omfg then ya man. you were there?rammunition wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombingRed Forman wrote:
what compatriots of yours did they kill?
NEVER FORGET!!!!
rammunition wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombingRed Forman wrote:
what compatriots of yours did they kill?
NEVER FORGET!!!!
Ohai Donnie btw.Wiki wrote:
The Jewish political leadership publicly condemned the attack. The Jewish Agency expressed "their feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals", despite the fact that the Irgun was acting in respone to the Jewish Resistance Movement, an organisation governed by the Jewish Agency.[16] The Jewish National Council denounced the bombing.[7] According to The Jerusalem Post, "[a]lthough the Hagana had sanctioned the King David bombing, world-wide condemnation caused the organization to distance itself from the attack."[6] David Ben-Gurion deemed Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the attack. Hatsofeh, a Jewish newspaper in Palestine, went as far as to label the Irgun perpetrators "fascists".
You were at WTC?Red Forman wrote:
omfg then ya man. you were there?rammunition wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombingRed Forman wrote:
what compatriots of yours did they kill?
NEVER FORGET!!!!
I need around tree fiddy.
i dont hate arabs. he seems to be bent up about israel because of that.DonFck wrote:
You were at WTC?Red Forman wrote:
omfg then ya man. you were there?
at least i was alive during that.
Of course the leaders condemn it in public.M.O.A.B wrote:
rammunition wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombingRed Forman wrote:
what compatriots of yours did they kill?
NEVER FORGET!!!!Ohai Donnie btw.Wiki wrote:
The Jewish political leadership publicly condemned the attack. The Jewish Agency expressed "their feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals", despite the fact that the Irgun was acting in respone to the Jewish Resistance Movement, an organisation governed by the Jewish Agency.[16] The Jewish National Council denounced the bombing.[7] According to The Jerusalem Post, "[a]lthough the Hagana had sanctioned the King David bombing, world-wide condemnation caused the organization to distance itself from the attack."[6] David Ben-Gurion deemed Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the attack. Hatsofeh, a Jewish newspaper in Palestine, went as far as to label the Irgun perpetrators "fascists".
In July 2006, Israelis, including the past and future Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun, attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem protested, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated." They also protested against a plaque that claims that people died because the British ignored warning calls, saying it was untrue and "did not absolve those who planted the bomb." The plaque read "For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated.”[31] To prevent a diplomatic incident, and over the objections of Reuven Rivlin of the Likud Party, who raised the matter in the Knesset, changes were made in the text, though to a greater degree in the English than the Hebrew version. The final English version says, "Warning phone calls has [sic] been made to the hotel, The Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel's occupants to leave immediately. The hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. To the Irgun's regret, 92 persons were killed." The death toll given includes Avraham Abramovitz, the Irgun member who was shot during the attack and died later from his wounds, but only the Hebrew version of the sign makes that clear.[28]
You've got a point there, you know.Red Forman wrote:
i dont hate arabs. he seems to be bent up about israel because of that.DonFck wrote:
You were at WTC?Red Forman wrote:
omfg then ya man. you were there?
at least i was alive during that.
Heres my point: Debate and Serious Talk. Sometimes you review material that the "opposing side" is posting and find out that there are several valid points in this material. There's nothing more sad to see than two sides who blindly believe their arguments as the only truth and not even consider that maybe parts of the oppositions points are valid. Wars start that way.
I need around tree fiddy.
we have warman so we are all set.DonFck wrote:
You've got a point there, you know.Red Forman wrote:
i dont hate arabs. he seems to be bent up about israel because of that.DonFck wrote:
You were at WTC?
at least i was alive during that.
Heres my point: Debate and Serious Talk. Sometimes you review material that the "opposing side" is posting and find out that there are several valid points in this material. There's nothing more sad to see than two sides who blindly believe their arguments as the only truth and not even consider that maybe parts of the oppositions points are valid. Wars start that way.
Yeah, I hear he's ready for war.Red Forman wrote:
we have warman so we are all set.DonFck wrote:
You've got a point there, you know.Red Forman wrote:
i dont hate arabs. he seems to be bent up about israel because of that.
at least i was alive during that.
Heres my point: Debate and Serious Talk. Sometimes you review material that the "opposing side" is posting and find out that there are several valid points in this material. There's nothing more sad to see than two sides who blindly believe their arguments as the only truth and not even consider that maybe parts of the oppositions points are valid. Wars start that way.
I need around tree fiddy.
