Palestinian Muslim Says Kill Them All, Kill All the Zionists, Qualifies After Being Pressed, Fails

On December 24, 2010 (Seattle time), A Palestinian Muslim added a comment on a comment thread on Facebook in which he advocated killing all Zionists. In his comment, he did not qualify that call. I responded. Here's the back and forth, which was reconstructed from emails because the back and forth in the thread was deleted (I found out the hard way by going back to it only to find it all gone without notice):

Tom:

Wow, Hussein, you are one dangerous person. Haven't you ever heard of a former Zionist? Kill 'em all, is that it? Kill even the ones who would yet see the light and repent. Why don't you have a long talk with Rich Siegel about that. He used to be a full-blown Zionist. Now he's one of the best friends the Palestinians could have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x2axqjhI6g

Hussein:

Replying to Mr. Tom above: - What i support is the mass killing of the current radical zionists, regardless of they would repent or not, i do not know the future of course but i base my argument on the solid fact that most of the israeli population have radical zionist tendencies. Waiting for a zionist to change while seeing my brothers suffering and getting killed and expelled of their land is not on the top of my interests. - Zionists for me are simply the enemy, and when your enemy tries to eliminate you, you have the full right to eliminate him first to defend yourself, killing the radical zionists who implanted an illegal state supported by colonialism in the middle east is what i call self-defense. If a burglar entered your house and raped your wife and killed your children, i am sure you will turn into a " dangerous person " yourself. - Yes of course i agree with you Tom, i am sure that there are lots of respect worthy persons such as Mr. Siegel who knew the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately, the great majority of zionists do not, and will not change their ideology.

Hussein:

Oh but a PS: I don't support the killing of zionist civilians ofc, what i support is a mass military action against Israel in respect of the teachings of Islam: No killing civilians,women,children,elders and no destroying their worship places. I would like to see them killed ofc but a muslim should not get to that low level of savagery and barbarism. Even a war has rules.

Tom:

"Collateral Murder": Those stupid radical Zionists just shouldn't have brought their babies to the battle while you take back your land. Why don't you win through being better instead?

Gandhi should have raised an army to Ram and smashed those racist Brits. Jesus should have raised an army to Yah and smashed those Romans and Pharisees. I'm simply shaking my head no to that.

So you would have killed Rich Siegel before he converted. I'm glad you weren't there and in charge.

The answer is peace. No, I gave up being that dangerous man. When I was that kind of dangerous, I was dead of the truth.

Now I'm much more dangerous, and I'm on the right side — the one that won from the beginning.

Tom:

Our posts crossed. You wrote, "eliminate all the zionists, and i mean ALL of them." There are female Zionists with weapons that fire to kill Palestinians. What do you do? How old does a boy have to be before you'll kill him?

Hussein:

Replying to Mr. Tom above: 1- Notice that i said earlier that i do not support the killing of civilians, and that includes babies :) I support the killing of the military members and their agents however, any israeli who ever held a weapon against us should be killed. 2- Of course there is always the peaceful kind of resistance of Jesus and Ghandi, however i do not think it could work in our case, the romans and the brits lacked the israeli fanaticism, and most important is that they did control their colonies but without transferring mass populations of their natives to it, what Israel is doing is not a colonization, it is an attempt to erase the full cultural, religious and demographic identity of Palestine, and that necessitates a rapid counter-action. Defending what is yours and what is right with force is never a shame. 3- If Mr. Rich was still a zionist and held a weapon against me and my brothers, i would have killed him without hesitation of course for the greater good. 4- Maybe, but if you pass by such experience i am sure you will change your idea. There are all sorts of peace, to me peace is the fruit of conquering Israel in a military war, to the israelis peace is the fruit of submission of arabs , to you Peace is the fruit of not taking any military action by any of the sides ( which is an unrealistic vision ), it is all relative. 5- Sorry didn't understand that last point.

Tom:

I said our posts crossed. That means that I hadn't refreshed the page to see your P.S. while composing my reply.

The Romans sacked Jerusalem and leveled the temple. Then they hunted down those who had fled. They build a ramped road up to Masada to get at the very last of them. They were very patient and persistent and fanatically deadly. That's how they were when Jesus was preaching peace to the Jews. The Zealots wouldn't have it. That's what Jesus knew. He said what would happen, and it did.

So, to you, Jesus was unrealistic, and to him, you're the current version of the Zealot.

And all the Gaza Freedom Flotillas and all the Cablegate cables to come and all Peace Movement efforts are wrong. Does vengeance have anything to do with your approach?

Also, if you think I haven't seen violence, think again. I've been around hardcore violence. I don't need to go into that.

Lastly, it isn't just about the Zionists in Israel. It's about their supporters in the US. Without US backing, where would they be? So when you talk about fanaticism, you'll have to discount that American public opinion has been shifting, especially amongst young Jewish people.

When I wrote my last point, I said to myself, "He won't get it." Read the Gospels.

Hussein:

Maybe i should have been more precise, i should have said:" i do not support the killing of UNARMED civilians ", but anyone who holds a gun to kill my brothers and sisters, whether he is a boy, male or female, should be captured as a POW or killed, a combatant ( militia or military) who holds a gun should realize the consequences of such action.

