FYI: how news was, and is, and will be
 

1960: biased reporters try to give multiple sides to a story and to be as objective as possible, out of pride in their profession

1980: biased reporters give two sides to every story -- as if all information has only two sides -- so they can avoid looking biased

2000: biased reporters tell their side of the story and include a mocking quote from the "other side" to support their biased narrative... but still claim objectivity because their viewpoint is "correct"

2010: valueless "news" is replaced by comedy hosts aka Jon Stewart, and bloggers who admit their bias openly and honestly, and report directly from it for an audience that shares it

I prefer 2010 to 1980 and 2000, but I don't know if I prefer it to 1960.

I didn't get to see 1960 for myself but I like the sound of it. It sounds, oh I don't know, professional?

Worth repeating here:

Bias is one thing but it seems like the outright lying that Fox News introduced in 2000 has been fully embraced by 2010 - see CNN coverage of AZ immigration law. Sucks.

Crappy indeed ... and yet ... it only continues because quite a number of people continue to watch that crap and think it is real.

What else is there for most people? All the "news shows" are biased. Its just that most people hear what they want to hear. It reaffirms their personal opinion. :hedfone:

She has since apologized for her opinion.
Link
Link

She should've just told the Mexicans to go home. She would probably be applauded. :cool:

Racism, so subjective, who would've figured?

Troll.
Update...
Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas retires following controversial remarks
Guess that update doesn't leave much room for any discussion.

Why is this person coming under such fire... for telling a group of people to leave the land that they've forcefully occupied? To return back "home?" What is so wrong about that?

Nothing.

Fucking Jewish media. It disgusts me.

Troll this you crybaby. I'm allowed to comment...it's not YOUR thread.


I'm telling brucie and utie and wolfie and sundie and briie and tullie and chodie...

:lol2:

Troll this you crybaby. I'm allowed to comment...it's not YOUR thread.

I'm telling brucie and utie and wolfie and sundie and briie and tullie and chodie...

:lol2:

I wasn't referring to you.

No posts since 5/13. You post something today. I respond. You post again with the word "troll."

Who exactly were you referring to?

I think that's such bollocks.

What she said... was true. Every damn word.

What she said, is no different than England telling Germany to stop invading other countries, to stop killing innocent people. That's EXACTLY what the damn Israeli cunts are doing... invading another country, killing innocent people... They're no better than the Nazi Party, and they disgust me.

What really pisses me off, is that America is happy to abide... they train, they support (financially, politically, and with weaponry.) Until American leaders stops sucking circumcised cock, until the WHOLE God-damn Western world gets that kosher meat out of their collective mouths, these bastards will continue to do whatever they please.

The holocaust was a VERY long time ago... and we did everything we could (well, England did, other countries kinda slacked, until towards the end, when all "they" really wanted to do, was test their new, big toy, and fuck with the idiotic Japs who, for some reason, decided to piss on them... you know who I'm talking about,) to stop it from happening... Why the fuck should we feel guilty, and through that guilt, allow them to get away with genocide, when we weren't responsible for the harm they suffered, when we tried (and succeeded, eventually) to stop it?

It's bollocks. Besides all that - It was a VERY long time ago. Get the fuck over it. That's like people of a darker complexion, still thinking they're "owed" something, for slavery. Bollocks. It was a long time ago, we've all moved on, and NO ONE alive was responsible for it...

People... Fuck. :mad2:

I think Helen maybe held on to her job a little too long. Hadn't she ever heard of "leave them wanting more?" She should have taken a page from Walter Cronkite. Everyone was sad when he left. But she's leaving in disgrace.

Now if we can only get rid of Andy Rooney.

(knocks on forehead): NO ONE has posted since May 13th. You post something relevent. I comment. You post back "troll." You WERE talking to me.

Caught in another lie. You're pathetic as you try to dance around yourself, as if I care if you think I'm a troll. Yawn.

Shaw - Go fuck yourself. You and I both agreed NOT to respond to each other. Care to try again?

I agree with you there!

That would be the trifecta!

Obviously not everyone has moved on. And there are still a few people alive who are responsible for it. You've never heard of John Demjanjuk?

