• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why there won't be peace between Israel and the Palestinians

Why do supporters of Israel act like Jews, Muslims, and Christians didn't live peacefully side by side for centuries when the Ottoman Turks were in charge of Palestine? Is it because Zionist myths don't allow historical facts to get in the way of the narrative? Is it because they have no interest in learning about the history of Israel/Palestine/Canaan? Or is it just racism and religious bigotry overriding common sense and honesty?

Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside has been the home of Jews, Christians, and Muslims for the past 14 centuries, and the place was pretty darn quiet for nearly all of them. All this bloviating about how peaceful co-existence is impossible looks and smells like bullshit.

And whites and blacks lived basically peacefully side by side in the 1800's in the south. Liberating the slaves turned things hostile.

Do you think you can stretch the meaning of the word peaceful to encompass murderous oppression? Even if you could, the Ottomans didn't enslave the Palestinians.

Are you admitting that Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for centuries? If we compared the history of a village of Palestinian Jews with that of a nearby village of Christians and Muslims, do you acknowledge we aren't going to find much in the way of conflict between them?

You're the one who stretched the meaning. I simply applied it to another situation where I knew you would see the oppression.

The non-Muslims weren't enslaved but they were definitely second-class citizens and had to put up with occasional murders and massacres.

- - - Updated - - -

One set of actors has the ability to make peace.

The oppressed set of actors are helpless.

They can do nothing to move the process forward.

Yes, one group has the ability to make peace: The Palestinians.
It takes all sides to make peace - the first step is promoting trust among all the relevant actors. Until that happens, there is no peace. And that requires every side to act.

Yeah, it takes all sides--and the Palestinians aren't interested. I posted this to show what happens to a Palestinian who actually advocates for peace.

- - - Updated - - -

And whites and blacks lived basically peacefully side by side in the 1800's in the south. Liberating the slaves turned things hostile.
Using your analogy, the hostilities occurred because some of the whites could not handle that liberation. Applying your analogy to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the Israelis are clearly the "whites" (i.e. oppressors) and the Palestinians are clearly the "slaves" (i.e. the oppressed). Which means you are tacitly admitting the Israelis will be the problem.

Total failure.

The Israelis are the ones who threw off their oppressors.

The Palestinians are the whites, the Jews are the blacks.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do supporters of Israel act like Jews, Muslims, and Christians didn't live peacefully side by side for centuries when the Ottoman Turks were in charge of Palestine? Is it because Zionist myths don't allow historical facts to get in the way of the narrative? Is it because they have no interest in learning about the history of Israel/Palestine/Canaan? Or is it just racism and religious bigotry overriding common sense and honesty?

Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside has been the home of Jews, Christians, and Muslims for the past 14 centuries, and the place was pretty darn quiet for nearly all of them. All this bloviating about how peaceful co-existence is impossible looks and smells like bullshit.

And whites and blacks lived basically peacefully side by side in the 1800's in the south. Liberating the slaves turned things hostile.

Slaves were continually beaten and tortured. Any infraction could result in torture, to the point of visible mutilation to persuade others.

That is not peace.

It is a state of continual violence or threat of violence.

That you think it is peace is telling.

It's as much peace as existed in Muslim lands before the formation of Israel.
 
Do you think you can stretch the meaning of the word peaceful to encompass murderous oppression? Even if you could, the Ottomans didn't enslave the Palestinians.

Are you admitting that Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for centuries? If we compared the history of a village of Palestinian Jews with that of a nearby village of Christians and Muslims, do you acknowledge we aren't going to find much in the way of conflict between them?

You're the one who stretched the meaning. I simply applied it to another situation where I knew you would see the oppression.

The non-Muslims weren't enslaved but they were definitely second-class citizens and had to put up with occasional murders and massacres.


Everyone in the entire world has to put up with occasional murders. Do you understand that? Murders occasionally happen in every society, in every era, among and between every ethnic, racial, and religious group, community, and association. Let's not pretend the occasional murder is something especially noteworthy about the Ottoman Empire, because that would be stupid.

That leaves your claim about massacres. Did you ever finish reading the results of the Google search you did here? I thought it was pretty interesting reading. The only two massacres that came up as results happened when people warring with the Ottomans attacked Jews due to the close and friendly relations between the Jewish community and the Ottoman Turks. And both times, after the Turks defeated the attackers, the Jewish communities recovered and flourished.