Tom:

And the Zionist said the toy gun in the hand of the 5-year-old looked real.

You know, if you keep qualifying in order to avoid doing evil, you just might renounce violence (with Jesus). Then you can stand with the Peace Movement and shame the Zionists who attack people who are no threat to them under any circumstances, which is why (one reason) the world is coming to hate Zionism and not because anyone fires rockets from Gaza but in spite of it.

Hussein:

I suggest you read more carefully dear sir before posting, even worse, you attribute to me things i did not say. Jesus was a prophet who had a certain message and God did not command him to fight the romans, Jesus was not meant to be a revolutionary leader, he was not commanded by God to fight but only to preach, unlike Moses or Mohamed ( peace be upon them all ). And you say that to me Jesus was ( unrealistic ), first of all i could not critique a prophet of God my friend, secondly what i said exactly is ( Of course there is always the peaceful kind of resistance of Jesus and Ghandi, however i do not think it could work in our case, the romans and the brits lacked the israeli fanaticism ), each situation requires a method of resistance, and what i said clearly is that the " peaceful resistance " does not suit the situation in Israel. Read more carefully next time. As for considering me as a zealot, i have to say that you do not know the basics of a polite discussion, learn to be polite before posting next time. And i think taking a side is better than being a negative person who sees all the shame in self-defense such as you sir. As for ( it isn't about the zionists in israel ) i think i was clear when i said that i support a military action against Israeli zionists and their " supporters ", the AIPAC and all the zionist orgs. in the US are in the category of ( Israel supporters ) i presume. As for the ( shifting of the young jewish people ) i see that again you are confusing, i am clear in my stance that i am against ZIONISTS, not JEWS, there are christian zionists, muslim zionists and jewish zionists. I am against Zionism and not Judaism and i think i was clear about that. The Zionist christians are actually far worse than the zionist jews

Hussein:

I do not see the logic of comparing my approach: the right to attack for Self-defense and to kill military/militia combatants in the context of a war to your approach: The toy gun in the hands of a 5 years old. I do not think that a 5 years old is aware of what he is doing, that is number one. As for the rockets on Gaza i oppose them because they are launched against civilian targets randomly. Killing civilians is not on my agenda, killing adult combatants ( males or females) with real guns is in the context of a legitimate war/resistance is. I hope that this is clear.

Hussein:

And as i said, there are tons of definitions to what you might call " Peace", my submission to israel is considered as a peace for the israelis, and the return of all the lands to the palestinians is considered as peace to me but not to the israelis, the concept of " Peace " has always been used by Israel to fool the world opinion. And " shaming the zionists" is a really good thing but i doubt that " Shaming them " could be considered as a real effort to support the palestinians, the world has been shaming zionists since 1948 and that didn't achieve much in favor of my brothers and sisters.

Hussein:

I apologize for the intense tone in my previous post. My stance is clear and shall remain unchanged in supporting a military action against Israel and its supporters and i do not support the attacks on unarmed civilians. Period. Have a good day sir.

Tom:

Hussein,

I attribute to you the logical conclusions of your positions.

You call Jesus a prophet yet you reject his teachings.

I don't need to read more carefully next time. You missed the point. The Romans were fanatical every bit as much as the Zionists are today.

"...'peaceful resistance' does not suit the situation in Israel." That's the Zealots' position. They said peace with Rome was not possible. They had to be free of Rome. Jesus warned them that if they took up that kind of sword rather than the more powerful sword of truth, they would die in the flesh and not go to Heaven to be with God.

If you think truth is impolite, then you need to rethink. I'm not angry, nor am I yelling at you. I'm writing, and if it seems intense, consider your own emotions.

You also missed the point concerning supporters. You are clarifying that you would kill them too. My point is that they have been turning due to the Peace Movement, not calls like yours to violence.

You also missed the point concerning the young Jewish people. They are changing from being young Jewish Zionists to questioning Zionism. You though would kill them during that process rather than being wise and working on the side of informing them.

You said you would kill anyone with a gun. Then you turn around and say you wouldn't kill a 5-year-old with a gun (albeit a toy; but you wouldn't necessarily know that in the heat of a gun battle or elsewise).

"...the world has been shaming zionists since 1948...." Didn't you listen to the words of Rich's song? Those arguments are what we've been fed here for decades. You have no idea at all how it has been in the US about that I guess. Just 10 years ago people didn't dare speak out the way they do now. You don't seem to understand or to appreciate the dynamic at work.

Were you here when the anti-Apartheid South Africa Movement began in earnest? I was. South Africa was literally forced by the shame in the US for supporting Apartheid. That's what I meant when I explained that it is not just about Israeli Zionists but American public opinion.

Your position is exactly contrary to increasing the sympathetic groundswell that could stop the Zionists in Israel and even force Truth and Reconciliation that would include the full right of return and many other things that you ought to consider very good things.

Now, I see that you attempt to hold yourself to a fairly high standard relative to many others I've heard, so I hope this isn't all falling on deaf ears.

Perhaps you should re-read the whole thread and dwell on the points you missed.

Peace,

Tom

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.