No, dear, you started it by calling me a name. Care to try to cover your tracks again? You delete the other post because it wasn't worth the air you breathe to tell me to fuck off, then you post again to tell me to fuck off.

I'm surprised you didn't delete your outright lie post. Again, who WERE you talking to?

You fuck off you namby-pamby pantywaist. :p:

One man, or a few men...

Why must the whole Western world bend over for these people, when the vast majority of the people within, helped secure this pitiful* people's future? We didn't need to, we didn't have to, but we did... we've already done more than enough. We should NOT'VE given them Arab land, and we should NOT be helping, encouraging, or turning a blind eye to, them to take over more Arab land.

Did you know that, since the end of WWII, since we gave them Arab land (what right did we have?) that they've been continually expanding "their" territory? Fighting wars, occupying more Arab land... all sanctioned by "the powers that be," despite the fact that, anywhere else in the world, any other people in the world, we'd deplore their actions.

Disgusting, isn't it?

They're owed NOTHING. In fact, they owe the Western world EVERYTHING. We saved their pitiful* existence. We sent OUR people to die, to save them. Our fathers, our sons, our uncles, our cousins, or nephews... all to protect people they didn't even know, for no other reason than decency... something they've NEVER shown, in return.

They're STILL not thankful. Disgusting, isn't it?

Still, whatever... That was a long time ago, and fine, forget being thanked, let's just move on... but when will they move on?

(* I say "pitiful," because they're thankless cunts who feel like they're owed something... who constantly commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, whilst crying that it's fair, because it happened to them. They're no better than the Nazi Party. No better at all.)

OK. So you hate the Jews, and you hate Israel. How do you feel about Hamas, who took over control of the Gaza strip by force and has sworn to wipe Israel from the map?

You're not exactly a history student, are you?

I completely disagree with any religious group, any religious agenda, and any form of genocide.

This is why religion and Government should NEVER mix. (I'm looking at you, too, America!)

As soon as a country is governed by religious fanatics, or overtly religious people, who allow their blind faith to obscure the reality of the world... that country becomes a corrupt cesspit of despair, and, for lack of a better word, sin... completely devoid of normality, logic, and actual morality.

Consider this - Had Israel not invaded Arab land, had they never been "given" Arab land... what beef would those in Palestine have, with them, so far from their home? I'm sure they'd still have a religious beef, but, beyond that...? Correct, sir... There wouldn't be one.

Now, take a look at the casualties, the deaths, an the international backing... tell me - who's got it worse?

... Indeed.

I know more than you'd assume, good sir.

--

Oh, and I'd like to point out: I don't "hate" Jewish people, or people from Israel. I hate their "general" attitude.

As always, there are exceptions.

(I don't "hate" anyone, or anything... I just have a strong dislike for religion, and religious agendas.)

You're not exactly a history student. So here it is.

The Brits ruled Palestine after WW1, but even during the war were puzzled exactly what to do with it, since it was basically filled with two warring factions. (You know which two.)

In general, even before WW2 -- even while the Brits were conquering the land in WW1 -- it was thought that there should be a Jewish state. But the Brits were not interested in enforcing their own decision, had been rapidly abandoning empire anyway, and post-WW2 had their own business to deal with. So they graciously agreed with the UN that the UN should handle it, in the name of the whole world.

So during 1947 the UN went off and had panels and whatnot, and came to the conclusion that the best way to manage this would be a two-state solution with UN jurisdiction over the shared Jerusalem.

The entire world voted on it, and basically the entire world agreed, except for the Islamic countries. And so the Israeli state was created, but the Arabs were furious with the arrangement, refused to set up a state, and went to war with the new Israel on day one.

This then became the war for Israel's independence, and we call it that because they won. They expanded to take as much land as was thought to be needed to protect the new state, as it was thought the 1947 borders were indefensible. And the area that would today be a Palestinian state was then occupied (!!!!!) by Jordan (east bank et al) and Egypt (gaza).

Well this is how land disputes work. The UN has a go at it, they fail, and then there's a war. The winner of the war gets the spoils.

This, I knew, and none of it takes away from my sentiment, or comment.

