Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arvy)
    So why doesn't the people who gave Israel to the 'jews' follow Judaism then if they believe in giving people land ?
    Hypocrisy is rife , if the same people followed religion properly then the world would be in a better place but it seems they are like u -war mongerors .

    What? How does granting land to a certain ethnic or religious group have a prerequisite of also having to be said ethnic or religious group? You don't need to be part of group x to grant something to group x. The question is completely irrelevant. Hypocrisy is rife, sure, blame corrupt governments and extremist groups (i.e. Hamas, Sinai, Muslim Brotherhood and evolutions of IS) not the civilians of a country. Your basis for calling me a "war-mongeror" is pretty flimsy but I'll let that slide seeing as an appeal to any semblance of logic is lost on you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Because Israel is better at defending its population than the Palestinians.

    As the old saying goes.

    People without iron dome air defence systems shouldn't fire rockets at those that do, and then complain when they get targeted.
    oh shut up lol
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarsoora)
    Does defending oneself mean attacking more innocent people?

    If you hit me will my self defense be justified by attacking your entire family?

    Am I not a hypocrite if I do that?
    If defending myself has the unfortunate side effect of hurting innocents, their blood is on your hands. In war innocent people die as collateral. It happens in every single war in all of history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jemner01)
    What? How does granting land to a certain ethnic or religious group have a prerequisite of also having to be said ethnic or religious group? You don't need to be part of group x to grant something to group x. The question is completely irrelevant. Hypocrisy is rife, sure, blame corrupt governments and extremist groups (i.e. Hamas, Sinai, Muslim Brotherhood and evolutions of IS) not the civilians of a country. Your basis for calling me a "war-mongeror" is pretty flimsy but I'll let that slide seeing as an appeal to any semblance of logic is lost on you.
    Actually the history behind the Jewish return to israel is fairly simplistic so I will try to explain it and even for you should be easy to understand. There was talk of 'allowing' the return going back into the 19th century due to Jewish people not really fitting in in the west (jewish people were undermined /second class citizens in london even) and in the event of back and forward favouritism the brits were granted the mandate , after the brits and the french tried to undermine the Egyptians it did not work out so the brits left thinking they had undermined both the small number of jews and the Palestinians /arabs in the region. Providing weapons to the jews was a no-brainer for so called self defense.
    since then the Jewish people (using weapons and aggression which must have been rubbed into them from the brits) have illegally expanded into the region .
    I believe they have a right in the region however living under Palestinian rule and law. Jewish people have often stated being happiest living under muslim rule and law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arvy)
    Actually the history behind the Jewish return to israel is fairly simplistic so I will try to explain it and even for you should be easy to understand. There was talk of 'allowing' the return going back into the 19th century due to Jewish people not really fitting in in the west (jewish people were undermined /second class citizens in london even) and in the event of back and forward favouritism the brits were granted the mandate , after the brits and the french tried to undermine the Egyptians it did not work out so the brits left thinking they had undermined both the small number of jews and the Palestinians /arabs in the region. Providing weapons to the jews was a no-brainer for so called self defense.
    since then the Jewish people (using weapons and aggression which must have been rubbed into them from the brits) have illegally expanded into the region .
    I believe they have a right in the region however living under Palestinian rule and law. Jewish people have often stated being happiest living under muslim rule and law.
    I'll pick this bit out in particular as blatant falsification- the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans in WWI, legally claimed the region in 1923 (source: Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy") and then granted the entire region to the Jews. You're right in saying that there was a lot of tension and violence between Jews going back to their "homeland" from 1800 onwards in what they called Aliyahs (i.e. mass immigration), which was illegal at the time, but since 1948 Israel has been a legal entity run by a Zionist regime which was legally enstated. The Jews are not there illegally and are reconised by most major powers as the legal occupant. It seems to be only the dominant Muslim/anti-Semitic powers in the region i.e. Palestine, Hamas that believe the Jews are there illegally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    If defending myself has the unfortunate side effect of hurting innocents, their blood is on your hands. In war innocent people die as collateral. It happens in every single war in all of history.
    And I'm sure you proclaim and profess yourself to be a peaceful person however you have a stone age mindset which has probably been washed onto you . If somebody attacked you then you can only defend yourself with that person/persons ,you certainly could take a gun to that persons house and shoot randomly into the house could u ? It would be like the wild west /taliban everywhere but you support it.
    This whole eye for an eye Thing means that exactly 'an eye for an eye ' not '4 eyes for an eye' does it ? But the extremists take it too far claming to understand Judaism /christianity .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arvy)
    And I'm sure you proclaim and profess yourself to be a peaceful person however you have a stone age mindset which has probably been washed onto you . If somebody attacked you then you can only defend yourself with that person/persons ,you certainly could take a gun to that persons house and shoot randomly into the house could u ? It would be like the wild west /taliban everywhere but you support it.
    This whole eye for an eye Thing means that exactly 'an eye for an eye ' not '4 eyes for an eye' does it ? But the extremists take it too far claming to understand Judaism /christianity .
    Do you say the same about absolutely every other war that has ever happened?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jemner01)
    I'll pick this bit out in particular as blatant falsification- the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans in WWI, legally claimed the region in 1923 (source: Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy") and then granted the entire region to the Jews.
    Bit in bold - where are you getting this from?

