Praying at the temple mount

[Phoenall]

If a Muslim countries practices Apartheid, it should be sanctioned. What Muslim country practices Apartheid?

Every Muslim country under Sharia practices Apartheid. Every last one.

Jizya is Apartheid in action.

That is Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, ad infintium.

You Muzzie Beasts make excuses for them while hurling your own feces at Israel.

None of the countries you mention separate people based on race or ethnicity.

YES THEY DO

 

[Phoenall]

So it's Apartheid then.

Facts are facts. Virtually all Muslim countries practice Apartheid.

Look, if you're not well versed in IHL, then this is a conversation that is over your head and you should not participate in.

Now go off and do whatever you trolls do.

Whats wrong billy boy has your bubble been burst in regards to which nations are apartheid. tell you what try and get a hotel room in Mecca and see what happens

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,d

Your citation should read "Art 47 GCIV." Other wise the citation is correct --- I knew what you meant. However your interpretation is wrong given the scenario.

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

(COMMENT)

The Occupying Power (Israel) DID NOT curtail the rights of the Palestinian in the authorized usage of Area "C." This was authorized by the "sole representative of the Palestinian people."

There is also the issue of established sovereignty.

The Subliminal Notation:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional
independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making
war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
​

The Timeline Segment:

In 1988, when on 31 July 88 HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank, Israel was already in effective control of "Area C" in the West Bank.

Article 42, The Hague Convention:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

(QUESTIONs)

• During the period 31 July 1988 and 15 November 1988, what country was in the sole effective control over territories?
• When did any manner of Palestinian authority establish actual sovereignty (supreme, and absolute power by which an independent state is governs)?
• The PLO did not declare independence immediately.

In 1648, the Powers that be, created The Treaty of Westphalia that would bring an end to the Thirty Years' War. The Treaty of Westphalia had within it, an imbedded concept that was a cornerstone with which to move forward: "forgiving the sins of the past." (Article II) And, it was very straight forward and clear on the matter of sovereignty; in that (Article CXVII, of the Treaty) "the Rights of Sovereignty, and what depends thereon, for the Lords to whom they belong." The Westphalian system of sovereign states was established in 1648 as part of the Peace of Westphalia. There were three core points to the treaty:

The principle of state sovereignty;
The principle of equality of states in political voice;
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.
​

You have seen these principles before. They are incorporated in the more modern UN Charter. This three and a half century old treaty is still relevant in concept today.

The first among these essential core ideas is that of sovereignty; and it is a quality that all self-supporting and self-governing nation-states (a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state) possess. This is the notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory --- the cornerstone and foundation of what it means to be recognized as a nation-state. We've seen this variation as well:

ARTICLE 3 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
​

The Treaty of Westphalia is very specific and outlines exactly the authority and sovereignty that each realm and leaders have. It is at odd with the Montevideo Convention that statehood is independent of recognition (the Declarative Model). While it often appears that for the purpose of discussions in theory, many countries support the Declarative Model, in actual practice the support the Constitutive Model. Court and practical assessments tend to view the actual possession of territory as a superior position to that of a simple declaration. In that regard, Israel met the criteria for a Declarative Model in the establishment of the Jewish State; BUT, it also was forced by externally interfering Arab Coalition to physically defend its recognition and integrity. Since the Arab Coalition Attacked first, they are the aggressor. While it is customary that an aggressor should not profit from illegal military campaigns; the reverse is true in the case of the defender which establishes positive control of a defined territory.

Most recently, the Russian Federation ceased Crimea. There is no enforcement or court action contemplated, simply because --- in practice --- the nations look at each situation on a case-by-case basis.

The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states; except that neither side is willing to compromise. And under the political climate and behind the diplomatic posturing, agreements similar in nature to the Oslo Accords will fail (just a matter of time). --- Any such shoehorned-in agreement will be compromised in short order and to the point that hostilities will re-ignite.

Most Respectfully,
R

montelatici is correct.

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."​

Any agreement that calls for or allows the violation of people's rights is void. So Israel is subject to the rules of occupation regardless of anything said in Oslo.

With this in mind, no peace agreement that signs away the rights of the Palestinians will be valid.