You're neglecting to mention the constant acts of violence, enacted by the state of Israel, often under the guise of something else, something unrelated, and often backed by powers beyond the Israeli-Arab states.

We still had no right to divide up that land, we had no right to intervene, at all.

We also had no need to do so... it was only through guilt, that the world felt we should help the Jewish people.

Misguided, unjust guilt. :/

Guilt? The world anticipated a large Jewish emigration and the one thing they could agree on was that they'd rather it not be to their country. Hey, they have a place to go... and there it is.

At what point in history?

Six-Day War of June 5–10, 1967.
Lebanon War of 1982.
Sabra and Shátila massacre between 16th and 18th of September 1982.

To name a very select few...

Many others are debatable, whether Arabs, or Jews, started the confrontation... It's a very sordid mess, with neither party being completely without blame... It's give-and-take, that's for sure... but the people (Military/Government, as well as a large portion of the population) of Israel try to claim absolute innocence... and the world lets them. That disturbs me, and annoys the crap out of me.

Currently, I'd side with the people of Palestine, simply because it's clear to any objective observer, that Israel is going over-the-top, showing little-to-no restraint, and, well... acting no better than the Nazi Party they still cry about. They won't stop, either, until certain countries stop backing them, and leave them to suffer the consequences of their actions.

It's a religious sect, within Palestine, that's causing most of the trouble against Israel... It's the Military, Government, and People of Israel, causing all of the trouble, against Palestine.

Who's more to blame? The entire country, attacking the country based on a (comparatively) small group of religious extremists (why does that sound familiar?) or the civilians having to suffer because said group of extremists?

Punish the few, not the many... Apparently, the Israeli people would rather punish the many, rather than the few. :eyebrow:

When you say What in particular is it about the Six Day War that meets your description? Especially since you listed it first.

I'm telling Ziva, and she'll kick all y'alls asses.

The so-called pre-emptive strike, for starters.

History is written by the winners... it's always one-sided. :neutral:

(By the way - I don't need to be a "History Student" to be a student of history.)

You would deny that Arab countries had amassed 225,000 troops on Israel's border at the time of this so-called pre-emptive strike.

I wouldn't deny anything.

Would you deny that pre-emptive strikes only ever serve to worsen (or possibly ignite what would've otherwise been posturing) a situation? Without the pre-emptive strike, diplomatic missions may've had some measure of success in de-escalating the situation.

This is what they do, though... They do the bad deed, then try to convince us that the deed was merely one of defence.

I'm not blind, to history, nor to fact. I don't deny wrong-doings, on either side. I am impartial.

225,000 troops is "posturing"? What a joke. 25,000 is posturing. Putting a tenth of a countries troops on a border, that's posturing. Putting them all on, that's war.

And Israel's war of independence was in defense of a pre-emptive strike. And when Egypt and Syria surprise-attacked six years later, this does not similarly de-legitimize their regimes to you, Sir Impartial?

Should we follow the examples of history, or learn from them?

If we follow them, we're doomed to make the same mistakes.

Let's see how good you are with recent history, good sir: When did I defend the poor actions of the Arab nations? Most notably, the warring actions, or the derogatory comments by certain Arab leaders?

I've been discussing Israel, and the Jewish guilt agenda, that has, so far, encouraged Western nations to either turn a blind eye, or even offer support, to what would otherwise be deemed a deplorable, terrible act of aggression, of war.

I suggest, good sir, that you read up on what they're actually doing, over there. From an un-biased source, of course. Read both sides of the story, and tell me, then, if you believe that the people of Israel are in the right.

Again, we're talking about a group of religious radicals, not the entire population, on one side... and an entire nation, on the other... One nation, warring another nation, because of a sect of religious radicals... thinking they're above law, above order, because they can hide behind the so-called holocaust guilt. Bollocks, sir, bollocks.

I've read it continuously for the last 8 years, from all sources.

Would I deny that pre-emptive strikes only ever serve to worsen a situation? The question is not helpful. We see it in the thread. As it is in every case in the conflict, people figure out what event *they* feel was the actual pre-emptive strike. 1967, that was pre-emptive because Israel fighters were the first to take off. 1948, well that wasn't pre-emptive, because the pre-emptive act was the UN resolution.

