by definition ---they were not ISHMAELITES either--
Ishmaelites is another "arab" conceit flung about
during Khutbah Jumaat feces flings. Akkadians
were not illiterate
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Holocaust History
- Thread starter Sixties Fan
- Start date
Ishmaelites is another "arab" conceit flung about
during Khutbah Jumaat feces flings. Akkadians
were not illiterate
I cannot GET IN!!!!!You are both discussing the creation of Israel.
Surada hates going to that thread, so she brings all of her misinformation to all other threads.
Please, take it there.
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2022/08/19th-century-arab-palestine-was-bunch.htmlwww.usmessageboard.com
ALL OF THEM? how about the escapees from the filth
of shariah? them too? When hubby became a
PALESTINIAN in 1942-----his parents lived with other
escapees who had escaped before them---in a town
founded in 1882----only a few had family histories of a
sojourn in Europe. They were all Bolsheviks? Terror
gangs? There was plenty of terrorism back then----
but a lot less than in the shariah shitholes. How does
1920 become significant? The Hebron pogrom did not
happen until 1929
You should read this from Palestine in 1920.
Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07
Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online
www.theatlantic.com
You are both discussing the creation of Israel.
Surada hates going to that thread, so she brings all of her misinformation to all other threads.
Please, take it there.
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2022/08/19th-century-arab-palestine-was-bunch.htmlwww.usmessageboard.com
Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07
Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online
www.theatlantic.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #406
GET LOST. !!!!Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07
Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Onlinewww.theatlantic.com
VERY LOST. !!!!
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #407
try againI cannot GET IN!!!!!
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts. The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which...
www.usmessageboard.com
or try searching for the subject
yeah --- I grew up in an episcopalian town. I alreadyYou should read this from Palestine in 1920.
Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07
Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Onlinewww.theatlantic.com
know that jerk
somebody there does not want me----consider thetry again
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts. The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which...
or try searching for the subject
possibilities
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #410
Try again later. I am having no issuessomebody there does not want me----consider the
possibilities
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
do you know who STARTED the thread?Try again later. I am having no issues
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #412
Coyotedo you know who STARTED the thread?
OH---she could have excluded me ----for CAUSECoyote
uhm...... she cannot muster the courage to debate meOH---she could have excluded me ----for CAUSE
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #415
If you’re going to make a documentary film about America’s response to the Holocaust, shouldn’t you at least know how many Jewish refugees were admitted to the United States during those years?
Surprisingly, filmmaker Ken Burns appears to be unaware of that basic information—or is, for some reason seeking to misrepresent the facts.
Burns has announced that his forthcoming film will challenge the “myth” that President Franklin D. Roosevelt abandoned Europe’s Jews. That remarkable assertion flies in the face of the historical record that numerous scholars have thoroughly documented. Nonetheless, in recent interviews, Burns has claimed that during the Roosevelt years, the United States “accepted more refugees than any other sovereign nation.”
That’s simply false.
Starting with 1933, the year Adolf Hitler and the Nazis rose to power in Germany. America’s immigration laws would have permitted the entry of 25,957 German immigrants. But the Roosevelt administration suppressed immigration far below what the law allowed. That year, only 1,324 German nationals were admitted to the United States. Smaller numbers came from other European countries—961 Poles, 864 Hungarians, 236 Rumanians (and not all of them were Jewish refugees.)
By contrast, the British government in 1933 admitted over 33,000 European Jews to British-ruled Palestine, plus thousands more to the United Kingdom itself, and small numbers to other British controlled-territories.
In the years to follow, the contrast between the Roosevelt administration and the British government was even starker. In 1934, the U.S. accepted 3,515 German citizens—less than 14% of that year’s quota—while the British admitted about 50,000 Jewish refugees to the U.K. and British territories (mostly Palestine).
-----
rom 1939 to 1941, the Soviets took in an estimated 300,000 Jews fleeing from Nazi-occupied Poland, according to the website of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. That was far more than the number of Jewish refugees the Roosevelt administration admitted during those years.
In 1942, the numbers admitted by the American and British governments were similar. In 1943, however, there was a significant gap between the two. That year, the United States admitted just 1,286 German immigrants. The British, by contrast, admitted 8,507 Jewish refugees to Palestine in 1943, as well as small numbers to other British territories. Those trends continued in 1944 and 1945.
