BREAKING NEWS: Gewelddadige moslim-demonstratie tegen Israel te Antwerpen

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

De Palestijnen zijn geen etnische groep maar immigranten of kinderen van immigranten uit diverse Moslimlanden, Arabieren, Perzen, Berbers, enz..

Geschiedenis is niet statisch. Alles verandert, ook het identiteitsbesef. En door de omstandigheden hebben de Palestijnen wel een eigen besef ontwikkeld dat los is gaan staan van de andere, hen omringende Arabieren.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Leer wat geschiedenis. Ze hebben het land opgekocht.

Wat een onzin! Om de stichting van de Joodse staat mogelijk te maken, werden enkele honderden Arabische dorpen verwoest. De bevolking ervan werd ofwel verjaagd of vermoord.

Er is geen enkele grond om het Joods optreden op welke manier dan ook te vergoeilijken: zij gedragen zich als ouderwetse kolonisten die menen dat ze alle rechten hebben over de hoofden van een bevolking die er ondertussen al vele eeuwen woont.

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door DannyS

Graag. Waar staat dat ze zonder verdere consequenties konden beslissen niet te verkopen? Het net aangehaalde boek van die vermaarde geschiedenisprofessor heeft het namelijk over georkestreerde uitdrijvingen op grote schaal.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...m-1900-to-1948