Pretty soon the game is on and every action is *immediately* rolled back to an ideological defensive ground.

Simply bullshit, has nothing to do with it if it ever really did.

The first to strike, regardless of posturing, is the aggressor in a war, as they were the first to decide that any attempts at diplomacy would fail, and that military action would be the best/only course of action.

Pre-emptive strikes may cause wars, may end wars before they start... but they're never the right choice, and they will always mark the side that takes it upon themselves to be the one to use a pre-emptive strike, as the aggressor.

Bullshit, or not, it's true. They hide behind the holocaust guilt, to get their way with the Western Governments, and the media.

People need to jump ship, and realise the atrocities being performed, right in front of their eyes... before it's too late, and they wipe them all out.

If receiving the first blow is to lose the war, and there is sufficient evidence that the first blow is about to come, you too would strike first. We ignore here the buildup to the war which made it transparently inevitable.

But again, it's part of the game. When side A is attacked, side B was warmongering! When side A is attacking, side B was acting provocatively!

How? How exactly would that happen? Would they bring a swastika to diplomatic meetings and request a bowing of the heads before any negotiations?

I notice that the countries that should have the most guilt are lukewarm to Israel, while Israel's biggest supporter has no guilt, except for entering the european theatre a tad late.

I'd also notice that in the last ten years of watching carefully, I have not heard the Holocaust mentioned in any mideast conflict news coverage, except to point out which of the actors are Holocaust deniers. I don't think this is mentioned to provoke guilt, as much as it is to point out which of the leaders are uneducated and dangerous.

I guess I'd also point to your words to say that you've given here two opposing explanations here, since the Jewish media would not feel guilt over the event.

It's implied guilt. They play on the fact that Western Governments feel they should've done more to stop it... it's not entirely their fault, either... no, our Governments have been, and continue to, act way out of sorts, when it comes to dealing with Jewish people, since the holocaust.

The Jewish Media = Jewish Controlled Media = Used to propagate Jewish ideals/ideas, whilst making us think they're the good guys. You'll find this, a lot, in America, more so than anywhere else, other than, of course, Israel.

You're right - We have nothing to feel guilty about. Not one thing. As I have already stated; we already did more than we should've, more than anyone could've expected from us, simply by saying "no," and then acting against the Nazi aggressors... but we still feel the guilt, which has never been fully allowed to subside, largely because we're countries of large hearts.

(It's the old "if we'd come sooner, we could've stopped more" guilt trip... A decent person would say "you did more than enough," and never bring it up, ever again... a cowardly, wicked person, would ensure that it's never quite left your mind, in one way or another, so you'll always feel guilty, and thus, become their bitch, through guilt, allowing them to walk all over you, as well as anyone else they choose.)

Who is They and how do they Play it?

They use their history, and the knowledge that we feel guilt over it, to their advantage, safe in the knowledge that our guilt will keep us from seeing the true nature of their evil actions.

It's sneaky, is under-handed, it's very subtle, and it's very true.

"But you see, I'm right, because of... because of this sneaky subtle thing that only I can detect!"

[citation needed]

Do people still feel guilty, about the holocaust?

Do said people still give the people of Israel more leeway, than they'd (normally) give any other country?

1 + 1 = 2.

No, why should anyone in this day and age feel guilty? It would be like asking me to feel guilty about slavery that happened over 100 years ago in the US and had abolutely nothing to do with me or my ancestors.

In the US, yes, most likely due to marketing of the Jewish cause and the strenght of the Jewish Lobby in the US. No because they deserve more attention.

You're right, sir. We shouldn't feel guilty, but a lot of people still do.

Just like a lot of people still do, and many are still EXPECTED to feel guilty about slavery. See this article, for a small snippet of information, about the supposed reparations we're still meant to be making, for something that happened so long ago.

And, yeah, they don't deserve more attention, but they get it, due to the reasons I've previously stated.

You know what, fuck some guilt trip.

I owe no one anything because of any historical wrong they think was put upon their ancestors.

Move along assholes get a life.