I asked you this is that other thread:

Anyway, aside from the extra tax levied on non-muslims (which I agree was unfair), what exactly is your objection to the way things were before Zionism roiled the status quo in Palestine? People were free to worship openly, to own property, to participate in their government, to marry outside of their faith group, etc. There were no pogroms, no throwing rocks at schoolkids, no hostile takeovers of neighborhoods, no firebombing houses where people slept, no throat slitting in the middle of the night to terrorize a community. I can think of a few things they didn't have that would be good improvements, like having the right of free speech recognized as inalienable, but what exactly is your objection? Please be specific.

Your answer was factually incorrect, but now that you've looked into the history of the region can you tell me what you still find objectionable aside from the extra tax levied on non-Muslims?
 
Yeah, it takes all sides--and the Palestinians aren't interested. I posted this to show what happens to a Palestinian who actually advocates for peace.
Neither are the Israelis interested in peace. Your OP simply reveals your bias and nothing else.

Total failure.

The Israelis are the ones who threw off their oppressors.
To which oppressors in the real world do you refer? Certainly not the Palestinians, who were never in a position to oppress the Israelis in modern times.
The Palestinians are the whites, the Jews are the blacks.
That is simply delusional.
 
And whites and blacks lived basically peacefully side by side in the 1800's in the south. Liberating the slaves turned things hostile.

Slaves were continually beaten and tortured. Any infraction could result in torture, to the point of visible mutilation to persuade others.

That is not peace.

It is a state of continual violence or threat of violence.

That you think it is peace is telling.

It's as much peace as existed in Muslim lands before the formation of Israel.

Every argument from you ends up as some racist nonsense.

You are a defender of oppression.

You side with the oppressor every time.

You have no morality or basic human decency.
 
That leaves your claim about massacres. Did you ever finish reading the results of the Google search you did here? I thought it was pretty interesting reading. The only two massacres that came up as results happened when people warring with the Ottomans attacked Jews due to the close and friendly relations between the Jewish community and the Ottoman Turks. And both times, after the Turks defeated the attackers, the Jewish communities recovered and flourished.

Even Wikipedia can find an awful lot more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Middle_East_and_Arab_antisemitism

I asked you this is that other thread:

Anyway, aside from the extra tax levied on non-muslims (which I agree was unfair), what exactly is your objection to the way things were before Zionism roiled the status quo in Palestine? People were free to worship openly, to own property, to participate in their government, to marry outside of their faith group, etc. There were no pogroms, no throwing rocks at schoolkids, no hostile takeovers of neighborhoods, no firebombing houses where people slept, no throat slitting in the middle of the night to terrorize a community. I can think of a few things they didn't have that would be good improvements, like having the right of free speech recognized as inalienable, but what exactly is your objection? Please be specific.

Your answer was factually incorrect, but now that you've looked into the history of the region can you tell me what you still find objectionable aside from the extra tax levied on non-Muslims?

Repeating your response doesn't make it any more connected to reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither are the Israelis interested in peace. Your OP simply reveals your bias and nothing else.

To which oppressors in the real world do you refer? Certainly not the Palestinians, who were never in a position to oppress the Israelis in modern times.
The Palestinians are the whites, the Jews are the blacks.
That is simply delusional.

Strawman.

The oppressors were the Muslims.
 
Even Wikipedia can find an awful lot more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Middle_East_and_Arab_antisemitism

I asked you this is that other thread:

Your answer was factually incorrect, but now that you've looked into the history of the region can you tell me what you still find objectionable aside from the extra tax levied on non-Muslims?

Repeating your response doesn't make it any more connected to reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither are the Israelis interested in peace. Your OP simply reveals your bias and nothing else.

To which oppressors in the real world do you refer? Certainly not the Palestinians, who were never in a position to oppress the Israelis in modern times.
The Palestinians are the whites, the Jews are the blacks.
That is simply delusional.

Strawman.

The oppressors were the Muslims.
First, it is not a straw man to say your claim is delusional. The Palestinians were not the oppressors of the Israelis. 2nd, Muslims are not necessarily Palestinians. So your response is a total failure in reasoning.
 