Then you will be able to cite these violations of the Palestinians rights wont you, and the relevant international law that implicate them ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

None of the countries you mention separate people based on race or ethnicity.

Stop lying Muzzie. Allah may be pleased by lies, but I am not.

All of them do. Anyone not following your filthy religion is separated as Dhimmis, second class citizens.

Islam is an Apartheid religion - fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look, if you're not well versed in IHL, then this is a conversation that is over your head and you should not participate in.

Now go off and do whatever you trolls do.

You are simply lying, it's what Muzzie Beasts and their Nazi supporters do.

Simple question, in Saudi Arabia, are non-Muslims legally termed "Dhimmis" and provided less rights than Muslims? Yes or no?

Do Dhimmis pay a tax known as jizya to ensure they cannot reach economic parity with Muslims? Yes or no?

Islam is and Apartheid religion, regardless of your lies.

 

[montelatici]

Having been stationed in Saudi Arabia for 2 years while in the Army, I can tell you that any separation between people is based on income and wealth. A Filipino Muslim laborer or servant has less in common with the middle and upper class Saudi than a high paid European ex-pat. And, non-Muslims do not pay any Jizyah in Saudi Arabia. Today, no Muslim country requires payment of the Jizyah by non-Muslims.

"The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world...."

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, the tax was only imposed on non-Muslim men who refused to serve in the armed forces. It was not imposed on women.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,d

Your citation should read "Art 47 GCIV." Other wise the citation is correct --- I knew what you meant. However your interpretation is wrong given the scenario.

1. "However, it is commonly understood that the conduct of activities in "Area C" are beyond the jurisdiction of the Palestinians; previously agreed to by the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

It is not "commonly understood". Even if agreed to it would contravene International Law concerning Belligerent Occupation..

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."

HR IV, Art. 46 GC IV, Arts. 13, 27, 33 & 34 GC IV, Arts. 8 & 47

(COMMENT)

The Occupying Power (Israel) DID NOT curtail the rights of the Palestinian in the authorized usage of Area "C." This was authorized by the "sole representative of the Palestinian people."

There is also the issue of established sovereignty.

The Subliminal Notation:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional
independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making
war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.
​

The Timeline Segment:

In 1988, when on 31 July 88 HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank, Israel was already in effective control of "Area C" in the West Bank.

Article 42, The Hague Convention:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

(QUESTIONs)

• During the period 31 July 1988 and 15 November 1988, what country was in the sole effective control over territories?
• When did any manner of Palestinian authority establish actual sovereignty (supreme, and absolute power by which an independent state is governs)?
• The PLO did not declare independence immediately.

In 1648, the Powers that be, created The Treaty of Westphalia that would bring an end to the Thirty Years' War. The Treaty of Westphalia had within it, an imbedded concept that was a cornerstone with which to move forward: "forgiving the sins of the past." (Article II) And, it was very straight forward and clear on the matter of sovereignty; in that (Article CXVII, of the Treaty) "the Rights of Sovereignty, and what depends thereon, for the Lords to whom they belong." The Westphalian system of sovereign states was established in 1648 as part of the Peace of Westphalia. There were three core points to the treaty:

The principle of state sovereignty;
The principle of equality of states in political voice;
The principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.
​

You have seen these principles before. They are incorporated in the more modern UN Charter. This three and a half century old treaty is still relevant in concept today.

The first among these essential core ideas is that of sovereignty; and it is a quality that all self-supporting and self-governing nation-states (a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state) possess. This is the notion that every state has the right of self-governance over its people and territory --- the cornerstone and foundation of what it means to be recognized as a nation-state. We've seen this variation as well:

ARTICLE 3 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
​

The Treaty of Westphalia is very specific and outlines exactly the authority and sovereignty that each realm and leaders have. It is at odd with the Montevideo Convention that statehood is independent of recognition (the Declarative Model). While it often appears that for the purpose of discussions in theory, many countries support the Declarative Model, in actual practice the support the Constitutive Model. Court and practical assessments tend to view the actual possession of territory as a superior position to that of a simple declaration. In that regard, Israel met the criteria for a Declarative Model in the establishment of the Jewish State; BUT, it also was forced by externally interfering Arab Coalition to physically defend its recognition and integrity. Since the Arab Coalition Attacked first, they are the aggressor. While it is customary that an aggressor should not profit from illegal military campaigns; the reverse is true in the case of the defender which establishes positive control of a defined territory.