You will not get a dime from me on some pity card. I don't give a damm what your color or religion is.

What will happen in 20 or 30 years when the roles are reversed, should my kids expect payment because they are in a minority? I think not...

Maybe not factual citation, but someone else's shared opinion of holocaust guilt impacting our reactions to Israel.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-14131215.html

Semi-citation... and a good read.

[SNIPPET]
[/SNIPPET]

Alrighty then, that's an okay cite. Opinion, but I agree it's useful.

Where are we? How is it the world going easy on IL actions means the state of IL is illegitimate and should be dismantled.

The expansion is illegitimate, and their current actions are border-line war crimes, in come aspects.

(Same goes for some Palestinian actions, so don't think I'm only seeing one side of the atrocities being committed.)

Beyond that, they had no honest claim to that land. They didn't take it through means of a declaration of war, followed through with enough military might to take the land... They were handed it, on a silver platter, due to our guilt over the holocaust. We felt bad, felt they needed a place to settle, shoved our oar in where it didn't belong, and gave them Israel.

It's not an illegitimate land, per se, but an illegitimate claim to the land...

I have nothing (fairly) against military expansion of land... it's part of how the world is run. However, there are rules to war, and rules for expansion of territory. Both require admittance of the fact. Israel does not admit to this. Israel constantly claims to be the "poor underdog" that's "defending the home of the Jews," and has "done nothing wrong, nor does anything wrong." This is my main grievance... They hide behind this veil of guilt, knowing we'll not cut through it. At least if they admitted to their hidden agenda (the constant growth of the Israeli home state,) and didn't try to win sympathy, whilst performing gross acts of terror/war/indecency, they'd not be backed by some of the world's most powerful countries.

As it stands, however, they continue to deny their true purpose, they continue to claim innocence, and we continue to ignore, to turn a blind eye, to their blatant disregard of war protocol, of human rights, and of over-the-top collateral damage.

Even killing an American peace protester wasn't enough to get America to see the atrocities being committed... or, most recently, invading that boat, in INTERNATIONAL waters, claiming munitions, arms, etc... when all it was carrying, was aid, and peace protesters.

It's disgraceful, distasteful, and, the U.N needs to start seeing things for how they truly are.

(Normally, I'm against outside interference in countries that aren't our own, but that is why I suggest the U.N itself takes action, being that Israel is a member state of the U.N, and thus, should abide by certain rules/regulations, facing penalty, should it fail to. As for actual interference, direct from our countries... Well, that started this, and many other messes, so we should stay well clear; not fighting against them, and most certainly not supporting them. Fair media coverage, however, so we can understand what is truly going on, without false information, or any form of agenda taking away truth from it, should certainly happen, if for no other reason, than that we can learn from the mistakes of others, and keep a fair record of history.)

This is where we came in. And by the way, if somebody had given it to them officially partitioned the land (FTFY) in 1937, as was considered --

ah, but I'm not allowed to use that argument, because it will make you feel guilty.

You didn't notice that, typically on promise of peace, IL has given back conquered territory larger in size than its current territory.

They gave back the entire Sinai peninsula. (Twice!) They gave back the Golan Heights. They left Lebanon. Now they've left Gaza.

They took those lands after being attacked from those lands. They gave it back -- often on the basis of world opinion.

That really fucks your narrative in multiple ways. Can you explain, or does your organization just need to print fresh pamphlets?

UT, you are correct. It's obvious that the Chode hasn't been alive long enough to know about history, or is illiterate by his bigotry. There isn't more than a few fragments of truth in his entire rant against the Jews.

I was aware of the The Peel Commission, and, had the recommendation for partition not been rejected by the Zionist Jews, Palestinian Arabs, as well as, of course, the British Government (due to political changes at the time,) perhaps not so many, if any Jews, would've died, during WWII. (No more so than any other religious group. I may go as far as to say, that the holocaust would never've taken off... which not only would've drastically changed the history of the Jewish people, but may've drastically impacted/altered the war.)

However, take note that it was not only the Arabs, or the British, that caused the recommendation to fall into rejection, rather, the Zionist Jews, too.

They wanted more.