That leaves your claim about massacres. Did you ever finish reading the results of the Google search you did here? I thought it was pretty interesting reading. The only two massacres that came up as results happened when people warring with the Ottomans attacked Jews due to the close and friendly relations between the Jewish community and the Ottoman Turks. And both times, after the Turks defeated the attackers, the Jewish communities recovered and flourished.

Even Wikipedia can find an awful lot more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Middle_East_and_Arab_antisemitism

Thanks for posting a link.

I'm certain you won't be surprised to learn that I'm looking into the incidents on that list. It's going to take some time to get through them all.

First things first. The definition of 'pogrom' being used in that article is this:

The term pogrom has multiple meanings,[1] ascribed most often to the deliberate persecution of an ethnic or religious group either approved or condoned by the local authorities.[2] The term is usually applied to anti-Jewish violence in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries according to Encyclopædia Britannica,[2] extended to include any attacks against Jews and physical destruction of Jewish property as well as looting of Jewish homes and businesses, throughout history.

That's an awfully broad definition. I don't think a car full of teenagers throwing rocks at a light-up plastic menorah should count as a pogrom, but that's what this definition allows. I'm going to be using a less open-ended definition: a pogrom is an officially sanctioned attack on a religious community and its members, typically and most especially against Jews.

Some of the incidents listed in that article are things that happened before the Ottoman Empire existed and some happened in lands that were not under Ottoman rule. For example, the Mawza Exile in Yemen occurred about 40 years after the local Yemeni leaders defeated the Ottomans and took control of the country.

The Damascus Affair of 1840 is one hell of a story. Even the US was eventually caught up in it:

The Damascus Blood Libel, or Damascus Affair, was a notorious blood libel that originated in 1840. Christian anti-Semitism and popular Muslim anti-Jewish feelings came to a head that year and were aggravated by the political struggle of the European powers for influence in the Middle East. Syria was then ruled by Muhammad Ali of Egypt, who had rebelled against Turkey. France supported Ali, while the other powers - notably Austria and Great Britain - were interested in preserving Turkish power and in preventing the extention of French influence.

On February 5, 1840, Capuchin friar Thomas, an Italian who had long resided in Damascus, disappeared together with his Muslim servant Ibrahim ʿAmāra. The monk was known to have been involved in shady business and the two men were probably murdered by tradesmen with whom Thomas had quarreled. Nonetheless, the Capuchins immediately circulated news that Jews had murdered both men in order to use their blood for Passover.

As Catholics in Syria were officially under French protection, the investigation should have been conducted by the French consul per local law. But the consul, Ratti-Menton, allied himself with the accusers and supervised the investigation jointly with the governor-general Sherif Padia; and it was conducted in the most barbarous fashion. A barber, Solomon Negrin, was arbitrarily arrested and tortured until a "confession" was extorted from him, according to which the monk had been killed in the house of David Harari by seven Jews. The men whom he named were subsequently arrested; two of them died under torture, one of them converted to Islam in order to be spared and the others were made to "confess."

A Muslim servant in the service of David Harari related under duress that Ibrahim ʿAmāra was killed in the house of Meir Farhi, in the presence of Farhi and other Jewish notables. Most of those mentioned were arrested, but one of them, Isaac Levi Picciotto, was an Austrian citizen and under the protection of the Austrian consul. His citizenship eventually led to the intervention of Austria, England and the United States in the affair.

More than one source I found states that the blood libel leveled at Jews by French Christians, and widely reported in European newspapers as though it had been confirmed to be true, was both something new in Muslim lands and part of a rising tide of European anti-Semitism. And please note that Syria at the time was not under Ottoman rule.

Next listed are two massacres in Aleppo, the first in 1850 and the second in 1875. I haven't found any evidence Jews were targeted in 1850. Wikipedia says the Massacre of Aleppo (1850) was a 2-day riot by Muslims against Christians fueled by economic disruptions, taxes, and rising European influence. I'm not sure why it's listed as an anti-Jewish incident, unless some Jewish owned property was damaged so it's being counted as a pogrom.

The Jewish Virtual Library article on Aleppo says in 1875 "a blood libel was spread about the Jews of Aleppo; however, the missing Armenian boy, whose absence had provided the charge, was found in a nearby village." I can't find any reference to victims or property damage, although I did find a book, Trials of the Diaspora, that says the Pasha of Aleppo sent troops to guard the Jewish Quarter.