Obviously, these immigration numbers do not change the cruel reality of England’s White Paper policy, which blocked most Jewish immigration to Palestine, nor do they change the facts about the Soviet regime’s mistreatment of the Jews in its territory. But the numbers show that Ken Burns is seriously mistaken when he contends that the Roosevelt administration’s record on refugees was better than that of any other country.
None of these immigration statistics are a secret. They all appear in publicly-available Immigration and Naturalization Service charts, which historians have been quoting for decades. If Burns has not seen the charts—or has not read any of the many history books that cite them—that’s cause for concern. If he knows the true figures but is choosing to distort them for partisan purposes, that’s even more troubling
Sheer numbers aside, there is the problem of the moral relativism inherent in the argument that Burns is making. The Roosevelt administration’s response to the Holocaust should not be minimized or excused just because other countries also did much less than they could have.
Moreover, is it really impressive if the president of a country claiming to represent high ideals of humanitarianism was slightly more generous in admitting refugees than, say, the military juntas ruling in South America? Is that the moral standard by which we, as Americans, judge our country and our leaders?
In fact, the rulers of the tiny South American country of Bolivia—which is only 424,000 square miles—took in more than 20,000 Jewish refugees during the Nazi years. What does that say about the United States, which is nearly 3.8-million square miles?
Translating Burns’s point into more contemporary terms, is it really a badge of pride that America’s meager response to the Darfur genocide was slightly better than the response of, say, Peru or Lithuania? We have a right to expect better from our country.
We also have a right to expect better from our filmmakers. While a full assessment of Burns’s film must await its release, the inaccurate statements that he has been making about the historical record are cause for concern.
(full article online )
www.israelnationalnews.com
Surprisingly, filmmaker Ken Burns appears to be unaware of that basic information—or is, for some reason seeking to misrepresent the facts.
Burns has announced that his forthcoming film will challenge the “myth” that President Franklin D. Roosevelt abandoned Europe’s Jews. That remarkable assertion flies in the face of the historical record that numerous scholars have thoroughly documented. Nonetheless, in recent interviews, Burns has claimed that during the Roosevelt years, the United States “accepted more refugees than any other sovereign nation.”
That’s simply false.
Starting with 1933, the year Adolf Hitler and the Nazis rose to power in Germany. America’s immigration laws would have permitted the entry of 25,957 German immigrants. But the Roosevelt administration suppressed immigration far below what the law allowed. That year, only 1,324 German nationals were admitted to the United States. Smaller numbers came from other European countries—961 Poles, 864 Hungarians, 236 Rumanians (and not all of them were Jewish refugees.)
By contrast, the British government in 1933 admitted over 33,000 European Jews to British-ruled Palestine, plus thousands more to the United Kingdom itself, and small numbers to other British controlled-territories.
In the years to follow, the contrast between the Roosevelt administration and the British government was even starker. In 1934, the U.S. accepted 3,515 German citizens—less than 14% of that year’s quota—while the British admitted about 50,000 Jewish refugees to the U.K. and British territories (mostly Palestine).
-----
rom 1939 to 1941, the Soviets took in an estimated 300,000 Jews fleeing from Nazi-occupied Poland, according to the website of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. That was far more than the number of Jewish refugees the Roosevelt administration admitted during those years.
In 1942, the numbers admitted by the American and British governments were similar. In 1943, however, there was a significant gap between the two. That year, the United States admitted just 1,286 German immigrants. The British, by contrast, admitted 8,507 Jewish refugees to Palestine in 1943, as well as small numbers to other British territories. Those trends continued in 1944 and 1945.
Obviously, these immigration numbers do not change the cruel reality of England’s White Paper policy, which blocked most Jewish immigration to Palestine, nor do they change the facts about the Soviet regime’s mistreatment of the Jews in its territory. But the numbers show that Ken Burns is seriously mistaken when he contends that the Roosevelt administration’s record on refugees was better than that of any other country.