Not only that, but the partition would've seen the relocation of some 200,000+ Arabs... and less than 2,000 Jews. Yet, they wanted more? Seems fair.

The reason the Woodhead Commission seemingly absolved Britain of any responsibility involved with Palestine, was due to the growing threat of Germany, and global conflict... The two peoples couldn't come to an agreement, the Jews wanted more, and the Arabs feared the Jews invading their territory, that was no fault of ours.

It's been a constant topic, since the founding of Israel, that the Jewish people are unhappy with the amount of land given to them. They've always tried to take more, whenever they have been able... Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians being forced from their land, turned into refugees due to Israeli expansion.

They give back land, when under pressure from the outside... Yes? Does that make them some kind of magnanimous people? They only give back what they took, when (somewhat) forced to do so, and that makes them... good people? No, sir, it does not. It's a common tactic of those who want to save face, within the world's watchful eye. They give back a little, and seem like glorious people... and we yet again ignore the atrocities committed.

Their land has successively grown, since the original partition (and even more, since the original recommendation for partition.) They lose pieces, here and there, through, as you say, international pressure... but their current geographical size far exceeds what was originally intended for them.

Care to explain?

(I apologise, but, I used to have several links, detailing this expansion, but I can't seem to locate them. I'm sure a man of your resources, and knowledge, must have some vague idea as to what I am referring to, though?)

To quote something I said, earlier - I need not be a history student, to be a student of history.

Age is not a factor, when it comes to knowledge, interpretation of knowledge, or opinion.

As for your comment, suggesting I am bigoted in my views of Jewish people... you're quite wrong. I am disgruntled by the general defiance that Israel has shown to general war practice. I am disgusted by the holocaust guilt that causes us to turn a blind-eye to the atrocities committed. I am against the nation's comments, the nation's war, and the way the nation has treated the people of Palestine... I am not against the individual.

It is an opinion, both based on fact, and interpretation of fact. Everybody is welcome to one, and no one has the right to state that somebody is bigoted, for their opinion, without actual evidence of bigotry. You're welcome to your opinion that I am a bigot, but you're simply making a fool of yourself, through your choice of words.

Disgruntled, yes. Bigot, no. Perhaps you should check the actual definition of "bigotry," before you attempt to call somebody, especially me, a "bigot."

Thank you.

Wheee the blame game appears! The Joos secretly caused the partition not to happen earlier! I did not see that one coming, but it's super-creative. Bonus points to the pamphlet guys on that one.

But your position is that the amount of land should have been zero, as there should never have been a partition, right?

Yes, somebody developed a propagandistic narrative on history and you bought into it when you visited their web site.

Why is Israel larger today than when it was partitioned? Because various neighbors keep invading it, and Israel keeps occupying the area it finds is strategically necessary for defense.

You don't believe this why? You would do the same. It's sensible.

Why is Israel far larger today than when it was partitioned? Because half of that is the southern desert area which nobody gives a shit about. But it sure does make it interesting on those web sites, when the area of Israel grows and grows!

I said that Israel has given up more land than the size of Israel. You have characterized this as "pieces here and there." Really? The amount of land Israel has won at wartime and given back is approximately 26000 sq. miles. Israel is approximately 8000 sq. miles.

The blame game would hold one party more accountable than the others. It was the constant bickering between both the Arabs, AND the Jews, that caused the original recommendation to be rejected.

Any good strategist would tell you, to use whatever you can, to your advantage, to meet your ideal solution. Now, the holocaust was a terrible thing, but, through that, they were able to broker a better deal, for more land, when the partition solution was re-envisioned. I suppose, in essence, this was the first time holocaust guilt impacted how the world dealt with the Jews, with the founding of a larger Israel than was originally recommended... Funny, how we argued less over the size, and they, too, argued less over the size, during/after the holocaust, eh?

Likewise, any good strategist would tell you to jump at opportunity - Grabbing Arab land in the name of "strategic importance to defence." It's important that I take the land of my neighbours, to defend myself against burglary, but to do so would nor just be morally wrong, due to me putting people out on the streets, but it'd also be illegal... on a larger scale, it'd be considered a war crime, displacing so many civilians, from land that was not my own, for a flimsy, certainly not water-tight reason, that only serves to my own benefit.

