Stop Blaming Israel For the Gaza War

[MHunterB]

Israel is a terrorist nation.

LINK to a non partisan source that states this officially, this means no ISLAMONAZI sources.

Google.
Moron.

If someone did Google 'moron' - they'd come up with a picture of Pbel, or perhaps Billo.

Georgie, otoh, is the poster thing for 'coward'.....

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Challenger]

No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.

Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.

 

[Kondor3]

No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.

Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.

Yes, we've all heard that canard time and again in the past.

A 'national home' is both a home for the nation and a Nation-Home.

The key and operative word here being 'Nation'.

Not tribe... the Jews of Antiquity were famous for dividing themselves into tribes, but their long history as a Nation, and, of course, the Disapora, eventually cured them of that primitive sort of categorization.

For anything 'tribal' in the region by the time we reach modern times - 1948 in this case - one must look to the more primitive Arabs of the region.

The Jews had long-since been a Nation, and maintained those traditions for some 1900 years, until Fate and circumstances led them to take their Destiny back into their own hands, and forge a modern-day resurrection of their old Nation.

They did this to the utter shock and consternation of much of the rest of the world - certainly of the Arabs of the region - who were accustomed to pliant, subservient Dhimmis who were content to let others decide what they may have and what they may not.

The Jews had a different vision, they dug deep within, after the disaster of the Holocaust, and found the strength and courage to win back for themselves, the right to define themselves, to decide for themselves what was theirs, and to be their own masters again.

They're back.

Surprise.

 

[Crystalclear]

Not all of it. they put lines and you moved the lines and built property on the land.







STEALING is what it is called.







And we have a problem with ISIS, Israel is ISIS. NO different. The Christians and the Shia are the Palestinians. And you call them the terrorists.

Israel is ISIS? I picked the land myself? Shut up idiot

Truth hurts doesn't it.

No, because it is not the truth. Israel is not like ISIS, actually their enemy (Hamas) is more like ISIS (they are both Islam terrorist organisations).
Just bullshit, Israel is the opposite of ISIS.

 

[Crystalclear]

No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.

Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.

Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The British were very naive.

2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.

Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.

 

[Billo_Really]

Gaza blast kills Hamas commander in 'work accident' | JPost | Israel News

Hamas is to blame.

I miss blaming Bush!

Is there any way we can work him into the mix?

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The British were very naive.

2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.

Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.

Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The British were very naive.

2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.

Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.

Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.

The British were probably just looking for another bunch of dupes to help them expand their empire.

Originally, they wanted to give the whole region to the Zionists, but there weren't a lot of Jews signing up to die for King and Country.

 

[MHunterB]

No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.

Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.

If one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.

Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.

 

[MHunterB]

Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The British were very naive.

2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.

Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.

Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.

The British were probably just looking for another bunch of dupes to help them expand their empire.

Originally, they wanted to give the whole region to the Zionists, but there weren't a lot of Jews signing up to die for King and Country.

Joe, while that 'dupes' theory is plausible - there's no reason to assume the antecedents of the State of Israel are in any way responsible for the *INTENTIONS of the British*.

 

[georgephillip]

LINK to a non partisan source that states this officially, this means no ISLAMONAZI sources.

Google.
Moron.

If someone did Google 'moron' - they'd come up with a picture of Pbel, or perhaps Billo.

Georgie, otoh, is the poster thing for 'coward'.....

Cowards murder women and children for money or market share.
I've never done that or supported those who did.
How about you, Marg?

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The British were very naive.

2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.

Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.

Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.

True enough.

Then again, that was an asinine provision.

All 'outsider' proposals to create a Jewish State in Old Palestine seem to have included such a provision.

It was tantamount to saying...

"You may have your own State embedded within the lands of Old Palestine, but only if you can convince the tribal folk and townsfolk of the region - who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries - and which has been in a sporadic shooting war with you for the past 3-4 decades - to let you become the new masters of the land, rather than them. We all know this is never going to happen but it lets us pretend to have sympathy for your aspirations while winking amongst ourselves and chuckling behind your back while you're not looking."

Realizing this truth, the Jews said "Fuck that!", screwed-up their courage, and fought for a home of their own, and rationalized it by cherry-picking the best parts out of those proposals.

States are rarely created by man-wussies who prostrate themselves before their enemies and ask 'pretty-please."

States are usually created by men with balls who fight for a home, and win.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The British were very naive.

2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.

Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.

Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.

True enough.

Then again, that was an asinine provision.

All 'outsider' proposals to create a Jewish State in Old Palestine seem to have included such a provision.

It was tantamount to saying...

"You may have your own State embedded within the lands of Old Palestine, but only if you can convince the tribal folk and townsfolk of the region - who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries - and which has been in a sporadic shooting war with you for the past 3-4 decades - to let you become the new masters of the land, rather than them. We all know this is never going to happen but it lets us pretend to have sympathy for your aspirations while winking amongst ourselves and chuckling behind your back while you're not looking."

Realizing this truth, the Jews said "Fuck that!", screwed-up their courage, and fought for a home of their own, and rationalized it by cherry-picking the best parts out of those proposals.

States are rarely created by man-wussies who prostrate themselves before their enemies and ask 'pretty-please."

States are usually created by men with balls who fight for a home, and win.

"...who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries."

Give us an example of how Palestinian Arabs held the Jews of Palestine in second class status for centuries. Both nations were ruled by Muslim Turks until Lord Rothschild took over after the War to End All Wars. Rothschild made sure 90% of British aid went to Jewish capital in Palestine which allowed your manly Jews to shelter behind British bayonets long enough to craft Plan Dalet. Jew and Arab lived relatively peacefully alongside one another for centuries in Palestine until "outsiders" decided to colonize the land between the River and the sea at the time their navy was switching from coal to oil to power their fleets.

 

[Penelope]

No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.

Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.

If one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.

Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.

Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.

So was Albert Einstein.

 

[MHunterB]

Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.

If one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.

Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.

Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.

Citations, please?

 

[Kondor3]

...the tribal folk and townsfolk of the region - who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries...

Give us an example of how Palestinian Arabs held the Jews of Palestine in second class status for centuries...

No need.

See 'competing religion', above. It was practitioners of the same competing religion. Unless, of course, you hold that the Ottoman Empire was not a Muslim empire.

...allowed your manly Jews to shelter behind British bayonets long enough to craft Plan Dalet...

My admiration of Israeli courage does not stem from the period of the British Mandate.

My admiration of Israeli courage stems from May 15, 1948, and beyond, and especially in the years 1948 - 1967, when they were pretty much on their own, and won a home for themselves regardless of what the rest of the world wanted.

...Jew and Arab lived relatively peacefully alongside one another for centuries in Palestine...

True. Beat a house pet long enough and it will begin to whimper and lie down in a corner and manifest exemplary behavior. Same for the Jews, beaten and taxed into submission centuries beforehand.

...until 'outsiders' decided to colonize the land between the River and the sea at the time their navy was switching from coal to oil to power their fleets.

I'm pretty sure that (a) the British Navy had successfully transitioned from coal to oil by the time they assumed the Mandate and (b) there wasn't enough oil and gas in Old Palestine to make that the reason why the British attacked the Ottomans there during WWI and (c) the British established no permanent colonies in Old Palestine for the purposes of securing nearby oil and gas fields.

 

[Penelope]

If one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.

Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.

Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.

Citations, please?

Harry S. Truman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penelope]

Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.

So was Albert Einstein.

True, people of intelligence were against it, those with foresight.