None of these immigration statistics are a secret. They all appear in publicly-available Immigration and Naturalization Service charts, which historians have been quoting for decades. If Burns has not seen the charts—or has not read any of the many history books that cite them—that’s cause for concern. If he knows the true figures but is choosing to distort them for partisan purposes, that’s even more troubling
Sheer numbers aside, there is the problem of the moral relativism inherent in the argument that Burns is making. The Roosevelt administration’s response to the Holocaust should not be minimized or excused just because other countries also did much less than they could have.
Moreover, is it really impressive if the president of a country claiming to represent high ideals of humanitarianism was slightly more generous in admitting refugees than, say, the military juntas ruling in South America? Is that the moral standard by which we, as Americans, judge our country and our leaders?
In fact, the rulers of the tiny South American country of Bolivia—which is only 424,000 square miles—took in more than 20,000 Jewish refugees during the Nazi years. What does that say about the United States, which is nearly 3.8-million square miles?
Translating Burns’s point into more contemporary terms, is it really a badge of pride that America’s meager response to the Darfur genocide was slightly better than the response of, say, Peru or Lithuania? We have a right to expect better from our country.
We also have a right to expect better from our filmmakers. While a full assessment of Burns’s film must await its release, the inaccurate statements that he has been making about the historical record are cause for concern.
(full article online )
Ken Burns distorts FDR's policy on Jewish Refugees
Burns' claim that FDR took in more Jews during the Holocaust than other country is simply false. Is the rest of the movie the same? Op-ed.
www.israelnationalnews.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #416
Kudrow, 59, explained that when she was six years old, her father spoke to her about the Holocaust but she didn’t think it impacted her family much.
“I think I was a little too young for that and maybe as a consequence of that, all I knew was ‘Well, I haven’t heard that we had any relatives in concentration camps so the Holocaust, yeah, but maybe not my family,” she said.
Following years of condemnation from Jewish groups and tourists in Italy, an Italian winemaker said that next year he will...
Kudrow said although she did not think her family was affected by the Holocaust when she was younger, she now realizes how wrong she was and criticized herself saying, “It’s so stupid, this weird denial thing.”
(full article online)
www.algemeiner.com
“I think I was a little too young for that and maybe as a consequence of that, all I knew was ‘Well, I haven’t heard that we had any relatives in concentration camps so the Holocaust, yeah, but maybe not my family,” she said.
Following years of condemnation from Jewish groups and tourists in Italy, an Italian winemaker said that next year he will...
Kudrow said although she did not think her family was affected by the Holocaust when she was younger, she now realizes how wrong she was and criticized herself saying, “It’s so stupid, this weird denial thing.”
(full article online)
Actress Lisa Kudrow Talks About Family’s Holocaust Experiences in Podcast Episode
Lisa Kudrow. Photo: Lan Bui via Wikimedia Commons. Jewish actress Lisa Kudrow opened up about her paternal family’s experience in …
www.algemeiner.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #417
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #418
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #419
Jackie Young with his adoptive parents Ralph and Annie Young at his bar mitzvah in London, 1954. (Courtesy)
He has known for decades that he was born to a Jewish Viennese woman in her early 30s, who was deported in June 1942 to Maly Trostenets, a Nazi killing center near Minsk, Belarus, where she was murdered. The woman’s name, Elsa Spiegel, appears on Young’s original birth certificate. It was noted that she was unmarried, and the space for the father’s name was left blank.
Young miraculously survived as an orphaned infant for two years and eight months at the Terezin (Theresienstadt) camp-ghetto in Czechoslovakia.
UK man who survived concentration camp as baby finally learns his family’s identity
Jewish genealogist duo solves 80-year mystery, builds a family tree and locates living relatives after reading a ToI article about octogenarian Jackie Young's search for his roots
www.timesofisrael.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,449
- 10,503
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #420
Jesse Eisenberg to Direct, Write and Star in Film About Jewish Roots, Family and Holocaust History in Poland
Jesse Eisenberg speaking at the 2015 San Diego Comic Con International. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. Jewish actor Jesse Eisenberg will direct, …
www.algemeiner.com
Similar threads
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 205
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 952
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 76
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 124
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 8K
- Views
- 251K
- Replies
- 123
- Views
- 655
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-