Oh look who is rewriting history. Formed mostly b Britain he says. Talk about sheer made up fabrication. How does one make up mostly? In Ria Raeb's mind Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, all in fact British and French colonies, poof begone! Can't be. Never mind the British led the Jordanian army in the war to rid Palestine of its Jew sin 1948 and flew the Egyptian fighter planes, oh hell no we forget that. Never mind the British were expelling Jews out of Palestine and sending them back to their deaths, know why? Because Ria Raeb says s that's why. He knows. He read something on the internet so its true. Israel is a colony "mostly" of the British. Its the above nonsensical response I have come to expect in any discussion on Israel with Ria Raeb. In fact Israel came about fighting against the colonial puppet states of the Arab League Nations, and its exactly why in the beginning Stalin saw it as a vanguard against colonialism in the Middle East and sent over 150,000 Jews out of Russia to Palestine and allowed the Czechs to train and equip the meagre Je3wish resistance force. Oh but hey why actually state real history. I mean why tell the truth-that Israel came about in spite of Germany, Britain, France. The entire false premises Ria Raeb tries to blow out as if it has substance is that the colonial puppet states of the Arab League were not. Then he would addance the ancient Jews are foreigers from Europe myth right down to the Jews are Khazars threads t suggest Jews have no indigenous roots and rights in the area. Like its not been done a million times on this friggin forum. This fabicated notion of "foreign Jew settler dismisses any historical or biblical connection of Jews to the area-it absurdly claims that if a Muslim came from outside Palestinian and displaced Palestinians, they are automatically Palestinian, but if a Jew did this, they are foreigners. It also pretends there are no Jews born in Israel or no Jews living in Israel who are descended from the Felashies, African, Arab, Indian and Asian Jews. Never mind 900,000 Jews were expelled from the Arab League nations forcing 700,000 of them to Israel and whose descendants now livein Ria's world they are Jew foreigners or hey the magic word. Khazars. In Ria Raeb's fantasy world there is Jewish connection to the ancient Land of Israel because he says so. The best way to explain Ria Raeb's fabrication that Israel is a colony is as follows: "Pychological factors often play a role in the development of political views. In the Israel-Arab conflict, one of the ways in which psychological factors operate is in the formation of mantras that do not necessarily reflect either the historical record or applicable international law.1 Examples include the use of descriptions of occupation as illegal2 and the determination that there is a right of resistance3 or a right of return.4 When used over and over again, these descriptions, despite their questionable legitimacy, can alter perceptions. Once perceptions change, attitudes and behavior change as well, leading to partial and ultimately biased views of historical and political reality.... Language thus becomes an important psychological tool both in correctly describing events and in perpetuating beliefs based on narratives that do not accurately reflect history. Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad is among those that have portrayed Israel as a colonial entity based on an illegitimate and racist movement, namely Zionism.5 In the eyes of many, it is a foreign element implanted into the Middle East where organizations such as the United Nations6 and political activists such as Chomsky7 describe Arabs as indigenous and Jews as immigrants. The charge of colonialism has become a major theme in criticizing Israel throughout the academic world and is part of the language of the discourse.8 The language of colonialism and its related terms (e.g., ethnic cleansing) have been incorporated into academic coursework even in Israel.9 An examination of the actual history and events related to the Middle East, in general, and Palestine, in particular, however, fails to confirm the reality behind the colonial Israel moniker. Israels creation, far from being a foreign colonial transplant, can actually be seen as the vanguard of and impetus for decolonialization of the entire area, including a significant part of the Arab world, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The breakdown of the Feisal-Weizmann agreement and the reversal on Arab acceptance of the Balfour Declaration launched a period of Arab nationalism accompanied by violence between Jews and Arabs. Today, despite the documented history of the Jewish people in the area that was known as Palestine and Feisals acceptance of the Jewish presence there, the Arab world continues to deny this history, both in official policy and in popular media. The U.S. State Department International Religious Freedom Report of 2009 notes that Palestinian Authority textbooks often ignored historical Jewish connections to Israel and Jerusalem.13 This thinking is reflected in the charters of both leading Palestinian movements. The Palestinian National Charter of 1968 declared the Balfour Declaration null and void and said: Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood.14 The issue of recognizing Jewish as opposed to Israeli rights remains a sticking point between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.15 The Hamas Covenant makes several statements expressing Islamic hegemony over the area known as Palestine, along with several references to the Jews usurping Palestine and challenging Islam.16 Academic circles in Palestinian Arab society also subscribe to these notions. Al-Quds University posts a History of Jerusalem17 that repeatedly implies that the Jewish narrative is a myth; that King David, whose very existence is questioned, was probably part of an idealized community of Israelites that had no connection to Jerusalem; that those Israelites never experienced an exodus from Egypt (Al-Quds claims this story was appropriated from a Canaanite legend); that Joshuas conquest never took place; that Solomons Temple was actually a center of pagan worship; and that the Western Wall was probably just part of a Roman fortress. In the Al-Quds rendition of the conquests of Palestine, Jews are not even mentioned, although ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Mamlukes, Ottomans and British are. Jews are nowhere to be found in the history of the land and have nothing to do with its past. In popular Palestinian media, the notion of lack of historical connection between the Jews and Palestine has also been promoted, such as with television broadcasts denying any Jewish connection to the Western Wall.18 This belief is so pervasive that even Israeli-funded institutions have been exposed to it. In Jerusalem, the Tower of David Museums head Arabic-speaking guide was dismissed19 after implying that there were no Jewish roots in Jerusalem, stating, in a Palestinian television interview, that the museums documentary film was full of historical lies and historical deceptions.20 The Connection between the Charge of Colonial Israel and Denial of Rights The concerted effort in Arab circles to deny Jewish roots in Palestine/Israel is critical to claims of Jewish colonialism in Palestine. Palestinian spokespersons claim that since Jews are members of a religion and not a nation, any nationalistic aspirations based on a specific territory are invalid.21 The notion of Jews as a foreign entity in Palestine was advanced and popularized through the work of the late Edward Said in his seminal work, Orientalism,22 which continues to be seen as a foundation for post-colonial thinking in academia today. The historical reality is quite different from what the Arab narrative, which has been adopted by many in academic and intellectual circles, presents. The Colonial Background of the Entire Middle East As a result of their colonial conquests, much of the Middle East area was under the control of