So far I'm not seeing anything that refutes my argument that Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for nearly all of the time the Ottoman Turks ruled the area. I will keep going through that list, though. Perhaps there's something in there that calls it into question.
 
Last edited:
I found another article on the Damascus incident as I was looking into the next few incidents listed in Loren's link. This is from the website of Bar-Ilan University in Israel:

The Damascus Blood Libel – a Review of the Incident

In 1840 there was a terrible blood libel in Damascus that shook up Jewry throughout the world. As in every year, the Jews of Damascus were preparing to usher in the month of Adar properly with extra rejoicing, but instead of mourning turning to rejoicing, their rejoicing turned woeful mourning.

Damascus had been conquered by Mohammad Ali, ruler of Egypt, who was supported by France. He had fought against the Ottoman Sultan, who was aided by Britain and Austria. The background to the blood libel was the disappearance of the French monk, Father Thomas, along with his Moslem servant after posting a notice in the Jewish market of Damascus, on the first of Adar (5 February, 1840).

Ratti Menton, the French Consul in Damascus and a well-known anti-Semite, came out in "defense of the Catholics," exploiting the situation in order to blame the monk's disappearance on the Jews. French Prime Minister Adolphe Tiers supported his diplomat in Damascus. In a conversation with James de-Rothschild he even declared, "If in the Middle Ages the Jews engaged in ritual murder, as it turns out, why should the benighted Jews of Damascus not do the same in our time?"[5]

The backdrop to the blood libel was provided by Christian jealousy of the Jews and their economic standing. Competition between Jews and Christians for government positions was well-known in Moslem lands that sought to staff government offices with well-educated workers from among these two minority groups....


... Word of this terrible blood libel reached Jewish communities outside Syria. Moses Montefiore and other Jews of note and influence rose to the call to save their brethren who were languishing in prison in Damascus. The formerly Jewish German poet Heinrich Heine, who lived in Paris, vociferously protested the wrong done to the Jews of Damascus. Jews turned to several international bodies. Adolphe Crémieux[6] led a delegation of Jews from France to meet with Mohammad Ali, ruler of Egypt, and ask him to intervene. The Rothschild family, with the help of the Austrian consul, managed to uncover documents pertaining to the affair and publicized them in the international press. The Ottoman sultan, although he did not actually rule in Damascus, condemned what had been done and issued a firman [edict][7] flatly forbidding dissemination of the blood libel. The government of Britain also responded to the call and worked to help the innocent Jews....


...The firman issued by the Turkish sultan, which put an end to the Damascus blood libel, was greatly influential and had a mitigating influence on another two blood libels that took place seven years later, one in 1847 in the Maronite Christian city of Dir el-Kamar, Syria (now in Lebanon), and the other, the same year, in Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
Even Wikipedia can find an awful lot more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Middle_East_and_Arab_antisemitism

I asked you this is that other thread:



Repeating your response doesn't make it any more connected to reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither are the Israelis interested in peace. Your OP simply reveals your bias and nothing else.

To which oppressors in the real world do you refer? Certainly not the Palestinians, who were never in a position to oppress the Israelis in modern times.
The Palestinians are the whites, the Jews are the blacks.
That is simply delusional.

Strawman.

The oppressors were the Muslims.
First, it is not a straw man to say your claim is delusional. The Palestinians were not the oppressors of the Israelis. 2nd, Muslims are not necessarily Palestinians. So your response is a total failure in reasoning.

Until it became politically useful to be "Palestinians" they were simply Muslims. Or Jordanians.
 
Thanks for posting a link.

I'm certain you won't be surprised to learn that I'm looking into the incidents on that list. It's going to take some time to get through them all.

First things first. The definition of 'pogrom' being used in that article is this:

The term pogrom has multiple meanings,[1] ascribed most often to the deliberate persecution of an ethnic or religious group either approved or condoned by the local authorities.[2] The term is usually applied to anti-Jewish violence in the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries according to Encyclopædia Britannica,[2] extended to include any attacks against Jews and physical destruction of Jewish property as well as looting of Jewish homes and businesses, throughout history.

