App makes killing Palestinians as easy as ordering pizzas - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15178743
I have never read an anti-Israel poster on any forum show they have a clue what Zionism is. They use the usual buzz words like colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, or claim its based on a Jewish belief that Jews think they are superior than others and that is why they use the word "chosen", all bullshit.

In fact Jews liberated themselves from the very colonialists the Arab League of Nations were created by and chose to fight along side to try rid the Middle East of Jews in 1948-1949. The Arab League nations were puppets of the French, British, ex Nazis who moved to the ME and then the Soviets.

Jews ethnically cleaned from Middle East Muslim countries and forced out of Europe as well as those born there are people who liberated themselves from the very colonialists the Arab League of Nations was created by and embraced.

The term "chosen" misappropriated by non Jews thinking it is the basis of Zionism is bullshit. In fact the Bible does not define Jews as superior to nn Jews just the exact opposite. It is in fact Christianity and Islam that define Jews as inferior. Jews can not proseltyze and impose their religion on others through forced conversion or even initiated conversion. It can only come voluntarily from non Jews.

Next the fact someone may convert to Judaism is only one way to define Jews. In fact those born Jewish have no uniform consensus as to who a Jew is and it is not limited to religion. In the Bible there is a story that for Jews to survive as a nation or collective identity in a world surrounding them that wanted to render them extinct, the unifying glue that would keep them together to survive and not fight with each other was an agreement with "God" to worship this God through the collective of Jews not as individual Jews. In this manner "God" could remember the "Jews" as a distinct people. They entered into a "covenant" or agreement. That agreement did not say they were better than others. It meant if they chose to worship "God" as a collective, this "God" would then remember and deal with them as a "collective". Period. It was an analogy to unify the Hebrews at a time where they faced extinction

Zionism is a political concept and its leading proponent among many was Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who was NOT against Jews assimilating as citizens in other nations. It was his belief though that because of entrenched anti-semitism in the states of Europe flowing from the preachings of Christianity that Jews were descended from the killers of Christ, that peaceful assimilation and equal treatment would never truly b e achieved. So he and others living in Europe with wide spread hatred of Jews promulgated by governments deeply connected to the Christian Gospels of Paul in regards to Jews being a cursed people, argued, IF Jews were forced by external pressure to form a nation, they could lead a normal existence only through concentration in one territory.

It was in 1897 Herzl organized with others the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland, which drew up the Basel program of the movement, stating that “Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.”

It was a political response to anti-semitism, period. It did not use Biblical or religious terms as to defining Jews other than using the Bible as a historic reference to explain where Jews originated from and never stopped living in since the original days of the Hebrew nations. It defines Jews as indigenous to there Israel, the West Bank and parts of the Middle East (Arabian peninsula) where they originally had nations long before Christians and Muslims. This is why the return would be to where its people came from specifically so that it would NOT be colonialist imperialist.

Therein lies the irony. Jews envisioned their homeland not as some arbitrary chosen geographic spot, but precisely because its people had and have lived their consecutively over 4,000 years.

Now let us be crystal clear. There are non Jewish Zionists which is a clear indication how Zionism is not necessarily something only someone of Jewish religion follows. Some of the most fervent Zionists are Christian Zionists for their own religious reasons.

There are in fact Muslims who interperate the Koran and Muhammed as referring to a Jewish state and even acknowledging Jerusalem as the head of this state

There are in fact the Bahaii people who have their head Temple in Haifa and peacefully co-exist in Israel.

Precisely because of the doctrines of Zionism non Jewish citizens of Israel have religious freedom and are allowed to opt out of any religious laws or family laws.

Judaism does not define Muslims as unable to own land as being inferior to Jews in the laws of Israel as Muslim laws to in reverse in Muslim Middle East nations. While Israel is defined as a Jewish state it does not meana Jew by definition is only someone who practices Judaism. The reason for that is because there are many different types of Jewish religious groups, Ultra-Orthodox who do not believe Israel can exist until the "Messiah" returns, Ultra-Orthodox who recognize Israel, Orthodox, Conservative, Liberal or Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanist, agnotistic-atheist and Jews who might not be religious at all and identify their group identity as an ethnicity not a relgious idea.

There are some Jews who call themselves Biblical Zionists not to be confused with Christian Zionists who also use that term. These non Christian Biblical Zionists will quote the Bible to argue Judea and Somaria which is where Israel and the West Bank and Jordan are today is the land of Israel.