Most recently, the Russian Federation ceased Crimea. There is no enforcement or court action contemplated, simply because --- in practice --- the nations look at each situation on a case-by-case basis.

The current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states; except that neither side is willing to compromise. And under the political climate and behind the diplomatic posturing, agreements similar in nature to the Oslo Accords will fail (just a matter of time). --- Any such shoehorned-in agreement will be compromised in short order and to the point that hostilities will re-ignite.

Most Respectfully,
R

montelatici is correct.

"The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights."​

Any agreement that calls for or allows the violation of people's rights is void. So Israel is subject to the rules of occupation regardless of anything said in Oslo.

With this in mind, no peace agreement that signs away the rights of the Palestinians will be valid.

Then you will be able to cite these violations of the Palestinians rights wont you, and the relevant international law that implicate them ?

You wouldn't know because Israel propaganda will not mention them.

And since that is your only source...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Having been stationed in Saudi Arabia for 2 years while in the Army, I can tell you that any separation between people is based on income and wealth. A Filipino Muslim laborer or servant has less in common with the middle and upper class Saudi than a high paid European ex-pat. And, non-Muslims do not pay any Jizyah in Saudi Arabia. Today, no Muslim country requires payment of the Jizyah by non-Muslims.

"The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world...."

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, the tax was only imposed on non-Muslim men who refused to serve in the armed forces. It was not imposed on women.

Oh, that old lie?

You Muslims are virtually never are truthful, Allah loves a cheerful liar.

{
There are more than a million Roman Catholics in Saudi Arabia. Most of them are expatriate Filipinos who work there, but who do not have the citizenship of Saudi Arabia.[1][2] The percentage of Christians of all denominations among the about 1.2 million Filipinos in Saudi Arabia likely exceeds 90%.[3] There are also Christians from Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, Greece, South Korea, Ireland, the United Kingdom, India, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and as well a number of Christians from sub-Saharan countries who are working in the Saudi Kingdom.[3]

Saudi Arabia allows Christians to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work, but does not allow them to practice their faith openly. Because of that Christians generally only worship within private homes.[3] Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are prohibited.[3] These include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols, and others.[3]

The Saudi Arabian Mutaween (Arabic: مطوعين‎), or Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (i.e., the religious police) prohibits the practice of any religion other than Islam.[3] Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy,[3] a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant.[3] The Government does not permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services.[3] In spite of this, a 2015 study estimates that there are some 60,000 believers from a Muslim background in the country, though that does not mean that all of those are citizens of the country.[4]

International Christian Concern (ICC) protested what it reported as the 2001 detention of 11 Christians in Saudi Arabia, for practicing their religion in their homes.[5] In June 2004, at least 46 Christians were arrested in what the ICC described as a "pogrom-like" action by Saudi police. The arrests took place shortly after the media reported that a Quran had been desecrated in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[6]

Christians and other non-Muslims are prohibited from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam's holiest cities.[3]}

Saudi Arabia impose Apartheid, as do all Muslim nations under Sharia.

You support Apartheid, that is a fact.

 

[montelatici]

What does all that nonsense have to do with Dhimmitude and Jizyah? Sharia law has nothing to do with Apartheid. Lack of freedom of religion has nothing to do with Apartheid. Apartheid is what is practiced in Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

Having been stationed in Saudi Arabia for 2 years while in the Army, I can tell you that any separation between people is based on income and wealth. A Filipino Muslim laborer or servant has less in common with the middle and upper class Saudi than a high paid European ex-pat. And, non-Muslims do not pay any Jizyah in Saudi Arabia. Today, no Muslim country requires payment of the Jizyah by non-Muslims.

"The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world...."

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, the tax was only imposed on non-Muslim men who refused to serve in the armed forces. It was not imposed on women.

So did you visit Mecca and walk round the sacred mosque, then go to mass in the R.C. Cathedral wearing a cross and carrying a bible ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What does all that nonsense have to do with Dhimmitude and Jizyah? Sharia law has nothing to do with Apartheid. Lack of freedom of religion has nothing to do with Apartheid. Apartheid is what is practiced in Israel.