That's an awfully broad definition. I don't think a car full of teenagers throwing rocks at a light-up plastic menorah should count as a pogrom, but that's what this definition allows. I'm going to be using a less open-ended definition: a pogrom is an officially sanctioned attack on a religious community and its members, typically and most especially against Jews.

Some of the incidents listed in that article are things that happened before the Ottoman Empire existed and some happened in lands that were not under Ottoman rule. For example, the Mawza Exile in Yemen occurred about 40 years after the local Yemeni leaders defeated the Ottomans and took control of the country.

The Damascus Affair of 1840 is one hell of a story. Even the US was eventually caught up in it:

The Damascus Blood Libel, or Damascus Affair, was a notorious blood libel that originated in 1840. Christian anti-Semitism and popular Muslim anti-Jewish feelings came to a head that year and were aggravated by the political struggle of the European powers for influence in the Middle East. Syria was then ruled by Muhammad Ali of Egypt, who had rebelled against Turkey. France supported Ali, while the other powers - notably Austria and Great Britain - were interested in preserving Turkish power and in preventing the extention of French influence.

On February 5, 1840, Capuchin friar Thomas, an Italian who had long resided in Damascus, disappeared together with his Muslim servant Ibrahim ʿAmāra. The monk was known to have been involved in shady business and the two men were probably murdered by tradesmen with whom Thomas had quarreled. Nonetheless, the Capuchins immediately circulated news that Jews had murdered both men in order to use their blood for Passover.

As Catholics in Syria were officially under French protection, the investigation should have been conducted by the French consul per local law. But the consul, Ratti-Menton, allied himself with the accusers and supervised the investigation jointly with the governor-general Sherif Padia; and it was conducted in the most barbarous fashion. A barber, Solomon Negrin, was arbitrarily arrested and tortured until a "confession" was extorted from him, according to which the monk had been killed in the house of David Harari by seven Jews. The men whom he named were subsequently arrested; two of them died under torture, one of them converted to Islam in order to be spared and the others were made to "confess."

A Muslim servant in the service of David Harari related under duress that Ibrahim ʿAmāra was killed in the house of Meir Farhi, in the presence of Farhi and other Jewish notables. Most of those mentioned were arrested, but one of them, Isaac Levi Picciotto, was an Austrian citizen and under the protection of the Austrian consul. His citizenship eventually led to the intervention of Austria, England and the United States in the affair.

More than one source I found states that the blood libel leveled at Jews by French Christians, and widely reported in European newspapers as though it had been confirmed to be true, was both something new in Muslim lands and part of a rising tide of European anti-Semitism. And please note that Syria at the time was not under Ottoman rule.

Next listed are two massacres in Aleppo, the first in 1850 and the second in 1875. I haven't found any evidence Jews were targeted in 1850. Wikipedia says the Massacre of Aleppo (1850) was a 2-day riot by Muslims against Christians fueled by economic disruptions, taxes, and rising European influence. I'm not sure why it's listed as an anti-Jewish incident, unless some Jewish owned property was damaged so it's being counted as a pogrom.

The Jewish Virtual Library article on Aleppo says in 1875 "a blood libel was spread about the Jews of Aleppo; however, the missing Armenian boy, whose absence had provided the charge, was found in a nearby village." I can't find any reference to victims or property damage, although I did find a book, Trials of the Diaspora, that says the Pasha of Aleppo sent troops to guard the Jewish Quarter.

So far I'm not seeing anything that refutes my argument that Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for nearly all of the time the Ottoman Turks ruled the area. I will keep going through that list, though. Perhaps there's something in there that calls it into question.

Incidents such as what you refer to don't occur out of the blue. What you are seeing is simply the biggest incidents.
 
Until it became politically useful to be "Palestinians" they were simply Muslims. Or Jordanians.
Utter nonsense. People who lived in Palestinian were and are Palestinians. But, abstracting from your pathetic attempt to justify your delusional claim, when and how did these Muslims oppress the Israelis?
 
I found the book where the list in Loren's link originated. It's The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis.

So far I haven't been able to find online documentation for each incident listed. But I have found several references that put the blame for the blood libel accusations and attacks on Jews in Syria and Lebanon during the mid to late 19th century squarely on the Christian population, with support from European nations fomenting discord in order to further their own ambitions in the region. These sources also note the determination of the Ottoman government to suppress the violence and protect the Jews.