In fact Judea and Somaria renamed "Palestine" was never a nation just a word used for a geographic location. It was a land that the League of nations was supposed to divide equally between Jews and Muslims into two nations but was never done because the British unilagterallyt 80% of that land and created the Jewish free Palestinian nation of Jordan violating their mandate. They violated that mandate in association with France under the Picot agreement whereby France created colonies in what is now Syria and Lebanon.

Faisal the leader in Syria had entered into a peaceful agreement with Jews to have two nations. Israel probably would have taken on very much an identity like Luxembourg or Monaco or Switzerland. It would have guaranteed Jewish protection and land rights but recognize the Muslim world around it and vice versa.

The French and British did not want that alliance because they feared with that alliance they could not contol the oil supplies.

The French lied to Faisal the night before he was to sign the agreement feeding him a fake story Jews would later break the agreement and he took the bait and ripped up the agreement. Then the very next day the French arrested him and expelled him from Syria to create its states in Syria and Lebanon. The British then placated Faisal by placing one of his sons as King of Jordan and the other as King of Iraq.

Look at the nations created. Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria are colonial inventions jamming together feuding peoples so the British and French could divide and conquer. Ironically the French and British thought the Jews would disappear if they assisted these nations attack it and seize it.

That never happened. Israel came about not out of a notion of superiority but because its Jewish people no longer wished tobe second class and discriminated against in Europe AND equally important they did not want to be defined as they still are do this day as inferiors unable to own land (dhimmmis) in the Muslim religious apartheid system of dhimmitude.

The so called Biblical Zionists might call themselves religious and quote the Bible but if you listen carefully they do not and can not use Biblical terminology directly because it does not address their beliefs.

Most Jews in Israel who are its citizens are not religious. They are best described as existential practicalists living in the here and now trying to defend against terrorism to continue existing. Not much more then that, other than as well a shared belief they are over-taxed. Zionism does not define who is a Jew based on what they practice religously. It has political parties that try to, but they are a minority in the Knesset. The Knesset also has communists and Arab Israeli nationalists who call for the dismantling of Israel being a Jewish state.

It has some extremists on the West Bank originally from New York who started a Kache Party which was extremist and one of their extremists killed Yitzhak Rabin for trying to make peace with Araraft. When Arafat ripped up the peace agreement with Rabin and told the world he was lying and never intended to ever recognize Israel as a Jewish state-it was the end of Rabin. Extremists thought he was a traitor.

The majority of Israelis do not use the Bible or the religion to define their identity.
#15178748
PhantomStranger wrote:
Ckai, I stated Palestinians are NOT a race. I did not address you ever directly or indirectly as a "racist". I do since you bring it up believe you practice a double standard with Jews showing they are the only people in the world you question for expressing their religion and ethnicity through nationality.

That concept that Jews should not be a nationality is based on a discriminatory belief against all Jews holding them to an inferior standard, i.e., they are the only people in the world you believe you can lecture and tell them where their place is on this planet, i.e., as stateless.

In that sense the double standard is anti-semitic. You may believe to be anti-semitic you must insult a Jew but anti-semitism refers not just to hateful words but disriminatory double standards you hold Jews to but no other people.

Get back to me when you demand the entire world be secular. Until then your agenda is bloody obvious.



I *do* demand the entire world to be secular, and my past frameworks, in graphical form, indicate this.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15178750
About everything I wrote in this thread, PhantomStranger wrote:Your assumption above is based on error and ignorance.

I just keep reading and reading from a wide variety of sources, talking to lots of people, and doing Poli Sci courses. But it just leads to more ignorance and error because *"there is only one acceptable opinion and my job is to market it to others"*

I'm not sure if "You're ignorant and error-prone..." is the most respectful way to start a discussion with another human, or any other species.

It kind of sets you up as some kind of *expert* whose mission it is *to save the erring ignoramuses* with talking points from the gods.
#15178842
About the creation of *the Jewish state*, PhantomStranger wrote:The French and British did not want that alliance because they feared with that alliance they could not contol the oil supplies.

Murderous European political jousting and control of the world's oil through unlimited violence?

Sounds un-sustainable.
#15178914
PhantomStranger wrote:
Get back to me when you want to deal with reality and not some fantasy world of graphs you think you live in.



PhantomStranger wrote:
Your "graphs" do not establish that you are not selectively expressing political biases and subjective standards only on designated, specific targets to match your agenda.

Furthermore your choice of the word "demand" simply suggests you feel self-entitled nothing else.



Stop the abuse. Why'd you ask me the question in the first place if you didn't expect a positive response to it -- !

Entrapment much?