    The Jews are not there illegally and are reconised by most major powers as the legal occupant.
    Firstly, Israel =/= the Jews. About half of the world's Jewish population is not Israeli, and about a quarter of Israel's population is not Jewish.

    Secondly, yes, Israel is internationally recognised as the legal sovereign of Israel, but not the Occupied Territories.

    It seems to be only the dominant Muslim/anti-Semitic powers in the region i.e. Palestine, Hamas that believe the Jews are there illegally.
    You're confusing legality and legitimacy here. Virtually no-one disputes the legality of Israel's sovereignty over its recognised territory (as noted above, the Occupied Territories are a different question). They may still however dispute the legitimacy of Israel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samyerson)
    What if I wasn't silent and did object to the overreaction of Israel that caused the conflict? Am I allowed to express my disgust that civilians were murdered by people? Because, this was an act of terror, and it was committed by Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians. Evidently, it's not an "old, tired non-argument" if it's a fact.
    And before you accuse me of calling all Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians terrorists, I'm not that idiotic. I've met Muslims from Arabia and Palestine and all over the world, and I don't think any were terrorists. Nonetheless, it was still the M/A/Ps that were responsible for this attack.
    I was referring to the arguments people make when trying to explain away the real reasons why Palestinians may resort to such desperate tactics as attacking seemingly innocent people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jemner01)
    I'll pick this bit out in particular as blatant falsification- the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans in WWI, legally claimed the region in 1923 (source: Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy") and then granted the entire region to the Jews. You're right in saying that there was a lot of tension and violence between Jews going back to their "homeland" from 1800 onwards in what they called Aliyahs (i.e. mass immigration), which was illegal at the time, but since 1948 Israel has been a legal entity run by a Zionist regime which was legally enstated. The Jews are not there illegally and are reconised by most major powers as the legal occupant. It seems to be only the dominant Muslim/anti-Semitic powers in the region i.e. Palestine, Hamas that believe the Jews are there illegally.
    Your knowledge of history is very confused. There was no conquering of Palestine at all: the Ottoman Empire lost in World War I alongside Germany etc. and was subsequently forced to sign treaties (Sevres) that stipulated that they must hand over most of their land to the Allies. The Balfour Declaration was part of these treaties, and it was only the Balfour Declaration that alluded to a 'Zionist homeland'; for the most part the British tried their utmost to limit Jewish entry into Palestine, mainly because of Arab rebellion. European Jews migrated illegally (from the point of view of the British who controlled Palestine at the time) to Palestine. The Zionists in Israel, the Irgun, Haganah, etc. collaborated with Nazi officials to ship Jews from Europe to Palestinian shores because the British government refused to do so - that was before the Nazis finally decided not to expel the Jews but exterminate them. Around the end of the British Mandate in Palestine, the British even sent a couple Jewish migrant ships off back to Europe where they'd come from, though of course they couldn't go back and therefore were left to die and that led to public furore which led to the British withdrawing from Palestine.

