Israel vs. Palestine

[FPCCOS]

Israel deserves that land! They conquered it fair and square! Also there was never a Palestinian state, the people who were there before Israel considered themselves to be Syrian

Conquering land and then killing large numbers of natives is a poor reason. Getting the UN to give you land is a good one. Taking the UN land and then conquering and killing gets rid of your moral high ground. The "killing" thing is also how Palestine lost its moral high ground. Currently I see no moral high ground and thus think that both should be independent states forced to deal with only controlling what they were given in the 1960s(Palestrine controls Gaza Strip and West Bank, Israel get Israel, Syria gets Golan Heights) and each other.


Also, even the ones who lived closer to Jordan and Egypt and called the land Palestine and themselves Palestinian?

OK, so its legal for the UN to take land belonging to one people and give it it those who have stolen other pieces of land belonging to the same people. Really? But somehow, in this really ludicrous world, a person who fights to defend their land, people and religion against oppressors is deemed a terrorist and their attempt to get their land back is somehow illegal?

As for an earlier poster who said that Palestine was never under a state... where have you learnt history? Teletubbies?

Palestine has been under a governing state for at least the past 1350 years. It was the Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab (the 3rd rightly guided caliph) who conquered Jerusalem and granted protection to its non-Muslim population, pledging to protect the Church of St Mary in Jerusalem and the Jews were allowed back into Jerusalem for the first time in a long time. So please don't portray the Muslims as evil. Muslims were the ones that allowed the Jews back into Jerusalem. After the Caliphs, it was under Ottoman rule, until the Arab nationalist revolt, after which it became a British mandate. After which what has to be the saddest chapter in its long history, being subjugated by the Israelis. Palestine was under a state. PLEASE use your god-given brain.

Some of the previous posters have insinuated that Palestine under the control of the Palestinians will result in persecution and discrimination of the Jews, however if Islamic law is applied and not just a secular state, it will lead to a golden age of peace between followers of the three Abrahamic religions. In Islam, Jews and Christians are referred to as the People of the Book and enjoy certain rights and privileges as do all non-Muslims in an Islamic state.

Note to all posters. This is an intellectual debate, please present arguments that make sense. Do not make irrelevant and misleading comparisons (e.g Syria and Iran)

Do not insult members of another religion and do not disregard the points of others without proper research and investigation. Because it seems that many people on this forum topic do not want to truly understand the valid points made by others and are only trying to present their viewpoint as the correct viewpoint. Many on this forum also disregard cited evidence and this is not right if we are to reach the truth about Israel Vs Palestine.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

The point is, Muhammad took land that wasn't his. The Meccans were there first. He took their land. TWO STATE SOLUTION! MECCAN STATE! 628 AD BORDERS!

Muhammad also:

Raided caravans, taking resources that weren't his.

Killed a man for insulting him in Poetry. I bet there are plenty of palestinians writing bad poetry about the Israelis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak


Attack the Banu Thalabah tribe, because he suspected they would be tempted to steal his camels.

I bet plenty of Palestinians have tried to steal Israeli things.

Yes, you are right to say that the Israelis were outnumbered and outgunned, however you must remember they had the support of the US and had spies infiltrate the armies of the Arab armies and so this helped them to win.

Not so many and very little foreign support in 1948, when their rag-tag group was against you AND the british. And still won.

[FPCCOS]

The point is, Muhammad took land that wasn't his. The Meccans were there first. He took their land. TWO STATE SOLUTION! MECCAN STATE! 628 AD BORDERS!

Muhammad also:

Raided caravans, taking resources that weren't his.

Killed a man for insulting him in Poetry. I bet there are plenty of palestinians writing bad poetry about the Israelis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak


Attack the Banu Thalabah tribe, because he suspected they would be tempted to steal his camels.
The Prophet Muhammad was born in Makkan and is from the Qaraysh Tribe of Makka so it is ridiculous to say that the Prophet SAW is a foreigner




I bet plenty of Palestinians have tried to steal Israeli things.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

The point is, Muhammad took land that wasn't his. The Meccans were there first. He took their land. TWO STATE SOLUTION! MECCAN STATE! 628 AD BORDERS!