Why do you Muzzie Beasts lie so much? Do you think others will believe you?

{Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpartɦɛit]; an Afrikaans[1] word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood")[2][3]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Exactly what you impose on non-Muslims anywhere your filthy religion gains power.

 

[Phoenall]

What does all that nonsense have to do with Dhimmitude and Jizyah? Sharia law has nothing to do with Apartheid. Lack of freedom of religion has nothing to do with Apartheid. Apartheid is what is practiced in Israel.

LINK

 

[Uncensored2008]

So did you visit Mecca and walk round the sacred mosque, then go to mass in the R.C. Cathedral wearing a cross and carrying a bible ?

If he went to a Christian church, he would be FAR more likely to have a suicide bomb than a Bible, Allahu Akbar

 

[montelatici]

What does all that nonsense have to do with Dhimmitude and Jizyah? Sharia law has nothing to do with Apartheid. Lack of freedom of religion has nothing to do with Apartheid. Apartheid is what is practiced in Israel.

Why do you Muzzie Beasts lie so much? Do you think others will believe you?

{Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpartɦɛit]; an Afrikaans[1] word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood")[2][3]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Exactly what you impose on non-Muslims anywhere your filthy religion gains power.

For the record, I am a Roman Catholic that considers both Islam and Judaism intrinsically dangerous cults, based on their precepts based on concepts like "an eye for an eye" and "jihad". Concepts we have replaced with "turn the other cheek". Though, I realize not all adherents of the two cults are evil.

And, in the lands controlled by Israeli Jews Apartheid is the rule. If you can't see what the Jewish settlements are, you have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are simply lying, it's what Muzzie Beasts and their Nazi supporters do.

Simple question, in Saudi Arabia, are non-Muslims legally termed "Dhimmis" and provided less rights than Muslims? Yes or no?

Do Dhimmis pay a tax known as jizya to ensure they cannot reach economic parity with Muslims? Yes or no?

Islam is and Apartheid religion, regardless of your lies.

Do you know what IHL is?

Say it!

 

[Phoenall]

You are simply lying, it's what Muzzie Beasts and their Nazi supporters do.

Simple question, in Saudi Arabia, are non-Muslims legally termed "Dhimmis" and provided less rights than Muslims? Yes or no?

Do Dhimmis pay a tax known as jizya to ensure they cannot reach economic parity with Muslims? Yes or no?

Islam is and Apartheid religion, regardless of your lies.

Do you know what IHL is?

Say it!

Yes do you, and do you understand that no terrorist group recognises IHL or the Geneva conventions. Do you also know that it is up to individual nations on whether or not they implement IHL, and the Islamic nations refuse point blank as it goes against Islamic law.

 

[docmauser1]

For the record, I am a Roman Catholic that considers both Islam and Judaism intrinsically dangerous cults, based on their precepts based on concepts like "an eye for an eye" and "jihad". Concepts we have replaced with "turn the other cheek". Though, I realize not all adherents of the two cults are evil. And, in the lands controlled by Israeli Jews Apartheid is the rule. If you can't see what the Jewish settlements are, you have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

Our honorable montelatici will fare better by becoming a rastafarian, of course.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the record, I am a Roman Catholic that considers both Islam and Judaism intrinsically dangerous cults, based on their precepts based on concepts like "an eye for an eye" and "jihad". Concepts we have replaced with "turn the other cheek". Though, I realize not all adherents of the two cults are evil.

And, in the lands controlled by Israeli Jews Apartheid is the rule. If you can't see what the Jewish settlements are, you have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

I would believe you except..

For the years I've been here you are a consistent cheer leader for terrorism. You absolutely side with Islam 100% of the time. The ONLY reason to attack Israel is the sick Muslim supremacist belief that not one grain of sand in what were ever held by the Muslims hoards can be under the control of Kafir. Israel is less that 1% of the land mass in the Middle East, yet you claim it is unfair that the JOOOOOZZZZZ have this tiny spec of land. The only RATIONAL explanation is that you are a Muzzie Beast demonstrating your intolerance of non-Muslims.

