."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz

Yep supposition and Islamic blood libel without any supporting evidence to back it up. It could have been a ploy to get the authorities to do the dirty work after the muslims had attacked the Jews first and the Jews retaliated in kind killing some of the attacckers. Remember muslims have a term for this that roughly translates to Lies and Deciet or Kithman and Taqiya.

 

[Phoenall]

What year did these alleged attacks take place ?

Turn of the 20th century...approximately 1912-15...and skip the "alleged" adjective.

Why there is no supporting evidence so they are alleged incidents

 

[Phoenall]

Well, Toast when were the Ottomans in charge. It certainly wasn't after WW1, was it.

For about 600 years prior to this was when the first took charge, so it could have been at any time in that period.

 

[Phoenall]

Since you have only had propaganda to relate to, the end of the article tells it all:

"This is the first time we see how they describe things from their point of view, "Ben Bassat says." It's not a matter of being for or against Zionism – it simply shows how complex this meeting was, and that can't be learned anywhere else."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz

So any time from 1850 up to 1916 is when this took place, and there are reports of Jewish mass murders from the beginning of Ottoman rule .

 

[Phoenall]

Well, Toast when were the Ottomans in charge. It certainly wasn't after WW1, was it.

Yes I know when the Ottoman empire collapsed, but it does not say anywhere in the article that was when the attacks occured. Either way, Arabs have killed Jews before the 1900's, which precedes your example.

Well the Europeans killed the locals first, but it doesn't really matter. Locals are simply defending themselves from colonizers can't you understand that basic concept? Even if the local people killed the European colonizers first, they had every right to do so. Just as the Native Americans had the same right.

And the invited migrants had the right to defend themselves and kill their attackers. And they cant be colonisers if they can trace their ancestry back 4000 years on the same land.

See you are posting propaganda again, and RACIST LIES.

 

[Phoenall]

Since you have only had propaganda to relate to, the end of the article tells it all:

"This is the first time we see how they describe things from their point of view, "Ben Bassat says." It's not a matter of being for or against Zionism – it simply shows how complex this meeting was, and that can't be learned anywhere else."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz

What propaganda are you talking about Monti ? It seems that whenever I provide you with facts that you don't like, you accuse me of posting propaganda.
The fact STILL remains that the first documented massacre was of Arabs killing Jews. Deal with it

The first documented killing was of the Europeans killing the locals, as stated in the article. But it does not matter. Europeans attempting to settle a country with other people living in the place, with the intention of taking the land and creating a colony are the aggressors. Why can't you understand that?

Was it indeed that explain these reported and verified massacres


1517 Hebron attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1517 Safed attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1660 destruction of Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



All before Zionism and the alleged Jewish colonisation