Muhammad also:

Raided caravans, taking resources that weren't his.

Killed a man for insulting him in Poetry. I bet there are plenty of palestinians writing bad poetry about the Israelis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27Afak


Attack the Banu Thalabah tribe, because he suspected they would be tempted to steal his camels.
The Prophet Muhammad was born in Makkan and is from the Qaraysh Tribe of Makka so it is ridiculous to say that the Prophet SAW is a foreigner




I bet plenty of Palestinians have tried to steal Israeli things.

Point is, he made his own pseudogovernment, then invaded and took them over.

But mecca's a bad example.

How about the invasion of the Sassanids? That was Persian land. He (the Caliph, not Muhammad) took it by force. TWO STATE SOLUTION! SASSANID STATE! GIVE BACK THE LAND! 633 BORDERS! FREEZE MUSLIM SETTLER EXPANSION!

[FPCCOS]

Point is, he made his own pseudogovernment, then invaded and took them over.

But mecca's a bad example.

How about the invasion of the Sassanids? That was Persian land. He (the Caliph, not Muhammad) took it by force. TWO STATE SOLUTION! SASSANID STATE! GIVE BACK THE LAND! 633 BORDERS! FREEZE MUSLIM SETTLER EXPANSION!

What you have just posted shows you have no understanding of politics, war, justice or war. How can you suggest to create a state that no longer exists (the Sassanids).

The British helped establish the state of Israel (please look at the Balfour Declaration)

This reference to the Sassanids is childish and irrelevant. You should know that the Muslims did not fight against the Persians immediately, the Persians refused all the Muslim proposals for peace and a treaty between the two nations and tore up the letter of the Prophet Muhammad SAW. So don't you dare insult the Muslims by comparing our nation that brought light to a world in darkness to a bunch of land-grabbing, immoral, evil settlers (IsraelI) who have no regard for human morality and the rule of law. Israel repeatedly violates international law.

I think it is obvious from the tone and rhetoric that you use that you are an extreme Israeli nationalist, who is willing to support his country in all situations, whether it is the oppressor or the oppressed. This is not just and because you are a nationalist, you will never understand what justice is because you are blinded by extreme love for your country and loyalty to your country at all costs. You might as well be Hitler, the Nazi state had the same type of nationalist ideology you appear to have and behaved in the same way as Israel, conquering and attempting to colonize the lands of other peoples, exterminating and oppressing them and justifies it by its adherence to nationalism.

Other posters I've discussed this with were far more willing to admit Israel's crimes and suggest ways to resolve the issue and stop the persecution and extermination of the Palestinians... however all you seem to be doing is slandering the Prophet SAW and making ridiculous comparisons which have almost NO similarity to the Israel-Palestine conflict to cover up the fact that your arguments are baed on little more than nationalism, and any non-Israeli can see that.

I hope you live to see the day Jerusalem and Palestine is liberated and under Muslim control and you'll see how just the Muslims are.

[Milks Empire]

This is one of the most absurd and slanderous accusations I have ever seen. The Prophet Muhammad attacked Mecca? You really need to do proper research by referring to the Islamic sources and Islamic scholars. Watching a CNN report about Islam, I am sorry to say does not qualify as an accurate and unbiased source of information about Islam, just like watching a video of Christian Neo-Nazis on YouTube doesn't qualify as real research on Christianity.

In fact, the conquest of Makkah was one of the biggest proofs of the Prophet Muhammad's humility, kindness and compassion and proof of the Qur'anic ayah (verse) that the Prophet Muhammad had been sent as a mercy to mankind. The people of Makkah had tortured him and his followers (the early Muslims), stolen their land and property, drove them out of their homes and made them starve in the desert, blockaded them for 3 years so that no Arab tribe would trade with them. The non-Muslims of Makkah had hated him, despised him and made his life a living hell to the point that people would lay thorns in his path. What do think he would do when he had the people of Makkah at his mercy.

