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

[Undertoad]

[citation still needed]

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

[TheMercenary]

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...

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

[citation still needed]

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]

The simple fact is that Israel has the most powerful psychological influence to count on — the world's collective guilt over the Holocaust. This means that although the world may sporadically slap Israel's wrists, no one dare go too far, perhaps out of fear of being accused of anti-Semitism or in any way attacking a people who have historically suffered so much.

[/SNIPPET]

[Undertoad]

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.

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.)

[Undertoad]

We felt bad, felt they needed a place to settle, shoved our oar in where it didn't belong, and gave them Israel.

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.

At least if they admitted to their hidden agenda (the constant growth of the Israeli home state,)

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?

[spudcon]

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.

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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 than its current territory.

They gave back the entire Sinai peninsula. 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 nine ways. Can you explain?

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.

"that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted, [but wished] to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine".

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?)

Originally Posted by spudcon

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by TheDaVinciChode

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.

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?

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?

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.

[TheDaVinciChode]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

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?

It is Arab land, surrounded by Arab land. It was not won, it was (for all intents and purposes) stolen.

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

Originally Posted by league of nations, 1917

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

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.

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,

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.

What's more, they then intercept every vessel sent to provide aid to these hundreds of thousands of refugees.

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.

[Gravdigr]

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.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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...

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

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.

[Gravdigr]

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