The are fighting over valueless desert? But can't give it up without a price?Dilbert_X wrote:
The terms are trivial from Israel's perspective.Pug wrote:
I don't think "Israelis don't want peace" is right.
I think its "Israelis don't like the terms"
- Retreat to the 1967 borders - ie hand back some valueless desert
- Recognise the right of return - in practice they'll use US money to buy off the Palestinians who want their land back
Hardly a big deal, but peace is not what they want.
I guess that argument works one way right?
I'm not sure which time, but I do know a couple times "yes", followed by rockets and kidnappings by the Hamas.rammunition wrote:
The jews never wanted peace, its obvious. They were offered 3 TIMES A 10 YEAR TRUCE BY HAMAS. Guess what the "peace loving innocent jews" said?
Wonder why they aren't taking that deal.
And Churchill over Dresden? He called that an act of terror. Or was he lying just to save face?rammunition wrote:
Of course the leaders condemn it in public.M.O.A.B wrote:
Ohai Donnie btw.Wiki wrote:
The Jewish political leadership publicly condemned the attack. The Jewish Agency expressed "their feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals", despite the fact that the Irgun was acting in respone to the Jewish Resistance Movement, an organisation governed by the Jewish Agency.[16] The Jewish National Council denounced the bombing.[7] According to The Jerusalem Post, "[a]lthough the Hagana had sanctioned the King David bombing, world-wide condemnation caused the organization to distance itself from the attack."[6] David Ben-Gurion deemed Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the attack. Hatsofeh, a Jewish newspaper in Palestine, went as far as to label the Irgun perpetrators "fascists".
Irrelevant to post. Thats a different debate.M.O.A.B wrote:
And Churchill over Dresden? He called that an act of terror. Or was he lying just to save face?
Its the same thing. Political leader with attachments to the event, condemning what happened.rammunition wrote:
Irrelevant to post. Thats a different debate.M.O.A.B wrote:
And Churchill over Dresden? He called that an act of terror. Or was he lying just to save face?
The party responsible was a sect and not those in command in Israel.rammunition wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombingRed Forman wrote:
what compatriots of yours did they kill?
NEVER FORGET!!!!
They latter integrated into the IDFPug wrote:
The party responsible was a sect and not those in command in Israel.rammunition wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombingRed Forman wrote:
what compatriots of yours did they kill?
NEVER FORGET!!!!
Quote
"On May 14, 1948 the establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed. The declaration of independence was followed by the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the process of absorbing all military organizations into the IDF started. On June 1, an agreement had been signed Between Menachem Begin and Yisrael Galili for the absorption of the Irgun into the IDF."
And before they were?rammunition wrote:
They latter integrated into the IDFPug wrote:
The party responsible was a sect and not those in command in Israel.
Quote
"On May 14, 1948 the establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed. The declaration of independence was followed by the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the process of absorbing all military organizations into the IDF started. On June 1, an agreement had been signed Between Menachem Begin and Yisrael Galili for the absorption of the Irgun into the IDF."
The Irgun were a Jewish militia.Pug wrote:
And before they were?rammunition wrote:
They latter integrated into the IDFPug wrote:
The party responsible was a sect and not those in command in Israel.
Quote
"On May 14, 1948 the establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed. The declaration of independence was followed by the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the process of absorbing all military organizations into the IDF started. On June 1, an agreement had been signed Between Menachem Begin and Yisrael Galili for the absorption of the Irgun into the IDF."
Irgur = Terrorists
Join IDF
IDF = Terrorists
Ahh...good.rammunition wrote:
The Irgun were a Jewish militia.Pug wrote:
And before they were?rammunition wrote:
They latter integrated into the IDF
Quote
"On May 14, 1948 the establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed. The declaration of independence was followed by the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the process of absorbing all military organizations into the IDF started. On June 1, an agreement had been signed Between Menachem Begin and Yisrael Galili for the absorption of the Irgun into the IDF."
Irgur = Terrorists
Join IDF
IDF = Terrorists
You just proved Hamas = Palestinians.
And we are back at square one.
This is very productive, no?
I'll admit, Israel was founded party by Terrorism, partly by sympathetic white people in horror about the Holocaust and partly by crazy Christians who view Jews as special overlords, and oh yeah partly by the influence Jews themselves built up within the Western governments of mainly the UK and especially USA.
The Arabs really screwed up though. WW1 being persuaded to split away from fellow Muslim Ottomans only to then be controlled by Britain who eventually gives the land to the Jews, then losing all those wars yet still pumping all that Oil. You can understand why there's loads of Arabs and maybe Muslims who are so disillusioned as to how they managed to screw up so badly in terms of the whole Israel thing, lol.