    Also, bringing 'legality' into the matter is entirely null, because there is no one universal law that rules over the earth. One cannot simply take Israel to be legal because Israel and the West consider it so. Indeed if any preference of narrative were to be bestowed then that preference should rightly be given to the people of the region who are directly affected by all of this rather than imperialists (for so Britain was at the time of the Mandate) or neo-imperialists who seek only to keep their interests unharmed.
    And you can hardly correctly state so categorically that the Zionist state was 'legally instated' - for legally according to whom? You cannot quote British sources to establish once and for all the legality of the state of Israel. A United Nations vote chose to rip apart Palestine into two states, but who exactly was part of the United Nations (which was then a very new organisation of states whose roles at that time in the world in general and in the region in particular are now considered very questionable)? Who appointed the United Nations supreme leader of the world? The state of Israel was built on 'terrorism' as described so by the British ruling Palestine. Its first ministers were former members of former 'terrorist' groups. It may also interest you to learn that Britain itself wasn't so sure of the legitimacy of its takeover of Ottoman land and had to obtain legitimacy via the League of Nations which has since of course been rendered null and void. And under current international law Israel illegally occupies the West Bank.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    You mean "work together" as in "allow your land to be invaded by settlers whom you protect" whilst you, meaning the PA, fill your pockets with the "aid" that is given to you by Israel?



    Yes, why not refer to the opinion of a person proudly refers to himself as a "Jew and a Zionist"? I'm sure he won't be in the least biased.

    Having said that, I don't dismiss people's opinions based on the views they hold so let us examine the evidence (detailed below).



    I don't know if you. or Gilbert for that matter can count or where you get your sources from, but that in no way is even close to "50,000 Arabs immigrating".

    If you can bring some evidence for this mythical "50,000 immigrants", then I'd love to discuss this further...



    Does that not make those who have immigrated "Arabs" given the fact that they were living in Arabia before the State of Israel? Why, all of a sudden, do you want them to disassociate their "Arabness" given the fact that these people had lived in Arab countries for centuries?
    absolute nonsense, you may think you've done your research but clearly you aren't aware of how to do it. why go read a whole bunch of pro-israel and anti palestine references, may i remind you i coud justify all your evidence with references from pro palestine and anti israel references. its ridiculous how people simply just swallow whatever is given in their hands, how about wider research. read the story from both sides -not jut the end or the beginning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    Can't pretend I follow this, but on BBC news they were saying Netanyahu's response to complaints about airstrikes/civilian deaths is..

    "Hamas attack us first, any civilian causalities from our retaliation is their fault."

    ...I didn't think you could really use that as a defence for killing civilians? I'm not familiar on rules of warfare, or what would be said at international criminal courts say, but it seems weak.
    yeah makes sense.
    besides if they attack first, why kill civilians? i mean they're not the ones attacking, why kill them?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jemner01)
    Conquest on a global scale =/= protected property rights on an individual scale. If you're asking me if I would defend my home the answer is yes (although the ability to defend is severely neutered here in the UK) , but the rhetorical question is loaded none-the-less.

    Isreal was granted to the Jews in 1948. Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and from about 1922/23 Israel and some of the surrounding area was legally British-owned territory. Before that, the Ottomans (Turks) owned it from about 1500 onward. So unless "native" Arabs from pre-1500 are currently fighting against Israeli forced for "their" land, you'll find that it's their ancestors who claim it's rightfully theirs and their ancestors who are attacking the current Jewish democracy in Israel (Jews who didn't even take the land in the first olace- they were granted it).
    yes but there was no right to grant israel to the Jews because people were already living there..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarsoora)
    oh shut up lol
    hahahah amen
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The synagogue hacking fest at Jews praying is undoubtedly an evil, deplorable event in itself, which deserves public condemnation, not just from Jews but from Muslims. As was the shooting of the Canadian Police guard at the Ottawa War Memorial.