Palestine From 1900 to 1948
History » From the Arab conquest to 1900 » Ottoman rule
Under the Ottoman Turks, Palestine continued to be linked administratively to Damascus until 1830, when it was placed under Sidon, then under Acre, then once again under Damascus until 1887–88, at which time the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire were settled for the last time. Palestine was divided into the districts of Nābulus and Acre, both of which were linked with the province of Beirut and the autonomous district of Jerusalem, which dealt directly with Istanbul. With varying fortunes often accompanied by revolts, massacres, and wars, the first three centuries of Ottoman rule isolated Palestine from most outside influences. The prosperity of 16th-century Ottoman Palestine was followed by an economic and political decline in the 17th century. Ottoman control in the 18th century was indirect. Ḍāhir al-ʿUmar (c. 1737–75) dominated the political life of northern Palestine for nearly 40 years. Aḥmad al-Jazzār, the Ottoman governor of Acre, had control of most of Palestine, and in 1799, with English and Ottoman help, he successfully defended Acre against Napoleon I.
Both Ḍāhir and al-Jazzār presided over a tightly controlled Palestine, where trade with Europe as well as taxation were growing. They used their new wealth from these sources to gain influence in Istanbul, which allowed them to gain local autonomy and even intermittent control of many areas outside Palestine.
This period came to an end with Napoleon’s abortive attempt (1798–1801) to carve for himself a Middle Eastern empire. Egypt, always a determining factor in the fortunes of Palestine, was placed, after the French withdrawal, under the rule of the viceroy Muḥammad (Meḥmet) ʿAlī, who soon embarked on a program of expansion at the expense of his Ottoman overlord. In 1831 his armies occupied Palestine, and for nine years he and his son Ibrāhīm gave it a centralizing and modernizing administration. Their rule increasingly opened the country to Western influences and enabled Christian missionaries to establish many schools; at the same time, however, taxes were increased, and urban rebellions broke out against the harshness of the regime. When in 1840 the British, the Austrians, and the Russians came to the aid of the Ottomans, the Egyptians were forced to withdraw, and Palestine reverted to the Ottoman Empire. Increased European interest, however, led the powers to establish consulates in Jerusalem and in Palestine’s port cities.
After 1840 the reforms the sultan promulgated gradually took effect in Palestine. Increased security in the countryside and the Ottoman Land Law of 1858 encouraged the development of private property, agricultural production for the world market, the decline of tribal social organization, growth of the population, and the enrichment of the notable families. As the Ottomans extended the central government’s new military, municipal, judicial, and educational systems to Palestine, the country also witnessed a marked increase in foreign settlements and colonies—French, Russian, and German. By far the most important, in spite of their initial numerical insignificance, were the Jewish agricultural settlements, which foreshadowed later Zionist endeavours to establish a Jewish national home and still later a Jewish state (Israel) in Palestine. The earliest of these settlements was founded by Russian Jews in 1882. In 1896 Theodor Herzl issued a pamphlet entitled Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) and advocated an autonomous Jewish state, preferably in Palestine. Two years later he himself went to Palestine to investigate its possibilities and, possibly, to seek the help of the German emperor William II, who was then making a spectacular pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Nabih Amin FarisRashid Ismail Khalidi
History » From 1900 to 1948
In the last years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th, the Palestinian Arabs shared in a general Arab renaissance. Palestinians found opportunities in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and Palestinian deputies sat in the Ottoman parliaments of 1877, 1908, 1912, and 1914. Several Arabic newspapers appeared in the country before 1914. Their pages reveal that Arab nationalism and opposition to Zionism were strong among some sections of the intelligentsia even before World War I. The Arabs sought an end to Jewish immigration and to land purchases by Zionists. The number of Zionist colonies, however, mostly subsidized by the French philanthropist Edmond, baron de Rothschild, rose from 19 in 1900 to 47 in 1918, even though the majority of the Jews were town dwellers. The population of Palestine, predominantly agricultural, was about 690,000 in 1914 (535,000 Muslims; 70,000 Christians, most of whom were Arabs; and 85,000 Jews).
History » From 1900 to 1948 » World War I and after
During World War I the Great Powers made a number of decisions concerning the future of Palestine without much regard to the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants. Palestinian Arabs, however, believed that Great Britain had promised them independence in the Ḥusayn-McMahon correspondence, an exchange of letters from July 1915 to March 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British high commissioner in Egypt, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, then emir of Mecca, in which the British made certain commitments to the Arabs in return for their support against the Ottomans during the war. Yet by May 1916 Great Britain, France, and Russia had reached an agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) according to which, inter alia, the bulk of Palestine was to be internationalized. Further complicating the situation, in November 1917 Arthur Balfour, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, addressed a letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild (the Balfour Declaration) expressing sympathy for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people on the understanding that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” This declaration did not come about through an act of generosity or stirrings of conscience over the bitter fate of the Jewish people. It was meant, in part, to prompt American Jews to exercise their influence in moving the United States to support British postwar policies as well as to encourage Russian Jews to keep their nation fighting.
Palestine was hard-hit by the war. In addition to the destruction caused by the fighting, the population was devastated by famine, epidemics, and Ottoman punitive measures against Arab nationalists. Major battles took place at Gaza before Jerusalem was captured by British and Allied forces under the command of General Sir Edmund (later 1st Viscount) Allenby in December 1917. The remaining area was occupied by the British by October 1918.