The Arabs really screwed up though. WW1 being persuaded to split away from fellow Muslim Ottomans only to then be controlled by Britain who eventually gives the land to the Jews, then losing all those wars yet still pumping all that Oil. You can understand why there's loads of Arabs and maybe Muslims who are so disillusioned as to how they managed to screw up so badly in terms of the whole Israel thing, lol.
Not really very accurate there.FEOS wrote:
Europe supported a homeland for European Jews outside of Europe, in line with Hitler's desires. America was agnostic about a homeland for European Jews, except that it not be in America. That homeland turned out to be modern-day Israel...so, actually...CORRECT.Dilbert_X wrote:
Incorrect, you're critcising Europe for doing the exact things America did.FEOS wrote:
The point being those who scream the loudest about the Israeli situation are the very ones who enabled it.
eg WikiSeems like the US was fairly 'anti-semitic' also.During his first term Roosevelt condemned Hitler's persecution of German Jews. As the Jewish exodus from Germany increased after 1937, Roosevelt was asked by American Jewish organizations and Congressmen to allow these refugees to settle in the U.S. At first he suggested that the Jewish refugees should be "resettled" elsewhere, and suggested Venezuela, Ethiopia or West Africa — anywhere but the U.S. Morgenthau, Ickes and Eleanor pressed him to adopt a more generous policy but he was afraid of provoking the men such as Charles Lindbergh who exploited anti-Semitism as a means of attacking Roosevelt's policies.
In practice very few Jewish refugees came to the U.S. — only 22,000 German refugees were admitted in 1940, not all of them Jewish. The State Department official in charge of refugee issues, Breckinridge Long, insisted on following the highly restrictive immigration laws to the letter. As one example, in 1939, the State Department under Roosevelt did not allow a boat of Jews fleeing from the Nazis into the United States. When the passenger ship St. Louis approached the coast of Florida with nearly a thousand German Jews fleeing persecution by Hitler, Roosevelt did not respond to telegrams from passengers requesting asylum, and the State Department refused entry to the ship. Forced to return to Antwerp, many of the passengers eventually died in concentration camps.
After 1942, when Roosevelt was made aware of the Nazi extermination of the Jews by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Polish envoy Jan Karski and others, he told them that the best solution was to destroy Nazi Germany. At Casablanca in 1943 Roosevelt announced there would be no compromise whatever with Hitler. In May 1943 he wrote to Cordell Hull (whose wife was Jewish): "I do not think we can do other than strictly comply with the present immigration laws." In January 1944, however, Morgenthau succeeded in persuading Roosevelt to allow the creation of a War Refugee Board in the Treasury Department. This allowed an increasing number of Jews to enter the U.S. in 1944 and 1945. It also financed Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg's work in Budapest, where he and others helped to save 100,000+ Jews from deportation to death camps. By this time, however, the European Jewish communities had already been largely destroyed in Hitler's Holocaust.
In any case, after 1945 the focus of Jewish aspirations shifted from migration to the U.S. to settlement in British mandate of Palestine, where the Zionist movement hoped to create a Jewish state. Roosevelt was also opposed to this idea. When he met King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia in February 1945, he assured him he did not support a Jewish state in British mandate of Palestine.
Europe didn't enable Israel, they were against it, as was the US.
In fact, your wiki article supports my position more than your own. Europe wanted the Jews anywhere but there. The US didn't think the Levant was the best place for them (fairly prescient, if I do say so myself). Then Europe enabled the Jewish homeland to be formed there.
And now you bitch about what you enabled.
So again. Shut it.
"Europe supported a homeland for European Jews outside of Europe"? Not exactly. Not too far from the mark, but not quite right. The League of Nations supported the establishment of a Jewish state. Those views were in line with those of many European governments.
The British government, who held the mandate of Palestine, never issued any public statement that supported the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The British government never, at any stage of the process, publicly voiced support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The members of the League of Nations tried to persuade the Jewish Agency to establish a homeland in a number of places, Uganda being one of the suggestions put to them, but the Zionist movement within the Agency would accept nothing less than Israel. The British government then issued a declaration allowing mass immigration into Palestine, with a couple of provisos on it (the Balfour Declaration). This was abused (as found by a number of government reports detailed below), until the British imposed restrictions upon the immigration (The White Paper), which were not adhered to and led to an increased backlash against the British administrators by Jewish terrorists - the King David Hotel bombing being the key example.
A government study, the Hope-Simpson report, which was written over the period between the two papers listed above, is quite condemning of the behaviour of Jewish immigrants in many respects - which is in line with other government reports and eye witness accounts from the same era, including a number of Jewish scholars.
This behaviour had a huge impact on the Arab populace. Depriving them of land (the Jewish agency bought up all fertile land at high prices and leased it to Jewish immigrants), services (Jewish doctors and tradesmen refused to work for Arabs) and employment oppotunities.
This led to animosity between the Jewish immigrants and the, originally welcoming, Arabs - which culminated in riots in 1929. A government investigation concluded that the violence against the Jewish immigrants and destruction of property was unjustified since it was not a response to violence by Jews against Arabs (which the report noted had occurred in retaliation to the riots, but not before).
The Hope-Simpson report was commissioned to delve further into the findings of the Shaw report about economic deprivement of Arabs due to Jewish immigration.the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England’s wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs. It went on to criticize the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages. The commission also recommended that the British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs. The Shaw report was a blow to Zionists everywhere
Following the initial Arab riots the Jewish agency formed various militias. Some of these militias were borderline legitimate, some were what can only be described as terrorist organisations. The 30's was a period that saw a huge number of terror attacks by these Jewish terrorist organisations against Arab civilians and British military and administrative facilities.
The state of Israel came into existence because of WWII. Pity, mass forced displacement and lack of manpower in the region by the administrators at a key period.
These factor all led to the Jewish agency becoming the dominant power in the region. The Zionist Congress proposed at the UN that they be given Israel as a Jewish commonwealth. The UN came up with the idea of the partition plan, based on the recent partition of India. The British did not participate in the vote and refused to cooperate in any way with the partition plan saying that it was unfair on the Arab populace.
I must've missed the bit where the British supported a Jewish state in Palestine. When was that then? It certainly wasn't in the Balfour Declaration (as later clarified in the White Paper and which was published to fulfill minimum legal requirements under the terms of the mandates drawn up by the League of Nations). So when was it?
No the Muslims say it belongs to them because Mohammed rose to Allah from there.rammunition wrote:
ok i'll answer.Mekstizzle wrote:
You haven't proved anything, I'm the only one that's bothered to say and explain anything and all you have said is you're wrong. So far all that's been proven is that you can't explain much.Nobody has answered this either.Mekstizzle wrote:
What's the difference between the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the Israeli "War of Independence"
The muslims don't say "God" gave them the land.
The muslims didn't reply on false history to be given the land
The muslims fought for the land, rather than through terrorism
Completely different.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You missed it because I never said it. I said the Europeans wanted the Jews out of Europe.Bertster7 wrote:
I must've missed the bit where the British supported a Jewish state in Palestine. When was that then? It certainly wasn't in the Balfour Declaration (as later clarified in the White Paper and which was published to fulfill minimum legal requirements under the terms of the mandates drawn up by the League of Nations). So when was it?FEOS wrote:
The point being those who scream the loudest about the Israeli situation are the very ones who enabled it.
The support for a Jewish homeland anywhere but where the majority of the Jews were (Europe) enabled the Jewish homeland we have now (Israel) and the mess associated with it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
lolFEOS wrote:
No the Muslims say it belongs to them because Mohammed rose to Allah from there.rammunition wrote:
ok i'll answer.Mekstizzle wrote:
You haven't proved anything, I'm the only one that's bothered to say and explain anything and all you have said is you're wrong. So far all that's been proven is that you can't explain much.
Nobody has answered this either.
The muslims don't say "God" gave them the land.
The muslims didn't reply on false history to be given the land
The muslims fought for the land, rather than through terrorism
Completely different.
FEOS wrote:
You missed it because I never said it. I said the Europeans wanted the Jews out of Europe.Bertster7 wrote:
I must've missed the bit where the British supported a Jewish state in Palestine. When was that then? It certainly wasn't in the Balfour Declaration (as later clarified in the White Paper and which was published to fulfill minimum legal requirements under the terms of the mandates drawn up by the League of Nations). So when was it?FEOS wrote:
The point being those who scream the loudest about the Israeli situation are the very ones who enabled it.
The support for a Jewish homeland anywhere but where the majority of the Jews were (Europe) enabled the Jewish homeland we have now (Israel) and the mess associated with it.
It sounds like that's exactly what you're saying here.FEOS wrote:
Provided already. Read it.Dilbert_X wrote:
The British didn't, they supported allowing jews to resettle in Palestine, but no jewish state.FEOS wrote:
Europe supported a homeland for European Jews outside of Europe
Source plz.