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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Islamic terrorist misfits. Building the next generation of Death Cultists.



https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=palestinian terrorists

Children trained into terrorists at a Hamas summer camp.
This is child abuse. Palestinian leaders are stealing the chance at a peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Demand the international community stop Hamas child abuse at StopHamas.org

via: COGAT - Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories



https://www.facebook.com/theisraelproject/photos/pcb.10157423530512316/10157423529667316/?type=3
 
Anti-Zionists have developed a lexicon that is meant to make them sound decent and honest, but a translation into common English uncovers quite a different meaning. The following are common phrases that they use, followed by what they really mean.

“Abbas wants a two-state solution”: Abbas wants two Arabs states: one that is 100% Jew-free, and another that he can flood with descendants of Palestinian refugees.

“End the blockade of Gaza”: Let the Gaza terrorists have easier access to weapons.

“End the occupation now”: Give more land to terrorists so that they can attack Israel more easily.

“From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”: The destruction of Israel is our goal.

“I am anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic”: I’m an anti-Semite, but I won’t admit it.

“I don’t support Likud’s Israel”: I don’t support Israel.

“I hate Hamas but…”: I don’t hate Hamas.

“I oppose Israel even though I’m Jewish”: I want to be accepted by my anti-Semitic friends.

“I support BDS”: I want to destroy the economy of the only Jewish state.

“I support Israel in the pre-1967 borders but not beyond”: Jews should live only in the area designated for them.

“If only Yitzhak Rabin was still alive”: I pretend to admire dead Israeli leaders so I don’t have to listen to living ones.

(full article online)

The anti-Zionist lexicon: What they really mean
 
When all is said and done, demanding that one entity treat an enemy entity – with which it is fighting – in precisely the same manner it treats its friends isn't just patently irrational it is also patently immoral. Indeed, intrinsically it means erasing, or at the very least eroding the right to self-defense, the right to protect the security of the entity itself as a group, and to protect the security of the group's members.

To the best of my knowledge, the democratic doctrine does not negate the possibility of hostility toward a democratic state, even when racist undertones do not even exist. Likewise, this hostility can certainly stem from the entity whose ethnic identity differs from that of the majority of the citizens in the democracy. How, therefore, can it be claimed that the moral conduct of a democracy is flawed when it identifies an enemy as an enemy and treats it as such?

When the questions are presented in this manner, the answers seem obvious and simple, almost self-evident. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case when it comes to Israel – particularly as it pertains to the conflict with the Palestinians.

(full article online)

http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/fighting-an-enemy-is-not-racism/
 
At least they are beginning to realize that they need to do something. They are still up a tree as to what that might be though.

They, the Israelis, know exactly what to do when it comes to the Islamist gee-had. Tell us again how many virgins your Allah god had to produce for all those Hamas groupies who were retired from the gee-had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top