Site of Christ's baptism defended by Jews, mined by Muslims

So much for the dual myths of innocent "Palestinian" victimhood and Israeli oppression. How much longer will Western media and politicians sustain Muslim lies?

Christian Site Opened in the West Bank:

Israel opened the traditional baptism site of Jesus to daily visits on Tuesday, a move that required the removal of mines in the West Bank along the Jordanian border. The site is one of the most important in Christianity. Until now, it had not been regularly open to the public since Israel captured the site and the rest of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. Palestinian officials said the move was illegal and called it part of “Israel’s monopoly over our historic and touristic resources.”

No, Christ was a Jew in Israel. It's not your site, blasphemer.

The actual "siege" in Palestine

Like any good predator, Muslims justify their brutal depravity by blaming their victims.  It doesn't hurt that so many non-Muslims in the West today are not only ignorant of Islam, but easily manipulated through the use of implied charges of racism and feelings of civilizational guilt.

Offered in response to more of Mohamed Fadly's lies here (we'll see how long it takes for him to realize what I've posted.  That I've posted.):

You know that Allah forbids taking friends from among "unbelievers except as a precaution against them." You know that "submission to the state" is just your not-so-clever attempt to hide the fact that submission to the Islamic "state" is submission to Islamic law is submission to Islam is submission to the genocidal pedophile's base lusts, and IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

When the only choices you have are conversion, subjugation (slavery as dhimmis), or death, it's neither "religion" nor freedom of choice, it's hell-on-Earth.

And as for "Israeli Defense Ministry -which is responsible for the siege enforced against Palestinians inside Gaza," the responsibility for the "siege" (since when is self-defense a "siege"?) belongs solely to faithful Muslims obeying Allah's commands and emulating Muhammad's example in waging jihad.

Speaking of "siege's" this is the actual "siege" in "Palestine," as explained by Ibn Kathir:

[. . .]

Allah said next,

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...),

meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

(and capture them)

executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

[. . .]

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir . . . ."

So, the Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

Apes and pigs, right, Mohamed?

And to Moonlite, who's never met a "minority" who wasn't "oppressed" or a tyrant whom she didn't want to appease:

Every time there's a conflict, it's the more ignorant, more barbaric, "browner," non Judeo-Christians who must be the innocent victims, right? Right?

Wait 'til they're at your door, Ann Klein. You'll wish you had opposed the butchers instead of their [prey].

Should we believe the media or our lyin' eyes?

You won't get any facts from the Islamophobic mainstream media or politicians. Here's what's really going on with flotilla jihad:

Just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they finally defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Which puts the lie to a lot of those claims by jihad's apologists that Muhammad butchered [insert non-Muslim farmers caught working their crops, 120-year-old man, or poetess nursing her baby here] in "self-defense."

How much of a threat are bound prisoners of war who've surrendered, again?

In response to a list of incidents offered as evidence that Israel's getting what it deserves, events in which it appears that Israel was either fighting for its independence from the British or defending itself against Islamic jihad, posted here:

If Muslims want Israelis to stop killing them, they should stop committing terrorist acts against them.

And if they want their civilians unharmed, stop firing at the Israelis from among them.

It's just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they [finally] defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Briefly with regard to your list, you do realize that some Israelis carried out bombings against the British, pre-independence, right?

Unlike your coreligionists, they were not following a "divine" mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Judaism, they gave prior warning to avoid innocents dying in at least one bombing (the King David Hotel), they were not targeting civilians, and your Sharon-led mission was condemned by Israel.

(No, not the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, double-speaking, "We-denounce-terrorism-in-all-its-forms[-but-killing-Jews?-That's-not-terrorism!"] kinds of "condemnations" in which Islamic spokesmen engage.

Since you do not provide any background regarding the "attacks" you list, nor did I see any links, I looked up one of your events that occurred some time after statehood.

It doesn't look good for you.

Here* is what I found about your "Qibya massacre" and why it happened: It was in response to more Islamic barbarism:

"The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

[. . .]

"between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan. The Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32

[. . .]

"The specific incident which the Israeli government used to justify the assault on Qibya occurred on October 12, 1953, when a Jewish mother, Suzanne Kinyas, and her two children were killed by a grenade thrown into their house in the Israeli town of Yehud, some 10 kilometers (6 mi) inside Israel's border.

[. . .]

"Force had to be used to demonstrate to the Arabs that Israel was in the Middle East to stay, Ben Gurion believed, and to that end he felt strongly that his retaliatory policy had to be continued."

So, yes, it was self-defense [against Muhammad's anti-Semitism].

You can't wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims and then cry "Foul!" when they defend themselves.

At least, not honestly.

*A note: I don't like to use Wikipedia as a source, but considering that it is often used by apologists for jihad (so there's [usually] a pro-Islam slant), and I don't have a desire to chase Mohamed down every rabbit hole, there you go.