FURTHER, the Muzzie Beasts have already stated that when (actually if) they succeed in their genocide of the Jews, they are coming after Rome. SO you would be shooting yourself in the head by aiding the Caliphate if you were actually a Catholic.

The lands ruled by the Arab Apartheid are the most brutal in the world. Muzzie Beasts literally kill non-Muslims who dare set foot in Mecca.

You have no problem with that. Why? Because you are a fraud, and a Muzzie Beast yourself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For the record, I am a Roman Catholic that considers both Islam and Judaism intrinsically dangerous cults, based on their precepts based on concepts like "an eye for an eye" and "jihad". Concepts we have replaced with "turn the other cheek". Though, I realize not all adherents of the two cults are evil.

And, in the lands controlled by Israeli Jews Apartheid is the rule. If you can't see what the Jewish settlements are, you have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

I would believe you except..

For the years I've been here you are a consistent cheer leader for terrorism. You absolutely side with Islam 100% of the time. The ONLY reason to attack Israel is the sick Muslim supremacist belief that not one grain of sand in what were ever held by the Muslims hoards can be under the control of Kafir. Israel is less that 1% of the land mass in the Middle East, yet you claim it is unfair that the JOOOOOZZZZZ have this tiny spec of land. The only RATIONAL explanation is that you are a Muzzie Beast demonstrating your intolerance of non-Muslims.

FURTHER, the Muzzie Beasts have already stated that when (actually if) they succeed in their genocide of the Jews, they are coming after Rome. SO you would be shooting yourself in the head by aiding the Caliphate if you were actually a Catholic.

The lands ruled by the Arab Apartheid are the most brutal in the world. Muzzie Beasts literally kill non-Muslims who dare set foot in Mecca.

You have no problem with that. Why? Because you are a fraud, and a Muzzie Beast yourself.

Pantload of Israeli crap, of course.The conflict is not about size. It is not about religion although the hundred year conflict has dragged religious freakazoids from both camps out of the woodwork.

As for persecution of minorities, what is the place of a Christian woman in Palestine?

 

[montelatici]

For the record, I am a Roman Catholic that considers both Islam and Judaism intrinsically dangerous cults, based on their precepts based on concepts like "an eye for an eye" and "jihad". Concepts we have replaced with "turn the other cheek". Though, I realize not all adherents of the two cults are evil.

And, in the lands controlled by Israeli Jews Apartheid is the rule. If you can't see what the Jewish settlements are, you have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

I would believe you except..

For the years I've been here you are a consistent cheer leader for terrorism. You absolutely side with Islam 100% of the time. The ONLY reason to attack Israel is the sick Muslim supremacist belief that not one grain of sand in what were ever held by the Muslims hoards can be under the control of Kafir. Israel is less that 1% of the land mass in the Middle East, yet you claim it is unfair that the JOOOOOZZZZZ have this tiny spec of land. The only RATIONAL explanation is that you are a Muzzie Beast demonstrating your intolerance of non-Muslims.

FURTHER, the Muzzie Beasts have already stated that when (actually if) they succeed in their genocide of the Jews, they are coming after Rome. SO you would be shooting yourself in the head by aiding the Caliphate if you were actually a Catholic.

The lands ruled by the Arab Apartheid are the most brutal in the world. Muzzie Beasts literally kill non-Muslims who dare set foot in Mecca.

You have no problem with that. Why? Because you are a fraud, and a Muzzie Beast yourself.

First of all Palestinians are Christians as well as Muslims, and the Christians, being the biggest land owners and the wealthiest of the Palestinians, lost the most as a result of the invasion of the European Jews. Firstly, calling anyone a "Muzzie Beats" is, besides racist, childish. I would find it disgusting and would report anyone calling the Jews beasts. Demonizing people of a particular, race religion or ethnicity is a Nazi technique which you have apparently learned well.

It is not unfair for Jews to have a "spec." of land or more anywhere. What is unfair is the stealing of said land from the native inhabitants and their associated eviction from their land. In particular I support the Palestinian Christians and their right to return to Palestine and the return of their homes and land. If you are anti-Christian, and it seems you are, it is your problem given that there are nearly 2 billion of us and we wield a great amount of power.