At first, some of the people of Makkah tried to defend the Muslims by setting up camp at a nearby hill. However, they soon gave up without even confronting the Muslims when they show the sheer force of the Muslim army. So they fled, rushing to take refuge in their homes.

The Prophet (pbuh) wanted to conquer Makkah in a peaceful way with no or very little conflict. For this to be possible he decided that the disbelievers of Makkah have to be aware of what they would be facing. So on the way to Makkah, while camping at Marr az-Zahran (which could be seen from Makkah), Muhammad (pbuh) asked his soldiers to light fires for the purposes of cooking. So this gave the impression of a massive army on its way to the people of Makkah. By doing this, Muhammad (pbuh) gave his enemies in Makkah time to measure the situation properly so they should not be surprised and endanger themselves and their women and children blindly by jumping into battle. The Prophet (pbuh) saw it unfit to take them by surprise. He commanded that “no conflict or battle can take place on that day” and he named it ‘the day of mercy’.

While entering Makkah the Prophet (pbuh) made sure to request that the non-Muslims or former enemies of the Muslims be shown kindness, they should not be harmed. And he went on to perform an act of Salah (prayer), after which he took a few moments to rest. He then made his way to the Kaba sanctuary, where he performed seven rounds of circumambulation after destroying the idols within or surrounding the sacred building, while repeating a passage from the Qur’an, “Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood (by nature), ever bound to depart”[3][4]. And so he had the keys of the Kaba bought to him[5] and required that all religious images be permanently rid of, to reconcile the house of the Creator back to true monotheism; which was taught by the all Knowing to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the other prophets before them, peace be with them all. It was a reclaiming of its first and rightful identity, a sign of the oneness and domination of Allah.
After Muhammad’s (pbuh) act of ridding the idols and exclaiming the glory and oneness of the Creator, the people of Quraysh started to leave their houses and gather in front of the Kaba and Muhammad (pbuh), waiting to hear him talk to them. He started off by teaching them about Islam and that God all Mighty saw it fit to do away with their pride and arrogance of the pre-Islamic era, because all are descended from Adam (pbuh) and he is from dust. And he quoted from the Qur’an, “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)”[6], thus teaching the sacredness of human life.
He asked the people of Quraysh how they thought he was going to deal with them, now that he had easy charge over Makkah. They replied “as a noble brother” that they expected nothing but goodness from him and he would deal with them kindly. The Prophet (pbuh) spoke telling them “I speak to you in the same words of the prophet Yusuf (Joseph) peace be with him, who spoke to his brothers” and Muhammad (pbuh) recited a passage from a chapter of the Qur’an relating to the story of Yusuf (pbuh): “No blame will there be upon you today. Allah will forgive you; and He is the most merciful of the merciful”[7]. Then he announced to them that they are free now and they may go where they please. And like this the Prophet (pbuh) granted his forgiveness to his former enemies, those who wanted to destroy his belief, his reputation, his life and his associates not long ago. He forgave them all men and women that came to him or his companions. So here we see his mercy for mankind, which Muslims can only describe as a gift from the Giver of all things.

Muhammad (pbuh) even forgave such people like Wahshi ibn Harb. Wahshi ibn Harb was the one who was responsible for killing Hamzah ibn Abdul-Muttalib, beloved uncle of the Prophet (pbuh), during the battle of Uhud. He killed him on the order of enemy Hind bint Utbah wife of Abu Sufyan, to become a free man. The Prophet (pbuh) requested that Wahshi should keep clear of his presence in the future; as his presence may remind the Messenger (pbuh) memories of his uncle, or that Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t want Wahshi to interpret a look on his face as a look of anger towards him.

Many Muslims who were former enemies of Muhammad (pbuh) before conquering Makkah now approached him for help and support and forgiveness, including Ikrimah son of Abu Jahl. Abu Jahl was known for his hostility against Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions, and was killed during the battle of Badr. The Prophet (pbuh) made sure to remind his companions that Ikrimah was now coming as a believer, none should insult his farther, and he said “for insulting the dead hurts the living without reaching the dead”. This teaches not only to forgive but to remember that none can be responsible of the crimes of others, not even be it their father’s. As he taught from the Qur’an, “No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another”[9]. One must be judged purely on his actions and deeds, not according to his lineage.

That's a very moving story. I say that in all seriousness.

[Anthronland]

Since I strongly oppose genocide and the persecution of entire ethnic groups I oppose Israel and support Palestine.

[FPCCOS]

Point is, he made his own pseudogovernment, then invaded and took them over.

But mecca's a bad example.

How about the invasion of the Sassanids? That was Persian land. He (the Caliph, not Muhammad) took it by force. TWO STATE SOLUTION! SASSANID STATE! GIVE BACK THE LAND! 633 BORDERS! FREEZE MUSLIM SETTLER EXPANSION!

This story about 'Abu Afak' is a fabricated story. Let me try to explain how hadiths (reports of the Prophet's sayings and actions) are analysed to determine whether they are authentic or otherwise:

Islamic Methodology of Reports' Evaluation

I must explain the methodology of Muslim scholars before we comment on any Islamic report. Take for example the news reported on Presidents today! If the Vice-President gives a certain statement concerning the opinion of the President in a certain matter, then this statement is transmitted by a member of the secretary to a journalists who published it in the newspaper, what is the value of this report?

My answer is that it could be right or wrong and we cannot be sure unless we know the reliability of the source.

If I find that the report is indeed transmitted by the secretary member on authority of the Vice-President and that each of them is well known for accuracy in transmission and truthfulness in speech, how can I evaluate this report?

My answer is that I tend to believe it.

This is exactly what Muslim scholars require in any report to be valid and its attribution to God's Messenger(P) can be accepted. They actually add two more things; they must make sure that the report itself is not contradictory to other more authentic reports otherwise it will be considered eccentric! Also, they must exclude any hidden flaws in the text of the report, these flaws are detailed in specialized volumes of Hadîth.

Can I then accept the report as valid?

Not yet. After we had verified that the chain of transmitters is intact without interruption and that all reporters are honest, sane individuals, we must make sure that each reporter has received the report directly from the preceding one and that the report itself is in agreement with other authentic reports without flaws. The eminent hafiz Ibn Kathîr states that

Authentic Hadith is the transmitted hadîth whose chain is continuous through transmission of an accurate sane memorizer on authority of an accurate sane memorizer till its termination without being eccentric or flawed.

Is there a method more precise and meticulous than this?

There is no nation in the entire history that took care of reporting events and their verification as the Muslims have done. The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.

Then we talk about historical references written by Muslim authors. First of all, these books are not trustworthy references due to the fact that they do not follow proper methodology of transmission.

Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal sums up the Muslim point of view as regards the trustworthiness of the biographical reports when he declares that the biographies

...are not based on any principle.

The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of hadîth and scrutinized this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of hadîth, Hafiz Zayn-ûd-Dîn of Irâq, says about the biographies as follows:

The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false.

We believe that this should make us depend only upon reliable sources that have been properly authenticated by Muslim specialists in the Hadith sciences.

The Killing of Abu 'Afak: Where is The Isnâd?

According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishâq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishâq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqîdî from whom Ibn Sa'd (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu 'Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishâq or Al-Waqîdî must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnâd (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of the Sîrah do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq (or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of hadîth criticism - which strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr at the Prophet’s command.

[Cromarty]

The point is, Muhammad took land that wasn't his. The Meccans were there first. He took their land.

And the Jews took land that wasn't there.

See: the entire fucking Old Testament.

[Disserbia]

Israel deserves that land! They conquered it fair and square! Also there was never a Palestinian state, the people who were there before Israel considered themselves to be Syrian

Arab.

[Tmutarakhan]

The British helped establish the state of Israel (please look at the Balfour Declaration)

The British had no intention of creating a separate Jewish state, only of permitting Jews to migrate back to their homeland. The Balfour Declaration provides that this should in no way affect the rights of the indigenous people. The original proposal was for a unitary state in which all citizens would have equal rights regardless of religion, but the Muslim leadership rejected the notion of granting rights to any non-Muslims and undertook murderous campaigns to exterminate all Jews, particularly concentrating not on the recent immigrants but on the communities which had been there for centuries. It was not until the 1930's, after the Arab violence escalated as they obtained arms from the Germans, that the proposal of partitioning the Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states first came up; at that time it was rejected by the British government, but after WWII when the British just wanted out, the UN accepted the proposal although the Palestinians of course insisted on starting a war, and then whined when it went badly for them.

You might as well be Hitler, the Nazi state had the same type of nationalist ideology you appear to have and behaved in the same way as Israel

Do you have any family members who are still alive?
If so, then there is not the slightest comparison. This ugly piece of rhetoric is particularly obscene.

I hope you live to see the day Jerusalem and Palestine is liberated and under Muslim control and you'll see how just the Muslims are.

We have already seen how Muslims behave.

[Ruridova]

I hope you live to see the day Jerusalem and Palestine is liberated and under Muslim control and you'll see how just the Muslims are.

We have already seen how extremist Muslims behave.

Fixed. And we've seen how the extremist Jews behave too, and I can't say I like the way the extremists on either side operate. I think the moderates on each side should lead a sperate State of Israel and State of Palestine.

[FPCCOS]

The British helped establish the state of Israel (please look at the Balfour Declaration)

The British had no intention of creating a separate Jewish state, only of permitting Jews to migrate back to their homeland. The Balfour Declaration provides that this should in no way affect the rights of the indigenous people. The original proposal was for a unitary state in which all citizens would have equal rights regardless of religion, but the Muslim leadership rejected the notion of granting rights to any non-Muslims and undertook murderous campaigns to exterminate all Jews, particularly concentrating not on the recent immigrants but on the communities which had been there for centuries. It was not until the 1930's, after the Arab violence escalated as they obtained arms from the Germans, that the proposal of partitioning the Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states first came up; at that time it was rejected by the British government, but after WWII when the British just wanted out, the UN accepted the proposal although the Palestinians of course insisted on starting a war, and then whined when it went badly for them.

You might as well be Hitler, the Nazi state had the same type of nationalist ideology you appear to have and behaved in the same way as Israel

Do you have any family members who are still alive?
If so, then there is not the slightest comparison. This ugly piece of rhetoric is particularly obscene.

What do you mean do i have any family members alive?
And to compare Israel to the Nazis is not rhetoric or obscene, as they share many similarities.
I hope you live to see the day Jerusalem and Palestine is liberated and under Muslim control and you'll see how just the Muslims are.

We have already seen how Muslims behave.

[Disserbia]

We have already seen how Muslims behave.

Bigotry right here folks.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

You might as well be Hitler, the Nazi state had the same type of nationalist ideology you appear to have and behaved in the same way as Israel

By virtue of Godwin's Law, I've already won this thread.

BTW, what's hilarious is that I'm not from Israel. I'm not even Jewish. My ancestors are Mongolian. Just, in my childhood, I acquired an excellent eye for injustice and hypocrisy.

Now, one simple question. WHAT makes Muhammad's and the Caliph's forcible seizure of land by kicking butt and taking names any better than Israeli forcible seizure of land by kicking your butt and taking your names three times?

[Ruridova]

You might as well be Hitler, the Nazi state had the same type of nationalist ideology you appear to have and behaved in the same way as Israel

By virtue of Godwin's Law, I've already won this thread.

BTW, what's hilarious is that I'm not from Israel. I'm not even Jewish. My ancestors are Mongolian. Just, in my childhood, I acquired an excellent eye for injustice and hypocrisy.

Now, one simple question. WHAT makes Muhammads forcible seizure of land by kicking butt and taking names any better than Israeli forcible seizure of land by kicking your butt and taking your names three times?

Neither is okay. So I condemn both sides.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

By virtue of Godwin's Law, I've already won this thread.

BTW, what's hilarious is that I'm not from Israel. I'm not even Jewish. My ancestors are Mongolian. Just, in my childhood, I acquired an excellent eye for injustice and hypocrisy.

Now, one simple question. WHAT makes Muhammads forcible seizure of land by kicking butt and taking names any better than Israeli forcible seizure of land by kicking your butt and taking your names three times?

Neither is okay. So I condemn both sides.

FPCCCOS thinks differently. I want to know why.

[Disserbia]

You might as well be Hitler, the Nazi state had the same type of nationalist ideology you appear to have and behaved in the same way as Israel

By virtue of Godwin's Law, I've already won this thread.

BTW, what's hilarious is that I'm not from Israel. I'm not even Jewish. My ancestors are Mongolian. Just, in my childhood, I acquired an excellent eye for injustice and hypocrisy.

Now, one simple question. WHAT makes Muhammad's and the Caliph's forcible seizure of land by kicking butt and taking names any better than Israeli forcible seizure of land by kicking your butt and taking your names three times?

Because Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca because he was denied religious freedom, by Mecca. He didn't go somewhere else and make his problem someone elses that had nothing to do with it in the first place. The modern Arabs had been there for 2000 years the Jews had left millenium ago, Muhammad went back to Mecca less than two days later, and he never ordered people to convert to Islam or get the fuck out. Israelis demolish homes of East Jerusalem that belong to Arabs and build illegal settlements in the West Bank. I believe Israel should exist and fully support the establishment and future of the Israeli state, but the two situations are not comparable.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

By virtue of Godwin's Law, I've already won this thread.

BTW, what's hilarious is that I'm not from Israel. I'm not even Jewish. My ancestors are Mongolian. Just, in my childhood, I acquired an excellent eye for injustice and hypocrisy.

Now, one simple question. WHAT makes Muhammad's and the Caliph's forcible seizure of land by kicking butt and taking names any better than Israeli forcible seizure of land by kicking your butt and taking your names three times?

Because Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca because he was denied religious freedom, by Mecca. He didn't go somewhere else and make his problem someone elses that had nothing to do with it in the first place. The modern Arabs had been there for 2000 years the Jews had left millenium ago, Muhammad went back to Mecca less than two days later, and he never ordered people to convert to Islam or get the fuck out. Israelis demolish homes of East Jerusalem that belong to Arabs and build illegal settlements in the West Bank. I believe Israel should exist and fully support the establishment and future of the Israeli state, but the two situations are not comparable.

What of the Invasion of Persia?

[Disserbia]

Because Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca because he was denied religious freedom, by Mecca. He didn't go somewhere else and make his problem someone elses that had nothing to do with it in the first place. The modern Arabs had been there for 2000 years the Jews had left millenium ago, Muhammad went back to Mecca less than two days later, and he never ordered people to convert to Islam or get the fuck out. Israelis demolish homes of East Jerusalem that belong to Arabs and build illegal settlements in the West Bank. I believe Israel should exist and fully support the establishment and future of the Israeli state, but the two situations are not comparable.

What of the Invasion of Persia?

That speaks of the regime, and the geo-political entity, not the religion of it.

[FPCCOS]

Neither is okay. So I condemn both sides.

FPCCCOS thinks differently. I want to know why.

If you think you've won then you're either one of the following: arrogant, stupid or ignorant, or maybe all three. For the last time, I don't care if the Jewish people were forced to live on Mars, it does not justify the existence of the monstrous entity known as Israel.

As to the justification of the Caliphate's invasion of other countries, they brought justice by returning to peoples the rights denied to them, extremely high and unjust taxes were removed, peoples of all faiths were granted various civil rights and freedoms and the disgusting corruption of monarchies like Persia were ended. A welfare state was established so that not one single person would starve or lack basic necessities. People denied education before had access to education as schools and libraries were built. So please don't compare the Caliphate to Israel which merely misappropriates land, kills and oppresses peoples of other ethnic and religious groups and removes their rights and liberties. Did the Caliphate oppress people because they belonged to a different ethnic group? No
Did they massacre thousands of innocent people? No. Did they discriminate against minorities? No yet again.
Suggesting that the Caliphate spread only by arms is a lie. Which army conquered Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Somalia and other countries which embraced Islam only because they saw the truth in it.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

What of the Invasion of Persia?

That speaks of the regime, and the geo-political entity, not the religion of it.

Church and State were on in the same. That was a Caliph.

As to the justification of the Caliphate's invasion of our countries, they brought justice by returning to peoples the rights denied to them, extremely high and unjust taxes were removed, peoples of all faiths were granted various civil rights and freedoms and the disgusting corruption of monarchies like Persia were ended. A welfare state was established so that not one single person would starve or lack basic necessities. People denied education before had access to education as schools and libraries were built. So please don't compare the Caliphate to Israel which merely misappropriates land, kills and oppresses peoples of other ethnic and religious groups and removes their rights and liberties. Did the Caliphate oppress people because they belonged to a different ethnic group?

The Muslims who ruled the Levant before the Jews did all the time. The Ottomans.

Armenian Genocide, anyone? Do you see hundreds of thousands of ANYONE being killed under Jewish rule? Nope.

[Disserbia]

That speaks of the regime, and the geo-political entity, not the religion of it.

Church and State were on in the same. That was a Caliph.

That doesn't mean that it was representative of a religion as a whole, just a certain groups notion of a religion, among other beliefs and traditions about society and politics that effected the group before and continue to have influence.

[Milks Empire]

FPCCCOS thinks differently. I want to know why.

If you think you've won then you're either one of the following: arrogant, stupid or ignorant, or maybe all three. For the last time, I don't care if the Jewish people were forced to live on Mars, it does not justify the existence of the monstrous entity known as Israel.
As to the justification of the Caliphate's invasion of other countries, they brought justice by returning to peoples the rights denied to them, extremely high and unjust taxes were removed, peoples of all faiths were granted various civil rights and freedoms and the disgusting corruption of monarchies like Persia were ended. A welfare state was established so that not one single person would starve or lack basic necessities. People denied education before had access to education as schools and libraries were built. So please don't compare the Caliphate to Israel which merely misappropriates land, kills and oppresses peoples of other ethnic and religious groups and removes their rights and liberties. Did the Caliphate oppress people because they belonged to a different ethnic group? No
Did they massacre thousands of innocent people? No. Did they discriminate against minorities? No yet again.
Suggesting that the Caliphate spread only by arms is a lie. Which army conquered Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Somalia and other countries which embraced Islam only because they saw the truth in it.

This holds water with Byzantine Egypt. Constantinople was major-league douchey to the Copts. That's why they just let the Arabs in - they figured they could get a better deal. And for the most part, they did.

[Gauthier]

(Image)

The situation is disproportionate. It's sad that when someone points that out, it's said that they lack sympathy for the Jews.

1. Jewry does not necessarily equate to Zionism, and vice versa.
2. While ordinarily a person might feel very sorry for another person with a stubbed toe, it becomes less sympathy and more blindness when you realize that the person stubbed their toe on the corpse of a person they murdered.

Israel may have suffered casualties in this war, but it's a war they started and a war they're perpetuating by the building of settlements that are illegal under international law. What can the first step to peace be but only to cease that construction! The Palestinians are not right in all that they do and how they do it (tactics), or in some extreme/un-viable views regarding the solution, but in the end, they're simply trying to defend the homes that their families have lived in for the past couple centuries.

Just because Germany persecuted the Jews and the Jews want a safe country for mainly just Jews (not getting into the racism/bigotry inherent in governmentally requiring a given concentration of a race/religion) doesn't mean they get to displace other peoples somewhere else. If anything, a portion of Germany should have been granted to them, and this is without taking into account all the religious arguments from orthodox Jews who believe that Zionism is against their religion. How can what happened seem actually fair, especially when you consider the slow yet consistent expansion of Zionist territories over the years since Israel was first established, and the innumerable instances of affronts against the human rights of the current indigenous population?

I just don't understand the viewpoint that this is okay, at all.

The cartoon is also a reference to Yaacov Perrin's eulogy to Baruch "Rambo" Goldstein:

One million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail.