All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[rylah]

This is one week after Synagogues been symbolically closed in condolence for the men and women who were murdered in that mosque. One week after all the gifts and charity of Purim holidays were given to the Muslim community, by the local Jewish community in NZ and the community of Pittsburgh...

New Zealand mosque leaders blames Israel for Christchurch attack

 

[Sixties Fan]

Whenever there is a terror attack, there is a small group of conspiracy theorists who inhabit dark regions of the internet that seek to blame Israel, just as Jews were blamed in the past for all manner of evils.

The Christchurch terror attack is no different, except that there have also been more mainstream voices spreading the pernicious lie at a time of heightened emotion.

The first mainstream New Zealand news agency to suggest that Israel was connected to the Christchurch massacre was Stuff irresponsibly sharing an Associated Press article with a provocative headline “Christchurch mosque attacks: Alleged gunman Brenton Tarrant visited Israel in 2016.”

It is in paragraph six that we learn “Also in late 2016, Tarrant visited Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, where he stopped by historic battle sites, before travelling in Western Europe in 2017.” Yet the headline would suggest Israel is somehow special and there is comment from unnamed “Israeli officials” but no other nation’s officials are sought for comment.

While the AP article doesn’t explicitly suggest Israel had anything to do with the attack, the headline certainly implies so.

Another, more concerning and explicit connection was expressed by Ahmed Bhamji, Chair of Masjid e Umar in Mt Roskill, a mosque affiliated with FIANZ. At a rally in Auckland in front of around one thousand people and in a video that was seen more than 2,500 times, he said.

To which a member of the crowd loudly replied “That’s true. Israel is behind this. That’s true.” There was no attempt by MC Joe Carolan to challenge these false and dangerous accusations and no audible challenge from the crowd.

(full article online)

Dangerous Antisemitic Conspiracy Mainstreamed in New Zealand | HonestReporting

 

[Sixties Fan]

The BBC did not bother to explain to readers of this report the meaning of the phrase “a source of friction in the past”. The last time audiences saw any BBC reporting on such so-called “friction” was in October 2015 when Palestinian rioters set fire to the tomb. Since then repeated attacks on both the site itself and security forces guarding visiting worshippers have gone unreported. For example:
--------
As has been noted here in the past freedom of access to and worship at holy sites was supposedly guaranteed under the terms of the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO over two decades ago.

Despite its public purpose obligation to provide audiences with “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” the BBC chooses to euphemistically frame regular breaches of that agreement as “friction” attributed to the site itself rather than to the Palestinians actually throwing firebombs, explosives or rocks.

(full article online)

BBC News glosses over repeated Palestinian violence at holy site

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The BBC did not bother to explain to readers of this report the meaning of the phrase “a source of friction in the past”. The last time audiences saw any BBC reporting on such so-called “friction” was in October 2015 when Palestinian rioters set fire to the tomb. Since then repeated attacks on both the site itself and security forces guarding visiting worshippers have gone unreported. For example:
--------
As has been noted here in the past freedom of access to and worship at holy sites was supposedly guaranteed under the terms of the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO over two decades ago.

Despite its public purpose obligation to provide audiences with “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” the BBC chooses to euphemistically frame regular breaches of that agreement as “friction” attributed to the site itself rather than to the Palestinians actually throwing firebombs, explosives or rocks.

(full article online)

BBC News glosses over repeated Palestinian violence at holy site

Muslims believe that Joseph is buried at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. That's why they repeatedly try to destroy Joseph's Tomb in Nablus. They have no respect for sites holy to other faiths. When the Jordanians controlled Jerusalem, they destroyed many synagogues and Jewish graves.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

In a recent article on The Top Four Reasons Why Rep. Ilhan Omar Is Wrong About AIPAC, Israel and the Palestinians, CAMERA notes that historically, US support for Israel was actually minimal before 1970 — despite the combined alleged influence of the Jewish vote, Jewish political contributions, and the activities of the pro-Israel lobby. After all, just 3 years earlier, in 1967, Israel’s main source of weapons was not the US; it was the British and the French. Yet after 1970, US support for Israel began to grow rapidly.

The turning point was President Richard Nixon — and Arafat.

As Alex Safian puts it in the article:

The US president in 1970 was Richard Nixon, a Republican who knew very well that overwhelmingly Democratic and left-leaning American Jews had already voted against him in large numbers and would do so again in 1972. What happened in 1970 that convinced Nixon, the arch practitioner of realpolitik, to press for increased support for Israel?

Safian quotes the late Harvard professor, Nadav Safran, who in his book “Israel: The Embattled Ally,” notes that the turning point in US/Israel relations was not any kind of Jewish influence. That influence was consistent and yet had failed to improve US-Israel relations. Instead, the turning point was the crisis of Black September, when Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, with the assistance of invading Syrian tanks, attempted to overthrow and assassinate Jordan’s King Hussein, who was an ally of the US. If successful, they would have posed a threat to western oil supplies.

According to Safran, when the Syrian army captured Irbid, a city in northern Jordan which contained a junction of roads linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel — King Hussein appealed for American and British help. The British refused and advised the US to do the same. Other European allies also advised against helping. Nixon had Kissinger work out a plan for a joint American-Israeli intervention. Kissinger and Israeli Ambassador Rabin put together a plan for a combined Israeli air strike and armored assault on the Syrian forces in conjunction with an American airborne descent on Amman airport. If necessary, Israeli armored columns would advance in a pincer movement from the Golan and the Jordan Valley and cut off the Syrian intervention forces and destroy them.

Because of the American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit all his forces to fighting Arafat’s forces. The Syrians, on the other hand, wary of that support, and of a flanking attack by columns of Israeli tank columns, withdrew — saving Jordan, and making direct Israeli intervention unnecessary.

(full article online)

How Arafat Helped Establish Israel As The Major US Ally In The Middle East That It Is Today

 

[Sixties Fan]

Strategically the position is impossible for Israel to give up. I was driving around the Golan again last month, and had the usual sobering moment at the Quneitra crossing from which you can look out over the plains of Syria. The Israelis seized this high ground in 1967 after their neighbours, including Syria, launched a war of aggression against the Jewish state. Normally in warfare if one side launches an aggressive war which it subsequently loses then the aggressor cannot simply demand that everyone pretend the aggression didn’t happen and return to the status-quo-ante. Rather, the aggressor – and loser – has to pay a price. One price for Syria was the loss of the Golan Heights, which formed a miniscule percentage of Syrian territory, but which gave the country a vantage point over Israel which Israel could not allow them to have again.

Since Syria lost control of the Golan Heights the area itself has blossomed with vineyards and much more. But Israel is not holding the territory simply to make wine. It is holding it because since 1967 it has not been possible for Syria to rain down rockets and other munitions onto the Galilee, as it could – and did – before.

But as of this decade the third and equally powerful reason for Israel to hold onto the Golan has become irrefutable. For the last eight years the British Foreign Office and others have continued to claim that Israel should hand the Golan back. But to whom? As the civil war in Syria has raged, and up to half a million civilians have lost their lives there is something preposterous about the British government and others continuing to insist that Bashar al-Assad should be gifted the Golan Heights. Of all the territory over which the Assad dynasty aspires to rule, the Golan is the only place which it and its allies have not been able to barrel bomb, mortar and otherwise decimate with impunity. As the Syrian nation has fallen apart – largely aided by Iran, Turkey, Russia and the Gulf States – it should be a source of international relief that the Golan is being carefully looked after by the Israelis. There is something not just belligerent but perverse in this pretence that despite everything in Syria the Assad family should still be given the Golan Heights in order to further extend their apparently inadequate slaughter of recent years.

(full article online)

Donald Trump is right about Israel and the Golan Heights | Coffee House

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ismail Haniyeh — can you not see that you’re losing? You take all the money you get from the Arab world and instead of using it for food, a functioning economy and a future for Gaza's residents, you waste it on your imaginary attempts to beat us.”

“It’s true Haniyeh, things aren’t simple (here). Sometimes it’s rough and I’ll go as far as to say we’re suffering. But look at the results of your behavior… How does Gaza look in comparison to Sderot?

“You’ve been launching rockets at us for 18 years,” says the mayor. “But it seems you don't know what goes on in this city — it’s booming! Hundreds of new residents join us every year, new homes are being built. We’re growing and growing stronger.

“And what did you get out of it?? There’s nothing but destruction on your side,” he continues, referring to IDF strikes that left parts of Gaza in ruins.


Destruction in the Gaza Strip following an IAF attack during the current clashes with Hama... (Photo: EPA)" titlecredit="" style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative;">


Destruction in the Gaza Strip following an IAF attack during the current clashes with Hamas (Photo: EPA)

“Haniyeh, between you and me — when your family needs medical care, you send them to Israel. But your residents have nowhere to go (when they need help).

"It’s true, life is difficult for us in this reality, operated by a cruel and evil enemy as yourself, who will go to any measures to launch rockets at Israeli civilians instead of fighting the IDF, who you fear!

“You think you’ve won, but reality proves that you’ve lost again and lost big time. You thought you’ll make Sderot into a ghost town — but we’re powerful!

“You lost, your residents are losing and will lose more in time to come. It’s time to change course,” Davidi says at the end of the letter.

(full article online)

You lost, Sderot mayor tells Hamas leader in Arabic open letter

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

We’re Jews, We’re Not White, We Define Ourselves | Jewish Journal

 

[P F Tinmore]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

 

[Hollie]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

The same can be said for Arabs-Moslems posing as “Pal'istanians”.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not. I have an old encyclopedia from the 1960's, and it lists the West Bank as being part of Jordan. Jordan renounced all rights to the West Bank in 1988, the same year that the PLO declared independence in the West Bank. If Israel had ever annexed the West Bank, I would've recognized that too, but Israel unfortunately never did this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not. I have an old encyclopedia from the 1960's, and it lists the West Bank as being part of Jordan. Jordan renounced all rights to the West Bank in 1988, the same year that the PLO declared independence in the West Bank. If Israel had ever annexed the West Bank, I would've recognized that too, but Israel unfortunately never did this.