At the war’s end, the future of Palestine was problematic. Great Britain, which had set up a military administration in Palestine after capturing Jerusalem, was faced with the problem of having to secure international sanction for the continued occupation of the country in a manner consistent with its ambiguous, seemingly conflicting wartime commitments. On March 20, 1920, delegates from Palestine attended a general Syrian congress at Damascus, which passed a resolution rejecting the Balfour Declaration and elected Fayṣal I—son of Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, who ruled the Hejaz—king of a united Syria (including Palestine). This resolution echoed one passed earlier in Jerusalem, in February 1919, by the first Palestinian Arab conference of Muslim-Christian associations, which had been founded by leading Palestinian Arab notables to oppose Zionist activities. In April 1920, however, at a peace conference held in San Remo, Italy, the Allies divided the former territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire. Of the Ottoman provinces in the Syrian region, the northern portion (Syria and Lebanon) was mandated to France, and the southern portion (Palestine) was mandated to Great Britain. By July 1920 the French had forced Fayṣal to give up his newly founded kingdom of Syria. The hope of founding an Arab Palestine within a federated Syrian state collapsed and with it any prospect of independence. Palestinian Arabs spoke of 1920 as ʿām al-nakbah, the “year of catastrophe.”
Uncertainty over the disposition of Palestine affected all its inhabitants and increased political tensions. In April 1920 anti-Zionist riots broke out in the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem, killing several and injuring scores. British authorities attributed the riots to Arab disappointment at not having the promises of independence fulfilled and to fears, played on by some Muslim and Christian leaders, of a massive influx of Jews. Following the confirmation of the mandate at San Remo, the British replaced the military administration with a civilian administration in July 1920, and Sir Herbert (later Viscount) Samuel, a Zionist, was appointed the first high commissioner. The new administration proceeded to implement the Balfour Declaration, announcing in August a quota of 16,500 Jewish immigrants for the first year.
In December 1920, Palestinian Arabs at a congress in Haifa established an executive committee (known as the Arab Executive) to act as the representative of the Arabs. It was never formally recognized by the British and was dissolved in 1934. However, the platform of the Haifa congress, which set out the position that Palestine was an autonomous Arab entity and totally rejected any rights of the Jews to Palestine, remained the basic policy of the Palestinian Arabs until 1948. The arrival of more than 18,000 Jewish immigrants between 1919 and 1921 and land purchases in 1921 by the Jewish National Fund (established in 1901), which led to the eviction of Arab peasants (fellahin), further aroused Arab opposition that was expressed throughout the region through the Christian-Muslim associations. On May 1, 1921, more serious anti-Zionist riots broke out in Jaffa, spreading to Petaḥ Tiqwa and other Jewish communities, in which nearly 100 were killed. An Arab delegation of notables visited London in August–November 1921, demanding that the Balfour Declaration be repudiated and proposing the creation of a national government with a parliament democratically elected by the country’s Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Alarmed by the extent of Arab opposition, the British government issued a White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Great Britain did “not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.” Immigration would not exceed the economic absorptive capacity of the country, and steps would be taken to set up a legislative council. These proposals were rejected by the Arabs, both because they constituted a large majority of the total mandate population and therefore wished to dominate the instruments of government and rapidly gain independence and because, they argued, the proposals allowed Jewish immigration, which had a political objective, to be regulated by an economic criterion.
History » From 1900 to 1948 » The British mandate
In July 1922 the Council of the League of Nations approved the mandate instrument for Palestine, including its preamble incorporating the Balfour Declaration and stressing the Jewish historical connection with Palestine. Article 2 made the mandatory power responsible for placing the country under such “political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home…and the development of self-governing institutions.” Article 4 allowed for the establishment of a Jewish Agency to advise and cooperate with the Palestine administration in matters affecting the Jewish national home. Article 6 required that the Palestine administration, “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,” under suitable conditions should facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement of Jews on the land. Although Transjordan—i.e., the lands east of the Jordan River—constituted three-fourths of the British mandate of Palestine, it was, despite protests from the Zionists, excluded from the clauses covering the establishment of a Jewish national home. On September 29, 1923, the mandate officially came into force.
Palestine was a distinct political entity for the first time in centuries. This created problems and challenges for Palestinian Arabs and Zionists alike. Both communities realized that by the end of the mandate period the region’s future would be determined by size of population and ownership of land. Thus the central issues throughout the mandate period were Jewish immigration and land purchases, with the Jews attempting to increase both and the Arabs seeking to slow down or halt both. Conflict over these issues often escalated into violence, and the British were forced to take action—a lesson not lost on either side.
Arab nationalist activities became fragmented as tensions arose between clans, religious groups, and city dwellers and fellahin over the issue of how to respond to British rule and the increasing number of Zionists. Moreover, traditional rivalry between the two old preeminent and ambitious Jerusalem families, the Ḥusaynīs and the Nashāshībīs, whose members had held numerous government posts in the late Ottoman period, inhibited the development of effective Arab leadership. Several Arab organizations in the 1920s opposed Jewish immigration, including the Palestine Arab Congress, Muslim-Christian associations, and the Arab Executive. Most Arab groups were led by the strongly anti-British Ḥusaynī family, while the National Defense Party (founded 1934) was under the control of the more accommodating Nashāshībī family. In 1921 the British high commissioner appointed Amīn al-Ḥusaynī to be the (grand) mufti of Jerusalem and made him president of the newly formed Supreme Muslim Council, which controlled the Muslim courts and schools and a considerable portion of the funds raised by religious charitable endowments. Amīn al-Ḥusaynī used this religious position to transform himself into the most powerful political figure among the Arabs.