    One of the Archilles Heels of Islamic religious mindset is this emphasis on taking vengeance. It's a road to nowhere but more bloodshed. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the horror of one real incident then no progress towards peace will ever be made. Last night even a highly acclaimed Palestinian scholar would not bring himself to condemn the Synagogue murders. Such rigid one-sidedness has been the hallmark of Palestinian politics from its genesis despite endless Israeli efforts towards finding a once and for all resolution for peace.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hdaindak)
    yes but there was no right to grant israel to the Jews because people were already living there..
    It's more complicated than that and I wish people would read, if not a book, at least the wikipedia page on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here.

    Let me summarise. The Brits get Palestine from the dissolution of Ottoman Empire after WW1. Jews continue immigrating there in even greater numbers due to anti-semitism in Europe (eg 100k dead in Ukraine pogrom before WW2). The UK is initially in favour, then tries to curb it. The Jewish people do not steal anybody's home. They buy properties with their own money. A significant problem emerges because the Zionists don't want the Jewish nation "diluted"/dominated, so they only employ Jewish people as workers. Obviously, the (already piss poor) Arabs are angry/jealous at this (understandably).

    Several riots are instigated in the years leading up to WW2 which could have resulted in the extermination of the Jews but for the protection of the British. As a result of the first riots (in Jaffa) the Jews start to organise themselves with weapons (Haganah = precursor of IDF, Irgun = terrorist group etc). Just to underline the existential threat the Jews faced, in 1941 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem secured a promise from Hitler that the Jewish settlements in Palestine would be eliminated!

    WW2 comes to an end, the numbers of Jews emigrating into British-controlled Palestine are now humongous for obvious reasons and the two sides start organising themselves as the time for British withdrawal draws near (this reminds me of the US withdrawal from Iraq or the British withdrawal from Cyprus, never a good idea to leave behind a power vacuum...). In 1947, the UN proposes a partition which is IMO very favourable for the Israelis, the Israelis accept, the Arab League rejects it.

    A civil war erupts in which the two sides fight each other and both of them the British. The British finally depart and Israel declares its creation/independence. Immediately, 4 Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq) attack and they are beaten by the Israelis (no US help yet, the money started coming in after 1976). The Jewish state gets much bigger as a result and the Western Bank and Gaza Strip are now occupied by Egypt and Transjordan. Almost 800k Palestinians become refugees and a same number of Jews are expelled from Arab countries as retaliation.

    Then the Arabs are beaten again in 2 more wars (6 day war, Yom Kippur war), Gaza and Western Bank come under Israeli occupation, the rest is history...

    ----

    What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that history could not have proceeded in any other way IMO.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    It's nothing to do with genes, but there is something wrong with Arab culture in that it is seemingly incompatible, in its current form, with liberal democracy, as demonstrated by the Arab spring, Iraq, etc.
    As long as they call themselves Arabs and Muslims liberal democracy will always fail to spring up in their lands because they have different definitions for "liberal" and "democracy", and as democracy would favour the Islamists, the West would continue to sponsor tyrannies and make these pieces of filth to look better than the Islamists for the freedom of minority groups and democratic values.

    You're comparing Islam with an exceedingly low base line. Christianity spent a good millennium or more persecuting Jews to the highest and most barbaric extent imaginable, ending finally with the holocaust. Liberal democracy was a Western invention, and it's far better than both Islam and Christianity. Christian societies have, for the most part, abandoned Christianity in favour of liberal democracy (sub-Saharan Africa not included), but Islamic societies have yet to do so.
    Liberal democracy the way you see it is indeed a Western invention but it'll never work in the ME because of the reasons I gave.

    Christianity as far as I know doesn't have a political and social domian or values or system. A fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former believes in a separation of Church and State (give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's) and the latter demands the establishment of God's law on earth in the political and social domain.

    You are right when you assume that political Islam would give little to no freedom to certain minorities, for example the homosexual community. Fortunately and unfortunately the majority of the ME wants the establishment of Islam in the political and social domain and as long as the majority are Muslims "liberal" democracy would never work. On the other hand the majority of Jews/people in Israel are irreligious and secular, and thus freedom in the way you define it would exist there. (I find this ironic - they use the Bible to claim a birthright to their land and the axiom that Jerusalem is their eternal capital - while throwing away the scripture for other matters - but this is wearing out the patience of their Christian evangelical supporters).



    When I talk about "democracy", I mean "liberal democracy". I don't mean "let's all vote for Islamofascism". Believe me I want the middle east to be liberal and democratic - that's why I support Israel, since it is the only middle eastern liberal democracy. As for Western backing, that is only due to economics and realpolitik. Notice that the United States doesn't push for dictators in Europe, because Europe believes in liberal democracy. The United States doesn't have the will power to turn the middle east into Western Europe unless there is something in it for them, and it is easier to work with what you've got - a choice between a disgusting dictator who serves your interests, and a disgusting dictator who doesn't.
    The downside is the growing anti-American and anti-West sentiment in the ME.


    Hang on, you got something wrong! If Hamas and Hezbollah reach any kind of victory, that is a victory for oppression. That is not freedom! What nonsense you spew. You must have a very strange and inverted definition of what "freedom" means, because to me it means a free society - precisely what Israel's enemies are fighting against.
    You may not know the future. Hamas and Hezbollah destroying Israel would be better for the entire region.

    When the zionist terrorists carried out their massacres and terrorist acts and succeeded in creating a Jewish state the entire ME saw it as a victory for oppression and evil


    Nonsense. The Muslim Brotherhood oppose liberal values. They oppose democracy. **** the Muslim Brotherhood.

    I don't suppose you'd make the same argument in favour of the fuhrer too? Remember, that piece of filth was "democratically" elected.
    You have a us vs them attitude. It's the Western liberal democratic values vs neo-Nazism?

    The difference is with the piece of **** that was Hitler, no one had any idea what he was going to do.

    With the Islamists we know exactly what they want and what they will do. We should just look at history. Political Islam in the form of a caliphate worked for 1300 years. Whether this is better than liberal democracy is for the people there to decide, not you. That's the problem here. You are pro-West blinded, and think that your sense of morality/values is the best there is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBlue7)
    As long as they call themselves Arabs and Muslims liberal democracy will always fail to spring up in their lands because they have different definitions for "liberal" and "democracy", and as democracy would favour the Islamists, the West would continue to sponsor tyrannies and make these pieces of filth to look better than the Islamists for the freedom of minority groups and democratic values.



    Liberal democracy the way you see it is indeed a Western invention but it'll never work in the ME because of the reasons I gave.

    Christianity as far as I know doesn't have a political and social domian or values or system. A fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is that the former believes in a separation of Church and State (give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's) and the latter demands the establishment of God's law on earth in the political and social domain.

    You are right when you assume that political Islam would give little to no freedom to certain minorities, for example the homosexual community. Fortunately and unfortunately the majority of the ME wants the establishment of Islam in the political and social domain and as long as the majority are Muslims "liberal" democracy would never work. On the other hand the majority of Jews/people in Israel are irreligious and secular, and thus freedom in the way you define it would exist there. (I find this ironic - they use the Bible to claim a birthright to their land and the axiom that Jerusalem is their eternal capital - while throwing away the scripture for other matters - but this is wearing out the patience of their Christian evangelical supporters).





    The downside is the growing anti-American and anti-West sentiment in the ME.




    You may not know the future. Hamas and Hezbollah destroying Israel would be better for the entire region.

    When the zionist terrorists carried out their massacres and terrorist acts and succeeded in creating a Jewish state the entire ME saw it as a victory for oppression and evil




    You have a us vs them attitude. It's the Western liberal democratic values vs neo-Nazism?

    The difference is with the piece of **** that was Hitler, no one had any idea what he was going to do.

    With the Islamists we know exactly what they want and what they will do. We should just look at history. Political Islam in the form of a caliphate worked for 1300 years. Whether this is better than liberal democracy is for the people there to decide, not you. That's the problem here. You are pro-West blinded, and think that your sense of morality/values is the best there is.
    I think your point is valid , I feel that when Islam was doing well under the caliphate you mention then the people who lived under it thrived and this included the least forms of divisions and allowed all major religions to live alongside each other but most importantly under muslim rule and law . In fact it may well be the most successful and longest lasting 'empire' in history as since then the expansion of the west has seen major problems coincide with that and many wars fought without any real outcomes achieved. I feel that the Jewish people who wholeheartedly believe in their religion have no intention for trouble in Israel and the blame lies with the extremist Zionists and puppets to the west .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    The synagogue hacking fest at Jews praying is undoubtedly an evil, deplorable event in itself, which deserves public condemnation, not just from Jews but from Muslims. As was the shooting of the Canadian Police guard at the Ottawa War Memorial.

    One of the Archilles Heels of Islamic religious mindset is this emphasis on taking vengeance. It's a road to nowhere but more bloodshed. If you are unwilling to acknowledge the horror of one real incident then no progress towards peace will ever be made. Last night even a highly acclaimed Palestinian scholar would not bring himself to condemn the Synagogue murders. Such rigid one-sidedness has been the hallmark of Palestinian politics from its genesis despite endless Israeli efforts towards finding a once and for all resolution for peace.
    I think you'll find that it's the Israelis who are for ever seeking and calling for revenge rather than the Palestinians; while Mahmoud Abbas condemns the attacks Netanyahu goes ahead and condemns and blames Abbas and promises his people revenge in very unequivocal terms. Where on earth do you get the idea that vengeance is emphasised so much as all that in the 'Islamic religious mindset'? How facile a generalisation is that. And you suppose the recent escalation in settler attacks on Palestinians plays no significant part in this attack, yes? Palestinians have died in the past few weeks at the hands of Israeli Jewish citizens and Israeli police, but you won't see anyone calling on Jews to collectively condemn this violence, will you? Of course not, because they've got a million excuses for them at hand. And you suppose also that the recent restrictions imposed on the Palestinians by the Israeli government plays no part in any of this, yes? Al Aqsa Mosque is a red line for the Palestinians and the Israelis crossed it by causing havoc in it the other day and much damage; Muslims haven't been able to pray normally in their mosque for the past couple of weeks but Israeli and non-Israeli Jews are free to frolic in its grounds as they please - indeed they've been doing so today. Lately, not content with the demolition of Palestinian homes, MKs in the government have been actively urging right-wingers to move into Palestinian neighbourhoods in West Jerusalem, thinking that'll legitimise its occupation any. That is provocative. All of that compounded with the fact that the Palestinians of East Jerusalem are already horribly repressed is the real reason why this attack happened. Nobody is obliged to condemn it. Muslims are not obliged to condemn it, just like Jews all around the world are not obliged to condemn all the numerous attacks of the past weeks that Israelis/Jews inflicted on Palestinians/Muslims; attacks you've never even heard of, let alone felt the urge to condemn.

    Israeli is exerting exactly ZERO efforts towards achievement of peace. This attack was a direct result of relentless Israeli aggression.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    After the car attack a couple of weeks ago which killed a young Ecuadorian woman and an Israeli toddler in Jerusalem, Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah official Facebook page posted cartoons mocking these deaths and a poster eulogising the murderer.

    The BBC did not deem it necessary to report the fact that the official government of the 'palestinians' released cartoons mocking these deaths.

    Here are some of them.









    And after yesterday's attack where 4 Rabbi's were hacked to death by 'palestinians' with axes, these cartoons were quickly drawn up.






    Here they are posing with axes to celebrate their axe attack against elderly Rabbis




    These are 'palestinians' celebrating the murders of Rabbis in a Synagogue (including a British born Rabbi)


 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.