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not.

Nobody recognized it because it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[Hollie]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not. I have an old encyclopedia from the 1960's, and it lists the West Bank as being part of Jordan. Jordan renounced all rights to the West Bank in 1988, the same year that the PLO declared independence in the West Bank. If Israel had ever annexed the West Bank, I would've recognized that too, but Israel unfortunately never did this.

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not.

Nobody recognized it because it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Your legal opinions are always a hoot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not. I have an old encyclopedia from the 1960's, and it lists the West Bank as being part of Jordan. Jordan renounced all rights to the West Bank in 1988, the same year that the PLO declared independence in the West Bank. If Israel had ever annexed the West Bank, I would've recognized that too, but Israel unfortunately never did this.

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not.

Nobody recognized it because it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Your legal opinions are always a hoot.

It's true. Look it up.

 

[Rigby5]

The New York Times policy on referring to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria over the years is a good indicator of the subtle anti-Israel bias that US leaders and pundits would be reading every day.

Before 1967, the New York Times recognized Jerusalem and the entire West Bank as being part of Jordan, and the Israeli side of Jerusalem was merely an "Israeli sector" but not part of Israel. This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

1966:





Then after 1967, its policy evolved.

Back in Judea and Samaria, the Times apparently decided during Oslo that referring to cities that were controlled by the PA as being "Israeli-occupied" made no sense, so that area just became the "West Bank" - still a Jordanian term.

1995:


That is still the policy today.

There is a similar policy for the Golan Heights - no state is mentioned.

The question is - when did the "West Bank" become "Palestinian territories" as a given? When did it magically leave the Jordanian orbit, and when did Israel start occupying a completely different area without moving a single soldier?
Even Jordan's 1988 declaration that it was giving the territory to the Palestinians had no legal weight, since it was never Jordan's to begin with and it had no authority to do so.

(full article online)

The New York Times strange policies on datelining Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.

How could they lose something that was not theirs?

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not. I have an old encyclopedia from the 1960's, and it lists the West Bank as being part of Jordan. Jordan renounced all rights to the West Bank in 1988, the same year that the PLO declared independence in the West Bank. If Israel had ever annexed the West Bank, I would've recognized that too, but Israel unfortunately never did this.

Jordan annexed the West Bank, so it was theirs, whether the international community recognized the annexation or not.

Nobody recognized it because it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Israel illegally annexes occupied territory all the time.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, and all points West of the Jordan River;

There are a couple of things wrong with this exchange. We either follow the logic in the Rule of Law -- or → we do not.

The Rule of Law (RoL) is not a popularity contest. And you don't disregard the RoL just because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.

This is even though the international community did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the territory.

Many say that Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967.
How could they lose something that was not theirs?

(REFERENCES)

※ Article 3, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What does the law say about "recognition of a state?"

✦ The political existence of the state Is independent of recognition by the other states.​

◈ The state has the right to defend its:

✦ Integrity and independence,

✦ Its right to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently,​

◈ The state has the right:

✦ To organize itself as it sees fit,

✦ To legislate upon its interests,

✦ Administer its services,

✦ To define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.​

※ Article 10, Convention on Rights and Duties of States ※

◈ What is the primary interest of states?

✦ It is the conservation of peace.

✦ Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

§ The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, (A/RES/25/2625 XXV • Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States)​

(COMMENT)

It simply does not matter how it was that the Arab Palestinians the West Bank - constituting 50% of the Jordanian Parliament - came to vote on and accept the "Unification of the Two Banks" - it happened. And by following the incitement to violence models and the propaganda programs, the Arab Palestinian influence into directly controlling the territory formerly under the mandate. While the Arab Palestinians have demonstrated that they can alter the perception of the charger on the border with Israel, they have seen a drop in donor nation contributions. However, Israel need not mount a propaganda campaign for the Arab World to see the effects of the significant advancesments by Israel in their quality of life, economic successes, and scientific and technical research in many key areas. Wheras the Arab Palestinians see nothing of the sort under their Palestinian Leadership. No matter how bad and despicable the Arab Palestinians portray the Israeli Leadership to be, they only need to look at Gaza and Ramallah to see corrupt and inept government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Here's an example of her work and a brief bio:

(full article online)

New "Apartheid?" Poster: Samah Shihadi, Muslim artist ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Natural Citizen]

(COMMENT)
...scientific and technical research in many key areas....

Many Americans are bothered that Isreal acts as a foreign agent for the United States intelligence agencies, effectively our federal government, against its citizens to violate their civil liberties via technology. Especially in the mobile device department. The states here, several of them, have purchased this technology and added them to their police departments. They've successfully cracked every apple iphone so our passwords are irrelevant.

These companies like Apple are always under attack from a couple of those Israeli tech companies. It's terrorism, in my view. The fact that they sell this stuff to our government to use against us is a problem.

Apparently they're selling it to other foreign entities, too. Perhaps even rogues. Even if they're not, it doesn't mean they won't end up with it anyway.