Initially, the Jews of Palestine thought it best served their interests to cooperate with the British administration. The World Zionist Organization (founded 1897) was regarded as the de facto Jewish Agency stipulated in the mandate, although its president, Chaim Weizmann, remained in London, close to the British government; the Polish-born emigré David Ben-Gurion became the leader of a standing executive in Palestine. Throughout the 1920s most British local authorities in Palestine, especially the military, sympathized with the Palestinian Arabs, whereas the British government in London tended to side with the Zionists. The Jewish community in Palestine, the Yishuv, established its own assembly (Vaʿad Leumi), trade union and labour movement (Histadrut), schools, courts, taxation system, medical services, and a number of industrial enterprises. It also formed a military organization called the Haganah. The Jewish Agency came to be controlled by a group called the Labour Zionists, who, for the most part, believed in cooperation with the British and Arabs, but another group, the Revisionist Zionists, founded in 1925 and led by Vladimir Jabotinsky, fully realized that their goal of a Jewish state in all of Palestine (i.e., both sides of the Jordan River) was inconsistent with that of Palestinian Arabs. The Revisionists formed their own military arm, Irgun Zvai Leumi, which did not hesitate to use force against the Arabs.
British rule in Palestine during the mandate was, in general, conscientious, efficient, and responsible. The mandate government developed administrative institutions, municipal services, public works, and transport. It laid water pipelines, expanded ports, extended railway lines, and supplied electricity. It was less assiduous in promoting education, however, particularly in the Arab sector, and it was hampered because it had to respond to outbreaks of violence both between the Arab and Jewish communities and against itself. The aims and aspirations of the three parties in Palestine appeared incompatible, which, as events proved, was indeed the case.
There was little political cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. In 1923 the British high commissioner tried to win Arab cooperation by offers first of a legislative council that would reflect the Arab majority and then of an Arab agency. Both offers were rejected by the Arabs as falling far short of their national demands. Nor did the Arabs wish to legitimize a situation they rejected in principle. The years 1923–29 were relatively quiet; Arab passivity was partly due to the drop in Jewish immigration in 1926–28. In 1927 the number of Jewish emigrants exceeded that of immigrants, and in 1928 there was a net Jewish immigration of only 10 persons.
Nevertheless, the Jewish national home continued to consolidate itself in terms of urban, agricultural, social, cultural, and industrial development. Large amounts of land were purchased from Arab owners, who often were absentee landlords. In August 1929 negotiations were concluded for the formation of an enlarged Jewish Agency to include non-Zionist Jewish sympathizers throughout the world.
This last development, while accentuating Arab fears, gave the Zionists a new sense of confidence. In the same month, a dispute in Jerusalem concerning religious practices at the Western Wall (see photograph )—sacred to Jews as the only remnant of the Second Temple of Jerusalem and to Muslims as the site of the Dome of the Rock—flared up into serious communal clashes in Jerusalem, Ẓefat, and Hebron. Some 250 were killed and 570 wounded, the Arab casualties being mostly at the hands of British security forces. A royal commission of inquiry under the aegis of Sir Walter Shaw attributed the clashes to the fact that “the Arabs have come to see in Jewish immigration not only a menace to their livelihood but a possible overlord of the future.” A second royal commission, headed by Sir John Hope Simpson, issued a report stating that there was at that time no margin of land available for agricultural settlement by new immigrants. These two reports raised in an acute form the question of where Britain’s duty lay if its specific obligations to the Zionists under the Balfour Declaration clashed with its general obligations to the Arabs under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They also formed the basis of the Passfield White Paper, issued in October 1930, which accorded some priority to Britain’s obligations to the Arabs. Not only did it call for a halt to Jewish immigration, but it also recommended that land be sold only to landless Arabs and that the determination of “economic absorptive capacity” be based on levels of Arab as well as Jewish unemployment. This was seen by the Zionists as cutting at the root of their program, for, if the right of the Arab resident were to gain priority over that of the Jewish immigrant, whether actual or potential, development of the Jewish national home would come to a standstill. In response to protests from Palestinian Jews and London Zionists, the British prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, in February 1931 addressed an explanatory letter to Chaim Weizmann nullifying the Passfield White Paper, which virtually meant a return to the policy of the 1922 White Paper. This letter convinced the Arabs that recommendations in their favour made in Palestine could be annulled by Zionist influence at the centre of power in London. In December 1931 a Muslim congress at Jerusalem was attended by delegates from 22 countries to warn against the danger of Zionism.
From the early 1930s onward, developments in Europe once again began to impose themselves more forcefully on Palestine. The Nazi accession to power in Germany in 1933 and the widespread persecution of Jews throughout central and eastern Europe gave a great impetus to Jewish immigration, which jumped to 30,000 in 1933, 42,000 in 1934, and 61,000 in 1935. By 1936 the Jewish population of Palestine had reached almost 400,000, or one-third of the total. This new wave of immigration provoked major acts of violence against Jews and the British in 1933 and 1935. The Arab population of Palestine also grew rapidly, largely by natural increase, although some Arabs were attracted from outside the region by the capital infusion brought by middle-class Jewish immigrants and British public works. Most of the Arabs (nearly nine-tenths) continued to be employed in agriculture despite deteriorating economic conditions. By the mid-1930s, however, many landless Arabs had joined the expanding Arab proletariat working in the construction trades on the edge of rapidly growing urban centres. This was the beginning of a shift in the foundations of Palestinian economic and social life that was to have profound immediate and long-term effects. In November 1935 the Arab political parties collectively demanded that Jewish immigration cease, land transfer be prohibited, and democratic institutions be established. A boycott of Zionist and British goods was proclaimed. In December the British administration offered to set up a legislative council of 28 members, in which the Arabs (both Muslim and Christian) would have a majority. The British would retain control through their selection of nonelected members. Although Arabs would not be represented in the council in proportion to their numbers, Arab leaders favoured the proposal, but the Zionists criticized it bitterly as an attempt to freeze the national home through a constitutional Arab stranglehold. In any event, London rejected the proposal. This, together with the example of rising nationalism in neighbouring Egypt and Syria, increasing unemployment in Palestine, and a poor citrus harvest, touched off a long-smoldering Arab rebellion.