So I have to conclude that Loren's post notwithstanding, the evidence we have available to us supports the claim that Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for nearly all of the 400 years that the Ottoman Empire ruled over the region. There were troubles near the end, with riots, massacres, and a civil war in Lebanon between Christians and Druze. But that all happened as the power of the Ottomans waned and Europeans connived to divvy up the spoils.

IMO the lessons of the breakdown of the largely harmonious society in Palestine is reason to sideline the religious bigots we have today, not empower them.
 
Last edited:
I found the book where the list in Loren's link originated. It's The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis.

So far I haven't been able to find online documentation for each incident listed. But I have found several references that put the blame for the blood libel accusations and attacks on Jews in Syria and Lebanon during the mid to late 19th century squarely on the Christian population, with support from European nations fomenting discord in order to further their own ambitions in the region. These sources also note the determination of the Ottoman government to suppress the violence and protect the Jews.

So I have to conclude that Loren's post notwithstanding, the evidence we have available to us supports the claim that Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for nearly all of the 400 years that the Ottoman Empire ruled over the region. There were troubles near the end, with riots, massacres, and a civil war in Lebanon between Christians and Druze. But that all happened as the power of the Ottomans waned and Europeans connived to divvy up the spoils.

IMO the lessons of the breakdown of the largely harmonious society in Palestine is reason to sideline the religious bigots we have today, not empower them.

The identity of those making the initial allegation doesn't really matter--what matters is that if they weren't second class citizens we wouldn't have seen those results.
 
I found the book where the list in Loren's link originated. It's The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis.

So far I haven't been able to find online documentation for each incident listed. But I have found several references that put the blame for the blood libel accusations and attacks on Jews in Syria and Lebanon during the mid to late 19th century squarely on the Christian population, with support from European nations fomenting discord in order to further their own ambitions in the region. These sources also note the determination of the Ottoman government to suppress the violence and protect the Jews.

So I have to conclude that Loren's post notwithstanding, the evidence we have available to us supports the claim that Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for nearly all of the 400 years that the Ottoman Empire ruled over the region. There were troubles near the end, with riots, massacres, and a civil war in Lebanon between Christians and Druze. But that all happened as the power of the Ottomans waned and Europeans connived to divvy up the spoils.

IMO the lessons of the breakdown of the largely harmonious society in Palestine is reason to sideline the religious bigots we have today, not empower them.

The identity of those making the initial allegation doesn't really matter--what matters is that if they weren't second class citizens we wouldn't have seen those results.

Your profound ignorance and adamant refusal to learn anything about this topic is showing.

You didn't bother to look into any of those alleged incidents, did you? If you had made even a minimal effort you would once again have been confronted with the information that Jews weren't second class citizens at the time the blood libel was being circulated by Christians. You might even have remembered that part of the reforms put in place during the 19th century was the official affirmation that all citizens of the Empire were equals and all acts of discrimination against ethnic and religious groups were forbidden. Even if you didn't remember, you would have encountered that information over and over again, since most historians who study Ottoman history cite it in their books and papers.

One of these days you really should try to learn something about the history of Palestine.
 

And you take the word of the terrorists as truth? (If you're an average Palestinian that disagrees with the party line it's not safe to say so.)

You heard it here, folks.

The Jerusalem Post is a terrorist organization.

Paywalled.

From what is visible without paying it seems to be an editorial and note the organizations mentioned at the top--it appears to be based on what the Palestinians say.
 
We talked about this before in a thread you started.

You were shown pictures of the destruction of Palestinian olive groves. You were given links to more evidence.

Israel tried to conceal the attacks at first:
Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Olive Groves Kept Top Secret by State

But the settlers are getting pretty bold these days:
Settlers Filmed Destroying 100 Palestinian Olive Trees as IDF Appears to Look On

Their lack of concern is understandable. Even when they're filmed throwing rocks and Stealing Olive Harvest of West Bank Palestinian Farmers, the IDF lets them go.

Israelis have been destroying Palestinian agriculture for decades. And yet, even when Israel's own Army Says Palestinian Grove Torched by West Bank Settlers you declare (without a shred of evidence) that the source of the information is parroting terrorists. And then 6 months later you act like you've never heard it before.

Oh well, I guess I can just keep reposting links.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom