Palestinians attacked in West Bank settler rampage

Jewish settlers in the West Bank have gone on a rampage, attacking Palestinians and stoning cars in protest against Israeli moves to dismantle an illegal outpost.

About 30 Israeli settlers set fire to fields and olive trees and stoned Palestinian cars as part of a protest against Israel's decision to remove an unauthorised Jewish settlement.

Two Palestinians were hurt and one settler has been arrested.

Israel has promised the US it will remove about 20 small, illegal outposts in the West Bank.

But hardline settlers typically put up a fight when the army moves in, attacking Palestinians or their property in a tactic they call the "price tag phenomenon" designed to distract the army away from settlers and remind Israel of the cost of forcing them out.

Source: ABC

2 "Palestinians" were hurt...  what?  paper cut?  hit with a rock?
A whole 2...  quick call hamas for another barage of rockets and suicide bombers.

Quote:


It's good being a Zionist Lackey, you get your own Yiddish Decoder Ring.

Calanen wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 8:32pm:


It is even better to be a Zionist. When you are a Zionist islamics start to ban you from their boards and while doing so shoot themselves in their feet. It is a good clean fun to see them screaming while mutilating themselves 

Grendel wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 9:16pm:


Problem is they don't stick to throwing rocks. They've done a lot of other things too.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 21^st, 2009 at 8:31pm:



You want to make it sound as if Zionism was a bad thing in itself. It is not. It is a perfectly legitimate idea that the jews should have their own  country back.  It may be bad luck for the Arabs who sqatted there for a while but the jewish claim to the place pre-dates any other existing nation's or people's. Compared to the link of jews to Israel, almost every other nation between the Atlantic Ocean and Persia is a blow-in on its current territory.
I can only think of the Greeks who might equal the strength of the jewish claim to the particular area they call their own country. The Arabs have a legitimate claim along the same lines to Araby. But outside Araby, they are conquerors and have no comparable claim to the jews or the greeks. Even the Crusaders had far more right to claim the Levant than the Arabs.

The palestinian Arabs in particular, not ever being a nation in any sense, have no national claim to a non-existent country, 'Palestine'.

So Zionism is at least as legitimate an idea as the Arab claim to Araby. Certainly not less. Be glad the jews don't also want their towns and villages back in Araby itself.

Quote:


It is a very bad thing. It is no different than Nazism or any other nationalist socialism.

Quote:


The Caliphate ruled the land longer than both Jewish kingdoms combined.

Quote:


Many of the Palestinian Arabs have genetic markers which place them there long before the arrival of Islam, so no you can't definitively claim it predates any other. Anyway existing in a land before someone else means nothing. If it did, we'd all be fighting over other land which we haven't lived in for thousands of years. There's no 'spot minding' in this world. 2000 years out of a land means dispossession, finished. Otherwise, the 500 years Muslims have been out of their 700 year long homeland of Andalus would mean we should form a "Zionist-style" movement to mass immigrate illegally into Spain and turn it back into a Muslim state.

Be careful of what you're opening up here, because you might not like the results of it.

Quote:


The Egyptians have been in their land for at least a good 6000 years... I think you need to go back to school and study a little history and geography. Some theories also suggest that almost all nations of the Middle East arose out of Arabia, which has been inhabited by Arabs for thousands upon thousands of years. Arabic seems to be the closest language to proto-Semitic, so there's a good chance that Hebrews were just Arabs who migrated north into Canaan anyway. The Bible certainly seems to suggest something along those lines.

Quote:


Modern Arabs have been in the Levant in large numbers since the time of the Ghassanid migrations and the Nabateans, that's about 2500 years or about 3000 years if we count from the first mention of Arabs there, King Gindibu of Damascus was an Arab who ruled Damascus around 850 B.C. If you can show any other people who've spent 2500-3000 years in the Levant, then you might have a point. Otherwise you're just speaking garbage.

Besides, the Crusaders were clearly not even Semitic peoples, and therefore are quite obviously foreign invaders in the Semitic lands of the Middle East. The Middle East has been Semitic for at least a good 5000-6000 years. Kind of like Arabs claiming they have more right to Andalus because they pre-date the Latin-speaking Catholics there (the pre-Islamic inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula were Goths, not Latin/Catholics).

Soren wrote on Aug 29^th, 2009 at 6:41pm:



soren,

So few words, so well said.




Europe must 'erupt', sooner, or later.

There are still many good people in Europe, many of them are coming to clearly see what ISLAM is, what it represents, and many are beginning to see through ISLAM's/moslems 'snake in grass' ways.

The people of Europe will revolt, against ISLAM, and even against their governments, if necessary.