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Geschiedenis is niet statisch. Alles verandert, ook het identiteitsbesef. En door de omstandigheden hebben de Palestijnen wel een eigen besef ontwikkeld dat los is gaan staan van de andere, hen omringende Arabieren.

En de Joden hebben dat recht niet?

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Wat een onzin! Om de stichting van de Joodse staat mogelijk te maken, werden enkele honderden Arabische dorpen verwoest. De bevolking ervan werd ofwel verjaagd of vermoord.

Er is geen enkele grond om het Joods optreden op welke manier dan ook te vergoeilijken: zij gedragen zich als ouderwetse kolonisten die menen dat ze alle rechten hebben over de hoofden van een bevolking die er ondertussen al vele eeuwen woont.

De Joodse staat werd opgericht onder Brits mandaat met toestemming van de VN.
.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

En de Joden hebben dat recht niet?

Wat heeft dat identiteitsbesef met het verwoesten van Palestijnse dorpen te maken? Is het één een vrijgeleide voor het andere?

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

De Joodse staat werd opgericht onder Brits mandaat met toestemming van de VN.
.

Ongetwijfeld, het Westen staat mede aan de basis van alle problemen. Zij hebben uit misplaatst medelijden na WO II de Joden een vrijgeleide gegeven in een land waar er ondertussen al vele eeuwen een andere bevolking woonde. Op geen enkele manier valt dit te rechtvaardigen, ook niet onder de vlag van de VN of de Britse Union Jack.

[DannyS]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Bron?

Bijvoorbeeld de vandaag om 01:05 uur door you in persoon geciteerde tekst uit de Encyclopædia Britannica: "The population of Palestine, predominantly agricultural, was about 690,000 in 1914 (535,000 Muslims; 70,000 Christians, most of whom were Arabs; and 85,000 Jews)."

[DannyS]

En voor de tweede helft van de bewering: Israël herbergde negentig jaar later zeven miljoen zielen, en werd voor driekwart van de bevolking Joods, waarvan er nog steeds niet meer dan een dikke helft in dat land geboren zijn.
Bron: The CIA World Factbook.

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door DannyS

Bijvoorbeeld de vandaag om 01:05 uur door you in persoon geciteerde tekst uit de Encyclopædia Britannica: "The population of Palestine, predominantly agricultural, was about 690,000 in 1914 (535,000 Muslims; 70,000 Christians, most of whom were Arabs; and 85,000 Jews)."

Tja, ik heb het maar zelf opgezocht omdat ik gewoonlijk geen antwoord krijg.
Nu jij, zoek eens op hoeveel Palestijnen er woonden in de 19de eeuw en hoeveel er in de 20ste weggetrokken zijn uit Palestina.

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Wat heeft dat identiteitsbesef met het verwoesten van Palestijnse dorpen te maken? Is het één een vrijgeleide voor het andere?

Wanneer zijn die dorpen verwoest?
Is het Palestijnse zelfbesef een vrijgelijde om al 60 jaar oorlog te voeren en terroristische aanvallen uit te voeren op burgers over de hele wereld? Is een stukje grond duizenden doden waard?