The amount of land GIVEN should've been zero. We should've let the Arabs and the Jews fight over the land, if that's where they wished to have the land. If they could muster up enough military might to topple the Arabs, even in a small area... good for them. At least it would've been earned, at least it would've been won, in accordance to war protocol. The fact that they feel so entitled to the land, that it's their God-given right to be there, is what annoys me. It is Arab land, surrounded by Arab land. It was not won, it was (for all intents and purposes) stolen. That is not how things should be, and it further weakens the so-called moral high-ground that the people of Israel try to claim, during their occupation of the Arab land, during their war with the rightful owners.

It's getting close to a million Arabs having been displaced, due to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Now, this is not through choice of their own, rather, through Israeli expansion, and bombardment... stealing what they feel is "necessary defensive land," not giving a damn what happens to the civilians that inhabit it - What's more, they then intercept every vessel sent to provide aid to these hundreds of thousands of refugees.

They're an uncaring people, fighting an unjust war, playing on the hope that we'll not touch them, and continue to turn a blind eye to their illegal actions, through our continued (false) guilt over what happened during WWII.

It's shameful.

But you don't believe that. They effectively did fight over the land in 1948. The fact that it was partitioned was just the final straw. You ignore Israel's war of independence for convenience.

And war protocol, you're freely bullshitting again. When Hamas launches rockets, admit it, you come in your shorts. There's nothing protocol about any of Israel's adversaries' war actions. You haven't mentioned their clear and obvious human rights violations any by the way neither does the guilt-ridden European press or UN members.

You know, Hamas kills more Palestinians with Hamas rockets than they do Israelis. They aren't exactly rocket scientists, and not only do some of the bombs land in Gaza, they routinely suffer "work accidents" where explosives detonate while they're working on them.

Relevant to you? Or can Hamas do whatever it likes as long as its charter is Judenrein?

Not exactly a "student" of history...

The Ottomans, who were Turks and not Arabs, captured it in 1512 and held it for 4 centuries. They started the Jewish trend to emigrate there, by inviting them to do so during the Spanish Inquisition. (The Jews who did were not given any flack, due to worldwide guilt over the Inquisition.)

The land was then captured in WW1, assigned to the Brits by the mandate of the League of Nations in 1917 with the express direction that a Jewish state be established there. The mandate in fact read
So: not Arab land since 1512. Mandated by the rest of the world to be the Jewish state two decades before WW2. The More You Know.

Now here's another bit of history you were not aware of. After the Israeli war for independence, the surrounding Arab countries persecuted their Jewish minorities harder, many of them actually kicking out their Jews directly, while others just made life hard for them.

Kicked out of the Arab countries, these Jews emigrated to Israel during the 50s and 60s. They and their descendants represent 41% of the population of Israel. That's about 3 million people.

Ironically, these Jews would not be allowed return to their "home countries"; were you aware? And they didn't come from Germany and Poland, where you and Helen Thomas say they should "return" to.

The Gazans are not refugees. They are Gazans living in their Gazan homes.

The vessels are not there to provide aid. They are there to challenge an embargo that prevents Hamas from easily rearming itself and killing more Palestinians. Every aid vessel is told to land in Israel where the boats are unloaded and the aid materials sent to Gaza after being searched for contraband.

Do you know what is happening with the aid sent on the controversial flotilla of two weeks ago? It's sitting in a warehouse in Israel, because Hamas refuses to allow it to be delivered to Gaza. That tells you all you need to know: to Hamas, the PR is more important than the AID.

FYI: how news was, and is, and will be
 

It was bad news. It is bad news. It will be bad news.

It's what sells.

It sucked. It sucks. It will continue to suck.

Sir, there is metric ton of correct in those statments.:notworthy

I don't care if my 5th great granpappy owned your entire lineage, and beat them all to death except the one that begat you, I don't owe anybody anything because of it.:rant:

Wait a minute. I'm Christian, historically, one of the most persecuted religions on earth, ever. WHERE'S MAH CHECK?!