the Ottoman Turks from 1516 through 1917. British colonial history includes their gaining control of the Gulf area between 1861 and 1899, turning the area into what one source called a British lake.23 British officials would decide which of the prominent tribal families in the Gulf region would eventually become the rulers of the states that would eventually emerge. French colonialists took over Algeria in 1830, conquered Tunisia in 1881, and took control of Morocco in 1912. Neither Jews nor Arabs enjoyed any modern independence in the area, which, by the end of World War I, had been under colonial control for many years. As a result of the mandate system that developed after the war and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916, British and French colonial interests were drawn and defined. Decolonialization Following the Ottoman Defeat Starting around the period of World War I, the entire Middle East underwent a process of decolonialization with the emergence of national movements. Jewish nationalism was consistent with the Balfour Declaration, which, after being incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, uniquely called for settlement of Jews in Palestine as part of the Jewish National Home, without reference to their place of origin. Just as the British supported the Jewish national claims to Palestine, a number of source documents show that they also encouraged Arab nationalism as a tool in their own conflict against the Ottomans.24 The mechanism for the transformation from colonial independence for the majority of new states was the mandate system. Both the British and French mandates eventually yielded sovereignty to the populations of the Middle East as multiple independent states came into being. With Israel, the Jewish state was reconstituted, while the various tribal Arab populations that stemmed from the invasion of the seventh century25 now began carving out areas of influence and sovereignty. The Jews, far from being colonialists, were the beneficiaries of a national movement that aimed to renew Jewish sovereignty, but also which, along with Arab national movements, ended colonial control by forces that had no historical or indigenous roots in the region. Indeed, it is an error to assume that Britain, as the mandatory power, gave the Jewish people their rights to claim Palestine. The 1922 Palestine Mandate specifically refers to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine. Rather than creating a new right, the Mandate recognized a pre-existing right that clearly pre-dated the colonial powers. The Mandate also calls for the Jewish people to begin reconstituting of their national home, essentially stating that they were going to rebuild a national home that had been there before. Many of the Arab states, in contrast, were modern fabrications of the British and the French. The Process of Independence A look at a map of the Middle East will show that national movements eventually became national entities, with tribal factors largely accounting for the division of the area into independent countries. North Yemen became independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The Hashemite monarchy in Iraq was granted independence in 1932 from England. Saudi Arabia (originally Hejaz and Nejd), although never colonized after World War I, became an independent kingdom in 1932 as well. Egypt, occupied by England since 1882, gained full independence in 1952. Lebanon and Syria became independent from the French Mandate in 1943 and 1946, respectively. Another Hashemite family in Jordan was granted independence in 1946 in territory originally a part of the Palestine Mandate. Independence also was eventually achieved by the British protectorates of Oman (1951), Kuwait (1961), South Yemen (1967), the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar (1971). In addition to the formation of the various Arab states noted above, Jewish national self-determination was obtained in Palestine with the independence of Israel in 1948. While the dispute with the Arab residents of Palestine continues, the colonial entity, namely Britain, relinquished control in 1948. Prior to Israels legal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the hostilities of 1967, Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank, while Gaza was administered by Egypt. The fact of the matter was that in 1948, during its war of independence, Israel acted as an anti-colonial force. The troops of the Arab Legion of Transjordan fought under a British commander, and had British as well as Arab officers.26 The British, clearly a colonial power, had treaty obligations to both Egypt and Jordan. At one point Hector McNeil, British Minister of State, threatened to defend Aqaba if necessary.27 British units were stationed in Egypt near the Suez Canal, the British were suspected of supplying sensitive intelligence information to Egypt, and the Israeli Air Force even clashed with a RAF squadron based in Egypt, downing five planes in 1949.28 While Israeli weapons came mostly by way of Czechoslovakia, the Arab states were equipped with weapons from the old colonial powers, Britain and France.29 Indeed, at the United Nations in 1949, when Britain and Italy submitted a draft resolution to put Libya under UN trusteeship, and deny it independence, Israel refused to go along with the colonial powers. By Israel abstaining, the British-Italian resolution did not get the required two-thirds support and was defeated.30 In short, both militarily and diplomatically, Israel served as an anti-colonial force during its early years. Language and Perception: Settler-Colonialism Despite the essentially parallel processes of independence from colonial and protectorate influence over the first half of the twentieth century, only one of the national movements at the time and only one of the resulting states, namely Israel, is accused of being colonial. The accusation of colonialism against Israel is not without difficulty. Since the traditional definition of colonialists exploiting the native population and resources does not broadly apply to Jews and Zionism, how then, to continue the narrative of Israeli colonialism? The answer was the application of another type of colonialism, that of the settler-colonialist, to the Zionist enterprise.31 This term, however, can assume validity only if it is assumed that the settlers have no indigenous roots and rights in the area. As such, this is yet another use of language to shape perceptions and another example of psychological manipulation for political purposes. Unlike any other settler-colonial state in history, Israel stands alone in that there is no identifiable foreign power that can be identified as the colonial entity. It goes without saying that the notion of settler also dismisses any historical or biblical connection of Jews to the area. Hence, the importance of denial of Jewish rights, history, and claims to the area. ...The 'Colonial Israel charge is thus rooted in an ideological and cognitive denial of any Jewish connection to Palestine and the ancient Land of Israel. This can be either through a belief that the connection is weak because of the passage of time,36 or, as has been the case in Arab circles and in some revisionist Israeli ones,37 by flatly denying Jewish roots in the area. Cognitive dissonance is the phenomenon whereby established beliefs are challenged by new, conflicting information that arouses a challenge to those core beliefs. Confirmation bias, on the other hand, is the term applied to seeking evidence that validates prior attitudes and beliefs. When confronted with dissonance, some may alter their beliefs to conform to the new information, but many, especially those that are ideologically invested with and committed to a particular view, continue in their established attitudes by adding justifications or interpretations that support or confirm the original cognition. Just as committed Zionists would not accept a colonial narrative, presenting facts and arguments in response to accusations against Israel would not change attitudes for anti-Zionists, even when their core beliefs or attitudes feeding that position are challenged. In practice, ideologues seem to respond to challenges through confirmation bias, seeking information consistent with their ideology that supports their core beliefs when dissonance is aroused.38 Attempting to change attitudes, thus, would appear to have a chance for success only when these attempts target those who are not predispositioned or biased towards particular political ideologies and when the information is accurate, not tendentious, and based on solid data. The mechanism of dissonance reduction that is most central to the settler-colonialist argument is the notion that Jews do not constitute a national entity and thus cannot possibly have legitimate rights to what was known as Palestine. For those who are familiar with Jewish history and traditions, such as the specifics of the Jewish legal system applicable only in Israel or the role of the Land of Israel in Jewish liturgy, the speciousness of these notions is self-evident. For many others, however, this is either not recognized or not relevant.39 Challenging these beliefs involves two overlapping mechanisms: First, a firm recognition of the reality of Jewish roots and historical sovereignty in the area, and second, an acknowledgment that the modern reconstitution of Jewish nationalism was achieved through a legitimate process consistent with international law and the right to self-determination. Both tenets are taboo and are not even subject to discussion for many anti-Zionist ideologues. Ideology, when unyielding and unbending, will be resistant to any cognitive dissonance.40 That is why, despite the historical record, the core notion of Israel as a settler-colonialist nation will continue to resonate in circles where nationalism is frowned upon, where religious history is irrelevant, where post-modern ideologies are entrenched and philosophically embraced, and where the notion of Jews as a people is not recognized." sources: http://jcpa.org/article/is-israel-a...tical-psychology-of-palestinian-nomenclature/ 1. I.J. Mansdorf, The Political Psychology of Postcolonial Ideology in the Arab World: An Analysis of Occupation and the Right of Return, Israel Studies, vol. 13, no. 4 (October 2007):899-915. 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/o...nguage.html?scp=5&sq=George P Fletcher&st=cse 3. http://www.nysun.com/editorials/right-of-resistance/10510/ 4. R. Lapidoth, Legal Aspects of the Palestinian Refugee Question, Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, no. 485, September 1, 2002. 5. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6679.shtml 6. Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples Israel: Overview, 2007, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4954ce50c.html 7. http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm 8. R. Aharonson, Settlement in Eretz Israel A Colonialist Enterprise? Critical Scholarship and Historical Geography, Israel Studies, 1(2) (Fall 1996):214-229. 9. http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/mapmes/uploadDocs/Syllabus-_Yftachel_-_Cohen_2008-9.doc 10. http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf (ch. II, para. 19, p. 24). 11. Op. cit., para. 23, p. 2.5 12. Op. cit., para. 25-28, pp. 26-28. 13. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm 14. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp 15. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1099520.html 16. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp 17. http://www.alquds.edu/gen_info/index.php?page=jerusalem_history 18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wVJviDcVBc 19. P. Cidor, Obliterated in Translation, Jerusalem Post, January 7, 2010. 20. PA TV (Fatah), November 13, 2009. 21. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-16/news/0711160197_1_islamic-erekat-jewish-state 22. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979). 23. Y. Tareq, J.S. Ismael, and K.A.J. Ismael, Politics and Government in the Middle East and North Africa (University Press of Florida, 1991), p. 453. 24. British Imperial Connexions to the Arab National Movement, in G.P. Gooch and Harold Temperley, eds., The Last Years of Peace British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914, Vol. X, Part II (193, pp. 824-838. 25. W.I. Saadeh, The Three Phases of Arab History, Excerpt from History of Arab Thought, Arab-American Affairs, vol. 32, no. 211 (June-July 2004), http://www.arab-american-affairs.net/archives/arab-history.htm 26. T.N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974 (New York: Harper Collins, 197, p. 121. 27. N. Aridan, Britain, Israel and Anglo-Jewry 1949-1957 (London: Taylor and Francis, 2004), p. 8. 28. Z. Tzahor, The 1949 Air Clash between the Israeli Air Force and the RAF, Journal of Contemporary History, 28 (1)(1993):75-101. 29. Zach Levey, Arms and Armaments in the Middle East, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2004, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3424600327.html. 30. Gideon Rafael, Destination Peace: Three Decades of Israeli Foreign Policy (New York: Stein and Day, 1981), pp. 21-22. 31. M. Rodinson, Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (Pathfinder Press, 1973). http://www.alternativenews.org/michael-warschawski/2187-israel-colonial-states-and-racism-.html 32. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no2_2007/veracini_settler.htm 33. Op. cit., 20, 21. 34. http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20050821_21gaza.31eacd0.html 35. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7012.shtml 36. http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/41215 37. S. Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (Verso, 2009). 38. C.S. Taber and M. Lodge, Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs, American Journal of Political Science, 50(3) (2006):755-769. 39. F.M. Perko, Contemporary American Christian Attitudes to Israel Based on the Scriptures, Israel Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, (Summer 2003):1-17, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/israel_studies/v008/8.2perko.html 40. B. Nyhan and J. Reifler, When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, in Political Behavior, in press. J. Bullock, The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 17, 2006. - See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/is-israel-a...alestinian-nomenclature/#sthash.eWhsYUOU.dpuf
You have continuously. The selectivity of what you choose to criticize speaks for itself. You champion Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis, Al Quaeda, Muslim extremism, anything anti Israel, anti US, anti Western. But hey if you think you are a beacon of impartiality be my guest. Here's a hint. You may not be impartial when you analyze your agenda. Lol. No really,
Congrats. You again admit you deny your Jewish identity while claiming you don't; read your friggin words: "never had a Jewish identity until I learnt (sic) in middle age my maternal grandmother was Jewish" You have "Jew" blood in you made a point to say you do and have denied it.. Deny it, fret about it, hide it, I really don't care. You won't be the first or last to be conflicted about his roots.
Israel probably has the BEST human rights record in the Middle East. If you completely overlook neocon and rightwing Israeli plans for subjugating the entire Middle East and causing non-stop sectarian bloodbath between Sunni, Shia and secular Muslims using the U.S. military and CIA as tools, Israel is a shining star.
There ARE worse countries right next door to Israel when it comes to human rights violations. Human rights violations are only a small part of the picture. When you look at Israel's tentacles into the top reaches of the U.S. government and the human rights abuses we have caused in the Middle East on behalf of Israel (being responsible for ISIS in Iraq, Libya, etc.), I don't believe there is a worse country in the WORLD than Israel.
Ok folks got the way he starts off with insults to discredit the poster, completely ignores the article I based my statement on and then suggests I wish to rewrite history. So here is the article that he does not want you to read. That is the game of the Israeli posters, insult, discredit falsify. The British army occupied Jerusalem on Sunday, 9 December 1917, and withdrew on 14 May 1948. During its brief imperium in the promised land, Britain kept the promise made in 1917 by its foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, in the Declaration that bears his name, "to favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". While nurturing the 'national home', a term as deliberately vague as Palestinian 'autonomy' is today, Britain neglected to observe the Declaration's final clause: "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Britain erected and for thirty years maintained the scaffolding that the Zionists happily tore down when their house of Israel was ready. Despite the objections of some British military commanders and civil servants in Palestine, His Majesty's Government protected Jewish immigration, encouraged Jewish settlement, subsidised Jewish defence and protected the Yishuv, as Palestine's minority Jewish community called itself, from the native population. Without Great Britain, there would not have been an Israel for the Yishuv, or a catastrophe - nakba in Arabic - for Palestine's Arab majority. It is not surprising that each year Balfour Day is celebrated by the friends of Israel and mourned by Palestine's Arabs. Israeli textbooks and propaganda novels, such as Leon Uris's Exodus, have tended to portray the Zionist pioneers waging a war of independence against the British oppressor. Jon and David Kimche provided a good example of the conventional Israeli analysis of British policy in Both Sides of the Hill: Britain and the Palestine War (1960). "It was a mixture of ignorance, blundering, indecision and local bias against the Jews, encouraged by the known bias of the foreign secretary." They were writing about 1947, when Ernest Bevin was foreign secretary and Zionist forces were attacking the British. However, Tom Segev points out that the British army, as it withdrew from Palestine a year later, was careful to hand over its main military bases to the Zionist forces even as it attempted to protect Jaffa's Arabs from eviction. Advertisement For Israel's new historians, among them Segev and Naomi Shepherd, the Zionist project is part of the saga of white settlement, as in north America and Rhodesia. The settlers declared independence only when they no longer required the mother country's soldiers to subdue the natives. Presenting Israelis as colonisers, rather than as enemies of imperialism, was once the preserve of Palestinian and Marxist writers. Many Palestinians, notably Nur Masalaha, have done pioneering work on what Israelis called 'transfer', that is, the forced evacuation of Palestinians from their homes and villages, or what in a later context would be called 'ethnic cleansing'. In 1973, the French Marxist Maxime Rodinson's book Israel: A Colonial Settler State? required a questionmark in its title that Segev and Shepherd would probably remove. In what he referred to as "an obvious diagnosis", Rodinson took Israeli statehood to be the "culmination of a process that fits perfectly into the great European-American movement of expansion in the 19th and 20th centuries whose aim was to settle new inhabitants among other peoples or to dominate them economically and politically". Between 1948 and 1977, when the Labour party dominated politics and culture, the Israeli left disputed the notion that theirs was a colonial project. Rather, they argued, the settlers brought progress, socialism and ideas of equality to Jews and Arabs alike. The right was less reticent: they admitted their desire for more land and fewer Arabs. With British help, and then despite British interference, the Zionists got both. The release of Israeli records over the last twenty years has led to a reappraisal of a century of Zionism by a new generation of Israeli historians - among them Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris - whose work is now entering the mainstream. In a sense, by focusing on the Mandate, Ploughing Sand and One Palestine, Complete are considerations of Israel's debt to the British and Britain's injury to the Arabs. Shepherd writes that "British rule protected the Zionist beachhead in Palestine during the most vulnerable, insecure period during the 1920s and 1930s. This was, politically, the main legacy of the mandate." Similarly, Segev concludes: "The British kept their promise to the Zionists . . . Contrary to the widely held belief in Britain's pro-Arabism, British actions considerably favoured the Zionist enterprise." Advertisement At the fringe of Jewish life in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Zionist movement lacked popular support, an army and the money to buy significant tracts of land for the purposes of colonisation. To compensate, it sought powerful allies among the gentiles. "The anti-semites will become our most loyal friends," the father of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote. "The anti-semitic nations will become our allies." Segev depicts prominent British gentiles favouring Zionism, not because they hated Jews, but because they assumed that Jews controlled the world. It was as though many British politicians imagined they were enlisting the 'Jewish conspiracy' of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to serve the British Empire. (Some of them, like Churchill, read and recommended the Protocols, until the Times exposed it as a fake.) The British ambassador in Constantinople reported that Jews were behind the revolution of the Young Turks of 1908, a complete nonsense. "I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the international power of the Jews," the Foreign Office under-secretary Lord Robert Cecil said. Segev quotes a character in The Thirty-Nine Steps airing the common prejudice that "the Jew is everywhere . . . He's the man who is ruling the world just now." Although Zionist leaders could turn these anti-semitic notions to their own ends, the tactic was not without risk. In 1988, Jonathan Frankel wrote in an article in Contemporary Jewry that "the belief in Jewish power, exaggerated to the level of myth, had permitted Jewish organisations and advocates to intervene at crucial moments and at the highest government levels . . . Few realised just how much this myth, albeit a source of political strength, was still more - given the essential weakness it disguised - a source of danger without limit." The myth of Jewish influence led Balfour to believe that Jews could determine policy in Germany, Russia and the United States. In 1902, Balfour succeeded his uncle, Lord Salisbury, as prime minister and introduced the aliens bill, the first piece of modern immigration legislation, in order to prevent east European Jews from finding refuge in Britain. (Echoes of Balfour's resistance to the eastern hordes persist in Jack Straw's "bogus asylum seekers", Tony Blair's call for the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to be rewritten, and John Townend's complaint about the "mongrelisation' of Britain.) Balfour warned parliament that the Jews "remained a people apart, and not merely held a religion differing from the vast majority of their fellow countrymen, but only intermarried among themselves". His argument, however pernicious its effect on the Russian Jews who were at the mercy of tsarist pogroms, did not offend the Zionist leadership in Britain. On the contrary, Chaim Weizmann, a Russian-born Jewish immigrant who sought to succeed Herzl after his death in 1904, appeared to sympathise with Balfour's position. Herzl had already asked the colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, to permit Jewish colonisation in Egypt near El Arish, with a view to a northward expansion into Ottoman Palestine. The British viceroy in Egypt, Lord Cromer, rejected Herzl's proposal as likely to antagonise Egyptians; and Chamberlain responded with an offer to the Zionists of a national home in Uganda. After debating the issue at the sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, they turned him down. In 1905, the year the aliens bill became law, Weizmann was working in Manchester as a chemist. (He would later develop explosives for the British forces in the Great War.) Weizmann, a natural diplomat who became Israel's first president in 1948, had asked influential friends to arrange an audience with Balfour when the prime minister visited Manchester. When the two men met, Balfour confessed that he had discussed the Jews with Cosima Wagner at Bayreuth and shared "many of her anti-semitic prejudices". Weizmann replied that "Germans of Mosaic persuasion were an undesirable and demoralising phenomenon." However, at that meeting and a later one in January 1906 at the Queen's Hotel in Manchester, Weizmann proposed a new "diagnosis and prognosis" of the "Jewish Problem". The illness was exile itself, which Weizmann believed was harmful to Jews and Christians alike, and the cure was to give the Jews a land of their own. They would make Palestine as Jewish as England was English. Balfour supported Weizmann's proposals to settle Europe's "people apart" in Palestine. In 1916 he became foreign secretary in Lloyd George's coalition government and in 1917 made the Zionist prescription British policy. The Declaration went to Lord Rothschild on 2 November 1917, when British forces commanded by General Sir Edmund Allenby were overrunning Palestine. "Weizmann's principal achievement," Segev writes, "was to create among British leaders an identity between the Zionist movement and 'world Jewry' - Lloyd George referred to 'the Jewish race', 'world Jewry', and 'the Zionists' as if they were synonymous. He also succeeded in persuading them that British and Zionist interests were the same. Yet none of it was true." The only Jewish member of the British cabinet, Edwin Samuel Montagu, the secretary of state for India, argued against issuing the Declaration. Montagu called Zionism "a mischievous political creed" and wrote that, in favouring it, "the policy of His Majesty's Government is anti-semitic." David Alexander, president of the Board of British Jews, Claude Montefiore, president of the Anglo-Jewish Association, and most Orthodox rabbis also opposed the Zionist enterprise. They insisted that they had as much right as any Christian to live and prosper in Britain, and they did not want Weizmann, however Anglophile his tastes, telling them to settle in the Judean desert or to till the orange groves of Jaffa. The other opponents of a British protectorate for the Zionists in Palestine were George Nathaniel Curzon, leader of the Lords and a member of the war cabinet, and the senior British military commanders in the Middle East, Lieutenant-General Sir Walter Congreve and General Gilbert Clayton. The generals contended that it was unnecessary to use Palestine as a route to Iraq's oil and thought that the establishment of the protectorate would waste imperial resources better deployed elsewhere. Congreve and Clayton were overruled. (Yehoshua Porath, one of the Hebrew University's most eminent historians, took Segev to task in the journal Azure for omitting to mention Britain's De Bunsen committee, which recommended that Palestine be held so it could be used as a land route for troop movements from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf and India.) After Britain occupied Palestine, the Government replaced Clayton as the Army's chief political officer in the Middle East. Clayton's successor, appointed at Weizmann's urging, was Richard Meinertzhagen, an ardent Zionist and an anti-semitic Christian. "I am imbued with anti-semitic feelings," he wrote in a diary passage quoted by Segev. A few years later, Weizmann asked Churchill to remove Congreve as well. Churchill complied. Zionist influence in London annoyed British high commissioners and senior officers alike: they knew that Weizmann had better access to prime ministers than they did. Shepherd writes that Sir Arthur Wauchope, high commissioner in Palestine from 1931 to 1938, co-ordinated his strategy with the local Zionist leader, David Ben Gurion, yet complained to his private secretary: "The thing is I have never met the PM and I don't suppose I ever shall. Weizmann can go in there when he wants to." It was an important factor in keeping British officials "on message", even when they had misgivings about administrative bias against Arabs. While the Zionists were antagonising fellow Jews like Montagu and finding friends among the anti-semites, Segev argues that they consistently put Zionist requirements ahead of Jewish interests. By the winter of 1917, many of Palestine's Jews, along with its Arabs and Armenians, were starving. American Protestant missionaries provided the bulk of the relief. (The Turks gave American missions some leeway, because America had not declared war on Turkey in April 1917 as it had on Germany. Woodrow Wilson had taken the advice of America's military chiefs, who preferred to concentrate their forces in Europe, and the missionary lobby, which wanted to provide more humanitarian assistance to Ottoman subjects.) Henry Morgenthau, the former American ambassador to Turkey and a Jewish anti-Zionist, advised Robert Lansing, the secretary of state, that the Turks desired a separate peace with the US, a settlement which would have had the effect of increasing relief efforts to aid the hungry people of Syria and Palestine. Palestine's Jewish population was receiving some aid from the American Joint Distribution Committee. Wilson sent Morgenthau to Switzerland to meet Turkish representatives. But American Zionists opposed this move, as Thomas Bryson explained in American Diplomatic Relations with the Middle East 1784-1975 (1977). It seems that the US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis knew the purpose of the Morgenthau mission and told Weizmann, who promptly alerted Balfour. According to Bryson, "the two agreed that the Morgenthau mission should be scotched, for an anticipated British offensive against the Turks in Palestine would do far more to assure the future of a Jewish national home. Brandeis arranged for Felix Frankfurter" - his clerk and later a Supreme Court justice - "to accompany Morgenthau to ascertain that the latter would not make an agreement compromising the Zionist goal. Acting through Balfour, the Zionists arranged for Morgenthau and Frankfurter to meet Dr Weizmann at Gibraltar, where he deterred Morgenthau from his task." Although this incident supports his case, Segev does not refer to it. He does, however, describe the journey Weizmann made as head of the Zionist delegation from England to Palestine, stopping in Gibraltar on the way for his meeting with Morgenthau. Having arrived in Palestine in the wake of the British Army, Weizmann was standing outside a tent near the Arab village of Ramle when Allenby passed and invited the Zionist leader to accompany him on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem - an offer he declined. Weizmann later wrote that "something within" had deterred him - no doubt his apprehension that Palestine's Arabs, many of whom initially welcomed the British, would have understood the portent of a Zionist official walking through the Jaffa Gate with the liberators. The use of the phrase 'national home' was, like Weizmann's discretion in declining Allenby's invitation, intended to disguise what the British knew and the Arabs feared: the Zionists intended to create a state for Jews in a province that was more than 90 per cent Arab. At the Paris peace talks in 1919, a French delegate let slip that France would not oppose a Jewish 'state' in Palestine. Weizmann cautioned him. He explained: "We ourselves had been very careful not to use this term." In July 1920, while the Allies were still debating the future of Palestine and attempting to hold onto their gains in Turkey, Balfour addressed a predominantly Jewish audience at the Albert Hall in London. He reminded them that Britain had freed the Arabs "from the tyranny of their brutal conqueror" - Turkey - during the Great War. "I hope," he went on, "that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch - for it is not more geographically, whatever it may be historically - that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it." That same year Britain applied to the League of Nations for a Mandate - a compromise term thought up by General Smuts for what was in essence a colony or protectorate - to administer Palestine and Transjordan. By the time it was approved, on 24 July 1922, Britain was already well established on the ground and colonial officials were grappling with their major preoccupation, the servant problem. Some wives were reluctant to employ chained Arab prisoners to dig their gardens, while others happily taught Palestinian Arab women to make tea cakes. Social life began to gather momentum. There was jackal-chasing with the Ramle Vale Hunt; riding in the Ludd Hunt point-to-point; the usual round of garden parties and fancy dress balls. The treasury made it clear that the Palestine Mandate would be self-supporting, and only a small force was available to police the territory. The first high commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, was Jewish, a Zionist and a friend of Weizmann's. When the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, run by the Army, handed power to the civil authorities in 1920, Samuel was made to sign a document stating: "Received from Major-General Sir Louis J Bols KCB - One Palestine, complete.' (One Palestine, Complete was originally published in Hebrew in 1999 under the title Days of the Anemones, after the red berets worn by the British Sixth Airborne Division which was sent to Palestine in 1946 to contain Zionist paramilitaries. There is no reference to the Anemones in the English translation.) Arabs in Palestine feared the worst. Their desire for independence and unity with the rest of the Arab world, expressed in testimony to the American King-Crane Commission which was set up to discover their feelings on the future of former Ottoman lands, was ignored. Under Britain's aegis, the Jewish community in Palestine began, despite occasional setbacks, to flourish. Gradually, the Zionists revived Hebrew and forced the British to make it one of the three official languages. Theirs was a dynamic society of socialist kibbutzniks and businessmen, artists and politicians, soldiers and rabbis. They excluded Arabs for the most part, and the few who encouraged Arab labourers to demand their rights antagonised both Arab chieftains and Jewish employers. The Zionists opened schools, established trade unions, built settlements and towns and bought land. The land issue was, after Jewish immigration, the most contentious of the Mandate. Segev writes that most prominent Palestinian families, "patriots on the outside, traitors on the inside", secretly sold land to the Zionists. This led Weizmann to conclude that they were "ready to sell their souls to the highest bidder". Jewish Agency purchases - which often involved the British police expelling peasant farmers - included covenants forbidding sale to non-Jews which were later incorporated into Israeli law. Thus, 92 per cent of modern Israel cannot be sold to anyone who is not legally Jewish. (In another state, this would be called apartheid.) The courts were preoccupied with land claims, and lawyers devoted a great deal of energy to proving title to land, much of it held in common under Ottoman rule. Weizmann wrote to a British official: "We don't desire to turn out Mohammed in order to put in Mr Cohen as a large landowner." Segev observes: "The Arab was merely 'Mohammed', while the Jew was 'Mr Cohen'." Weizmann dismissed the Arabs along with their claims. "There is a fundamental difference in quality between Jew and native," he wrote. Anticipating Ariel Sharon by eighty years, he said of Palestine's Arabs that "they appreciated only force." http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/may/31/londonreviewofbooks Brought up on the myth of Zionist courage against all odds the really rabid zionist is appalled by just how much the British helped them achieve their goal of a European Colony in Palestine!
Continued The administration did little to allay their apprehensions of official pro-Zionist bias. Britain appointed Zionist Jews to important positions: not only Herbert Samuel, but also his son Edwin Samuel (whom Segev describes as a 'double agent') to liaise with the Zionist Commission and Norman Bentwich as attorney-general. Weizmann persuaded Balfour, Samuel and Churchill to transfer Colonel Edmund Vivian Gabriel, who was responsible for the military budget. Gabriel's dismissal prompted Curzon, who had become foreign secretary, to protest. "It is intolerable," he said, "that Dr Weizmann should be allowed to criticise the 'type of men' employed by HM Government." Not all was intrigue and violence. Then, as now, friendships, business relationships and culture crossed the communal lines. Segev writes of a Jewish businessman, Alter Levine, and Khalil Sakakini, an Arab whom Levine called "a teacher, Christian and friend". Both grew up in Jerusalem under Ottoman rule. Before British troops arrived in 1917, Levine sought sanctuary in Sakakini's house in Jerusalem. The Turks broke into the house, arrested Levine on charges of spying and took him and Sakakini to prison in Damascus. Only the speed of the Allied advance saved the two men from the noose, and they saw each other from time to time in the years that followed. When Sakakini built a house in west Jerusalem, Levine co-signed his loan from the Anglo-Palestine Bank. For a short time, the two were part of a small discussion group on Arab-Jewish co-operation. Levine, who was Palestine's 'King of Insurance', wrote romantic poetry under the name Asaf Halevy. When Levine insisted on talking business, he was scolded - "Be quiet, Alter Levine, and let Asaf Halevy speak." To which Levine replied: "If Levine did not speak, Asaf Halevy could not sing." Sakakini resigned from Palestine's education department when it became clear that the British had no intention of educating the Arabs, and moved for a time to Egypt. He returned to Palestine in 1926 to fight for better Arab schools, and the Khalil Sakakini Centre in Ramallah is named in honour of the man many regard as the father of modern Palestinian education. After many business reverses, Levine hanged himself in 1933, on the tenth anniversary of his daughter's death. "Poor man," Sakakini wrote in his diary. "Had the English entered Jerusalem just a little later, both my fate and his would have been to hang. Here this man, who was saved from the Turkish gallows, has hanged himself by his own hand. He fled death but fell dead." Sakakini lived long enough to have to flee Palestine, after the massacre of fellow Arabs in the village of Deir Yassin in 1947. He died in Egypt in 1953. No one who reads One Palestine, Complete could fail to like these two men, and it is to Segev's credit that his Palestine is peopled with, well, people. The Mandate years were marked by occasional outbreaks of mob violence against Jews, all of them ruthlessly suppressed by the British. In 1921, mourners at the funeral of an Arab child killed by settlers attacked six Jews near Jaffa. Samuel responded with air strikes on Arab villages. In the fighting that ensued, 47 Jews and 48 Arabs died. Segev notes that, around the same time, Ukrainian pogroms claimed the lives of anything between 75,000 and 200,000 Jews. Yet the Hebrew daily Ha'aretz appealed to world Jewry: "Do not leave us alone at the front." Segev comments: "No longer a means of saving the Jewish people, Palestine turned into a national objective in its own right." The saviours were demanding to be saved. Advertisement The Zionists established self-governing - and separate - institutions to prepare the Yishuv for independence. However, when Churchill proposed representative government for all the people of Palestine, Weizmann opposed him because Jews were a minority. Similarly, the Zionists rejected "free immigration" into Palestine out of fear that Arabs would move there. When they demanded special treatment for themselves vis-à-vis non-Zionist Jews and Arabs, Britain gave it. Churchill told Weizmann that he knew the Zionists were smuggling arms into Palestine but would not interfere to uphold the law. In 1929, Jewish worshippers erected a screen to separate men from women at Jerusalem's Western Wall. Muslims regarded this as an attempt to effect a permanent change at a holy site, something the Ottomans and the British had prohibited in order to avoid communal violence. (Then, as now, Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land guarded their religious sites and symbols to the point of death.) Amid the tension, Arabs carried out a savage massacre in Hebron. Sixty-seven Jews were killed, including women and children. Ben Gurion called it a pogrom, but according to Segev this is a misuse of the term. Pogroms, as in Russia and the Ukraine, were officially sponsored. The motivation was anti-semitism; the Arabs, on the other hand, were reacting to fear of Zionist domination. "Most of Hebron's Jews were saved because Arabs hid them in their houses," Segev writes, adding that Zionist archives list 435 Jews who escaped death in this way, a higher number than in European pogroms. When the violence that followed the Hebron massacre subsided, 55 Arabs were convicted of murder and 25 sentenced to death. Two of the 70 Jews tried for murder were convicted and sentenced to death. Their sentences, unlike those passed on most of the Arabs, were commuted. "On at least three occasions in thirty years," Arthur Koestler wrote in Promise and Fulfilment (1949), "the Arabs had been promised the setting up of a legislative body, the cessation of Jewish immigration and a check on Jewish economic expansion." And on each of these occasions, the Mandate authorities broke their promise. The Mandate was marked by outbreaks of violence, government white papers and the Arab population's loss of ground to Jewish immigrants. The Arab General Strike of 1936 led to an all-out rebellion against British rule. The British took three years to suppress it, during which, according to British records, the administration killed 3073 Arabs (112 of whom were executed). These figures exclude Arabs killed by Zionist organisations or the Jewish Special Night Squads under the command of a British intelligence officer, Captain Orde Wingate. Britain trained the Yishuv's elite army, the Palmach, and despatched its largest expeditionary force since the Great War - 25,000 troops - to Palestine. During the uprising, British security forces used the standard tactics of anti-colonial warfare: torture, murder, collective punishment, detention without trial, military courts, aerial bombardment and 'punitive demolition' of more than two thousand houses. The police commander Sir Charles Tegart (himself a believer in Zionism) built the notorious Tegart police fortresses and an electrified fence along the northern border. Major-General Bernard Montgomery, who arrived in 1938 to command a division, denigrated Arab nationalists as 'professional bandits'. By the summer of 1939, when Germany was about to invade Poland, Monty reported: "The rebellion is definitely and finally smashed." The failed rebellion earned the respect of some Zionists. David Ben Gurion wrote that, if he had been an Arab, he too would have rebelled. He saw the Arabs emerging "as an organised and disciplined community, demonstrating its national will with political maturity and a capacity for self-evaluation". Britain's destruction of the Palestinian Arabs' military capacity left them too weak to pose a serious challenge to the Zionists when the battle for territory began in 1947. Some Arab leaders were killed. Others escaped or were arrested and deported. Haj Amin Husseini, who had been appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in the 1920s and was the nominal leader of the Arab nationalists, fled to Germany. In Berlin, he made common cause with the Nazis, thus discrediting the nationalist movement. When he returned after the war, he was as interested in fending off rival Palestinian leaders and Arab states - notably Egypt and Transjordan, which had their own designs on Palestine - as he was in fighting the Zionists. Advertisement During the second world war, nearly thirty thousand Jewish men of the Yishuv volunteered for the British army. These soldiers would become the core of the Haganah, later the Israel Defence Forces, which defeated the Arabs in 1948. Britain, meanwhile, attempted to limit Jewish immigration in order to contain anti-British sentiment in the Arab world. In 1944, the extremist Jewish militias, the Stern Gang and Irgun, responded with attacks on British soldiers and policemen as well as with terrorist bombs. Ben Gurion regarded the Irgun leader, Menachem Begin, as a Jewish 'Hitler'. The Jewish Agency helped the British identify the underground fighters - another instance of what Segev calls the longstanding alliance between the Zionists and Britain. In 1947, Britain handed the 'Palestine problem' to the United Nations, which voted for partition into Arab and Jewish states - both halves, as it happened, with Arab majorities. If the Yishuv's state were to be both Jewish and democratic, more Jews would have to immigrate or many Arabs would have to leave. In 1948, most of the Arabs left, having fled the war or been expelled by the Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang. With statehood no longer in doubt after the war of 1948, Israel prolonged its special relationship with Britain. It erred, however, in relying on the moribund British and French empires in the Suez crisis of 1956. The United States forced a humiliating withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula in 1957, and Israel wisely turned to Washington for the external support without which it could not survive. The United States thus assumed Britain's dual - and impossible - role as Zionist mainstay and honest broker between the Jewish settlers and the natives. Edward Said wrote recently that it was "little short of miraculous that, despite its years of military occupation, Israel is never identified with colonialism or colonial practices". It has taken 50 years for Israeli historians to emphasise that Zionism under the British Mandate was a colonial enterprise. If Israel decolonises in the West Bank and Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians may yet write the history of a war that is finally over. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/may/31/londonreviewofbooks So you can see, it is not "Talk about sheer made up fabrication". But discrediting the poster, making charges of antisemitism and shutting down debate is what is important to some Zionists!
You are damn right, and selective. As quick as I repudiate it, its right back up and I repudiate it again but you of course only notice my response and you din't have the ability to counter it-this is the best you have.
Don't put me down, please! It's not exactly my favorite subject. All I learned was there were 6 million killed, including Gypsies and homosexuals. Never heard about ordinary Poles being killed as well.
Six million Jews and five to six million Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, invalids, political adversaries, criminals and other unwanted types. Twelve million people died in this cauldron of systematic extermination. You know, the one that some feel should be forgotten as it means nothing in the here and now.
Who would that be? The Homosexuals? They are now accepted everywhere, and why not? The Gypsy likewise are now free to roam as they please. Perhaps I don't get what you mean... maybe tomorrow!!
No as I pointed out to you in a previous post, no one cares about this pure blood Jew stuff, except for some Jews. Most of us realise we are a bastardization of many different races and ethnic groups, the British tending to be some of the biggest bastards of all with all sorts of "foreign" blood in us. I don't care and do not enter into debate about your ancestry, I care only about the way Zionist Jews in Israel are treating the rightful owners of the land, those who were there when the European colonists arrived.
Again you do not use the quote system so you can falsify allegations, will you ever represent what someone says honestly? No I do not expect anything, people are welcome to read if the want, I do not have the expectations Zionists appear to have. Then why do some Zionist Jews still play the victim, you were saying that Jews deserved to be colonists because of the Holocaust! I have shown time and time again where you falsify do you want me to do it again? Again more insults, its what Jews like you do. Then cry victim and antisemite at just about anyone who has disagreed with you on the forum. You do not even use the quote system hoping your little lies will be hidden from my view, pathetic cowardice.
"Deny it, fret about it, hide it, I really don't care." Your astonishing fictionalisation of my background and beliefs is just that, fiction. In what way have I 'denied it'? Because I'm agnostic? Because I regard many of Israel's policies downright evil? Because I think kosher certification is a rabbinic protection racket? Because I see the multitudinous irrationalities and contractictions that constitute Torah? I'm sure your talent for fiction writing can add to the list.
Do you actually believe you can make up crap and not be challenged? I've NEVER championed "Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis, Al Quaeda, Muslim extremism, anything anti Israel, anti US, anti Western." I merely address the facts and when any group or nation violates the fundamental natural/inalienable or civil rights of the person you will find me condemning them for their actions. So stop the nonsense "falsification of facts" (i.e. lying) in an effort to support your agenda. When the Palestinians are wrong, such as Hamas that's engaged in acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, they're wrong and I'll say so. So long as there's racial discrimination in the United States it's wrong and I'll say so. So long as Israel continues the hostile occupation of the Palestinian territories then they're wrong and I'll continue to say so. I do not now nor will I ever support the violations of the natural/inalienable or civil rights of any person by any nation or any group. I will condemn those acts forever regardless of who commits them. PS - When Israel decides to live in peace with it's neighbors by returning to it's internationally recognized borders I'll also be one of the first to congratulate Israel. Today Israel is no different than Iraq that invaded and occupied Kuwait or Nazi Germany that invaded and occupied Poland, France, and other European nations.
I'm sure there are critics of the Israel who are also racist, I've seen the post online, but I've never met any of them. In my experience most critics are entirely concerned with the political relationships of Israel and the human rights issues involved. The critics I know span a wide range of ethnic backgrounds and most are liberal, quite a few being Jewish. Framing all criticism as an anti-semitic ploy seems like a smoke screen.
Guess what your past posts are there for all to read. Deny away. Hey better still provide me your posts where you comdemned Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim terrorism. Please provide just one. Lol. Calling Israel a Nazi state, par for the course. Its what you do. You are so steeped in your words you think if you bold them it hides your agenda or past posts. Hah. Hey show me the post, please.
I respected you, until now. comparing Israel to the genocidal Nazis, who blew people up in decompression chambers, gassed little Jewish children to death, burned Jewish women to death, is either pathetic ignorance of history or pure bigoted dishonesty. so which is it?
Here is a reason to single out Israel: Israel arrests, prosecutes, imprisons and mistreats around 700 Palestinian children annually, some aged 12 or younger. Virtually none are targeted and abused for anything more than a minor misdemeanor, most entirely innocent of any offense. Once charged, guilt is automatic. Israel is the only country in the world to automatically prosecute children in military courts that lack basic safeguard for a fair trial. Addameer explains brutal interrogations can last up to 90 days, including torture, sexual assaults, isolation in solitary confinement and other abuses to force confessions in Hebrew victims dont understand in most cases for offenses never committed or ones too minor to matter. Israel operates lawlessly with impunity. Read full article here: http://real-agenda.com/horrific-israeli-mistreatment-palestinian-children/ ------------ Why is Israel deliberately tarnishing its image? They don't care, I guess. They feel absolute powerful, because their behavior has no punitive consequences for them. Or is there a method to it? Damaging these kids for life?
Notice how he has changed his requirements, it is not enough that he has never championed the groups the falsifier accuses him of, no the falsifier demands now that he must show where he has condemned them! Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think you are?
Not just Israel. Any society suffering the delusion God is on their side is capable of committing the most monstrous crimes against humanity without a twinge of conscience.
The magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews and other "undesirables" were of unprecedented proportions but that is not what I was comparing. I was comparing the invasion and occupation of foreign lands where the Germans, Iraqis, and Israelis were all wrong in their invasions and occupation of foreign lands.