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Ongetwijfeld, het Westen staat mede aan de basis van alle problemen. Zij hebben uit misplaatst medelijden na WO II de Joden een vrijgeleide gegeven in een land waar er ondertussen al vele eeuwen een andere bevolking woonde. Op geen enkele manier valt dit te rechtvaardigen, ook niet onder de vlag van de VN of de Britse Union Jack.

Het Westen is inderdaad medeverantwoordelijk door misplaatst medelijden te tonen met terroristen.

[DannyS]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Tja, ik heb het maar zelf opgezocht omdat ik gewoonlijk geen antwoord krijg.
Nu jij, zoek eens op hoeveel Palestijnen er woonden in de 19de eeuw en hoeveel er in de 20ste weggetrokken zijn uit Palestina.

Gaan we het doel nu verplaatsen om de gemaakte goal af te keuren? Nee, dus: De Joden zijn duidelijk massaal geïmporteerd, en hadden zich naar de in jouw Vlaanderen geldende normen aan de plaatselijke gebruiken moeten aanpassen in plaats van de arabische boel zogezegd op te kopen, maar in feite hun opgesloten en uitgehongerde kinderen uit te moorden, hun wegen op te eisen voor alleengebruik, enz... Wat jij ging opzoeken was: "Waar staat dat ze zonder verdere consequenties konden beslissen niet te verkopen?"

[DannyS]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Het Westen is inderdaad medeverantwoordelijk door misplaatst medelijden te tonen met terroristen.

De helft van de duizende slachtoffers sinds het jaar 2000 zijn de genoemde kinderen. Die moesten boeten voor de 22 bezetters die hadden kunnen weten dat je daaraan altijd en overal sterft.

[fransV]

wat was nu eingelijk het eerst : de kip of het ei

[TypO]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Texas Ranger

Vanaf 14 uur vandaag organiseerde AEL een betoging te Borgerhout tegen de Israelische bombardementen van Gaza (Palestina). Die militaire operatie mag wat mij betreft zolang doorgaan tot de vijand plechtig belooft om geen terroristische aanvallen tegen Israel meer te beramen (wat zij vertikt te doen).

De AEL-demonstranten te Antwerpen denken daar echter anders over en eisen de onmiddellijke stopzetting van de vijandelijkheden. Om hun eisen kracht bij te zetten trokken zij vanmiddag naar de joodse wijk te Antwerpen die evenwel door de politie was afgegrendeld. Uit frustratie begonnen tientallen heethoofden te gooien met verkeersborden, vielen ze trams en stadsbussen aan (waar ze al jarenlang voor oefenen, zie affaire Guido De Moor en lotgenoten) en beukten ze de autoruiten van willekeurige onschuldige slachtoffers in.

Tijd om dit krapuul van de straat te vegen met de grove borstel...!!!

Maar toen kwamen de Imams....
en het volk werd stil.
En de relschoppers gingen nederig, letterlijk, op de knieën. En badden gezamelijk tot Hij de grote, de liefdevolle.

dus de boodschap is;
De imams kunnen de rellen tegenhouden!!!
Dus?
Mèèr islam!!!

Meer islam zal tevens de moorden, diefstallen en verkrachtingsplagen in mum van tijd doen ophouden.
Door de sharia. Want die straft dat gedrag ongenadig af. Niet zoals jullie watjes dat aanpakken.

Laat ons die invoeren -enkel voor gelovigen, wees niet bang-.
En jullie land zal terug leefbaarder worden.

Nu de sharia al een tijdje van toepassing is gaan we die ook een beetje op jullie toepassen. Jullie vrouwen lopen niet meer ongesluierd in onze wijken rond. om maar iets te zeggen.

Als we zien dat je varkensvlees koopt, kafferen we je uit -als we je al niet op je smoel slaan.




Fictie?
Neen. Voor een groot stuk al werkelijkheid.
Alleen gebeurt het allemaal iets meer onderhuids en geniepiger. Hun werkelijke aantal in onze maatschappij is al lang niet meer te tellen door oa. het toekennen van de belgische nationaliteit aaan al wie hier geboren wordt en toekomt.
Men kweekt ons tegelijkertijd letterlijk uit. Kosovo was ooit een Servische provincie. Nu wonen er zo goed als geen enkele Serviers meer. Allemaal weggepest en vermoord en uitgekweekt, net zoals hierboven beschreven.

Er is hier een ethnische zuivering bezig en onze grote denkers hebben het niet eens door.

Het is een eeuwenoude en beproefde tacktiek.

We'll be eaten.

[Weiße Rose]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door rikbe

Wanneer zijn die dorpen verwoest?
Is het Palestijnse zelfbesef een vrijgelijde om al 60 jaar oorlog te voeren en terroristische aanvallen uit te voeren op burgers over de hele wereld? Is een stukje grond duizenden doden waard?

Jij moest eens weten hoeveel slachtoffers er doorheen de geschiedenis al gevallen zijn voor een 'stukje gond'.

De palestijnen hebben recht op wat hen toekomt. daarmee zeg ik niet dat de Joden daar moeten vertrekken, maar wel dat ze enkele serieuze toevingenmoeten doen!

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Weiße Rose

Jij moest eens weten hoeveel slachtoffers er doorheen de geschiedenis al gevallen zijn voor een 'stukje gond'.

De palestijnen hebben recht op wat hen toekomt. daarmee zeg ik niet dat de Joden daar moeten vertrekken, maar wel dat ze enkele serieuze toevingenmoeten doen!

Zijn het tergugeven van Gaza, de Westbank, de Golan hoogvlakte en de Sinai woestijn, die ze in een verdedigingsoorlog veroverd hebben, geen voldoende toegevingen?
IMO hebben ze daardmee de grootste stommiteit ooit begaan.

Wij hebben de Oostkantons ook nooit aan Duitsland teruggegeven. De Fransen hebben Frans-Vlaanderen ook behouden, de Turken bezetten nog altijd Noord-Cyprus, enzovoort. Zowat overal ter wereld en in alle tijden zijn gebieden veroverd. Toch plegen de inwoners van al die veroverde en bezette gebieden geen terroristische aanslagen. In Kosovo is de meerderheid van de bevolking geemigreerd uit ALbanie en hebben de plaatselijke bevolking verdreven. En toch zijn ze nu erkend als onafhankelijke natie.

[Weiße Rose]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Weiße Rose

Jij moest eens weten hoeveel slachtoffers er doorheen de geschiedenis al gevallen zijn voor een 'stukje grond'.

De palestijnen hebben recht op wat hen toekomt. daarmee zeg ik niet dat de Joden daar moeten vertrekken, maar wel dat ze enkele serieuze toevingen moeten doen!

[rikbe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TypO

Maar toen kwamen de Imams....
en het volk werd stil.
En de relschoppers gingen nederig, letterlijk, op de knieën. En badden gezamelijk tot Hij de grote, de liefdevolle.

dus de boodschap is;
De imams kunnen de rellen tegenhouden!!!
Dus?
Mèèr islam!!!

Meer islam zal tevens de moorden, diefstallen en verkrachtingsplagen in mum van tijd doen ophouden.
Door de sharia. Want die straft dat gedrag ongenadig af. Niet zoals jullie watjes dat aanpakken.

Laat ons die invoeren -enkel voor gelovigen, wees niet bang-.
En jullie land zal terug leefbaarder worden.

Nu de sharia al een tijdje van toepassing is gaan we die ook een beetje op jullie toepassen. Jullie vrouwen lopen niet meer ongesluierd in onze wijken rond. om maar iets te zeggen.

Als we zien dat je varkensvlees koopt, kafferen we je uit -als we je al niet op je smoel slaan.




Fictie?
Neen. Voor een groot stuk al werkelijkheid.
Alleen gebeurt het allemaal iets meer onderhuids en geniepiger. Hun werkelijke aantal in onze maatschappij is al lang niet meer te tellen door oa. het toekennen van de belgische nationaliteit aaan al wie hier geboren wordt en toekomt.
Men kweekt ons tegelijkertijd letterlijk uit. Kosovo was ooit een Servische provincie. Nu wonen er zo goed als geen enkele Serviers meer. Allemaal weggepest en vermoord en uitgekweekt, net zoals hierboven beschreven.

Er is hier een ethnische zuivering bezig en onze grote denkers hebben het niet eens door.

Het is een eeuwenoude en beproefde tacktiek.

We'll be eaten.

De SHaria invoeren voor Moslims is economisch niet haalbaar: duizenden Moslims zonder handen die door de ziekenkas onderhouden moeten worden is niet betaalbaar.