I didn't post any *graphs*, but I did include *diagrams* I've made that illustrate where I'm coming from politically. Again, stop the insults / abuse, because it's not warranted.
#15178916
ckaihatsu wrote:Stop the abuse. Why'd you ask me the question in the first place if you didn't expect a positive response to it -- !

Entrapment much?

I didn't post any *graphs*, but I did include *diagrams* I've made that illustrate where I'm coming from politically. Again, stop the insults / abuse, because it's not warranted.


Why are you posing as a victim?

I challenge your words because I find them full of erroneous assumptions, period.

You used the term and I quote, " ... and my past frameworks, in graphical form, indicate this."

That is what I responded to so for you to now respond and claim you did not pose any graphs when you youself describe your past frameworks as being in graphical form, and now claim they are diagrams means what?

I called them what you called them. If you want to pose them as diagrams and change your words, go ahead but I repeat they show nothing other than your biases and agenda which I disagreed with and stated why.

The fact I disagree with you does not mean I insulted you. The fact I challenge your words does not mean I insult you. You and your other colleague who want to come on this forum and spout things you have read on the web site or are learning in political science class need a smack of reality.

You don't like my challenges, they make you cry-hey man put me on ignore if you can't handle it don't snivel and trivialize the word "abuse" and turn that word into some throne of victimhood man. This is a debate forum. Not therapy. You show absolute arrogance and patronizing disrespect for the history of Jews and their right to live as a national people and you want to whine as being a victim because you are challenged for it.

No. I get to challenge. That is what a debate forum is. You don't like it, don't read it.
#15178917
QatzelOk wrote:I just keep reading and reading from a wide variety of sources, talking to lots of people, and doing Poli Sci courses. But it just leads to more ignorance and error because *"there is only one acceptable opinion and my job is to market it to others"*

I'm not sure if "You're ignorant and error-prone..." is the most respectful way to start a discussion with another human, or any other species.

It kind of sets you up as some kind of *expert* whose mission it is *to save the erring ignoramuses* with talking points from the gods.



You started this thread to pose as an expert and lecture to people as to your negative biases about Israel,

Now you respond with the above words posing yourself as a victim because I challenged your words? You initiated the thread and posed as the expert NOT I. I initiated no thread. I responded directly to your words. You need to look in the mirror before you point that finger of yours at me. Examine your own role as "lecturer of evil Israel".

This is a debate forum. No I do not find your words to my liking and you bet I will challenge them. I find your words ignorant, disrespectful and full of erroneous assumptions and this is why I challenged them and in detail.

I call out your playing victim as bullshit. You do not like what I say challenge it. Debate it. This is not about your feelings its about what you said.

As for the childish comment that I engage in taking points from the Gods, no I speak for me no differently than you speak for yourself. My words are no more talking points from Gods than yours are.

For someone quick to try play victim you do not. You play the role of someone self-entitled and not used to being challenged.

You can't handle my challenges, put me on ignore.
Last edited by PhantomStranger on 29 Jun 2021 00:42, edited 1 time in total.
#15178919
PhantomStranger wrote:
Why are you posing as a victim?

I challenge your words because I find them full of erroneous assumptions, period.

You used the term and I quote, " ... and my past frameworks, in graphical form, indicate this."

That is what I responded to so for you to now respond and claim you did not pose any graphs when you youself describe your past frameworks as being in graphical form, and now claim they are diagrams means what?

I called them what you called them. If you want to pose them as diagrams and change your words, go ahead but I repeat they show nothing other than your biases and agenda which I disagreed with and stated why.

The fact I disagree with you does not mean I insulted you. The fact I challenge your words does not mean I insult you. You and your other colleague who want to come on this forum and spout things you have read on the web site or are learning in political science class need a smack of reality.

You don't like my challenges, they make you cry-hey man put me on ignore if you can't handle it don't snivel and trivialize the word "abuse" and turn that word into some throne of victimhood man. This is a debate forum. Not therapy. You show absolute arrogance and patronizing disrespect for the history of Jews and their right to live as a national people and you want to whine as being a victim because you are challenged for it.

No. I get to challenge. That is what a debate forum is. You don't like it, don't read it.



Let me rephrase then -- the world *should* be secular in its civil society / civil rights, and what people do *personally*, or interpersonally, for religion, is their own business, as long as such practices don't violate the secular administration of society.

The State of Israel is not simply some kind of giant commune established by Jews on vacant, unclaimed land. Here's the quick history, which shows that Israel was established in a *top-down* way, by Britain:



1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine

Main articles: McMahon–Hussein Correspondence and Sykes–Picot Agreement

In late 1915 the British High Commissioner to Egypt, Henry McMahon, exchanged ten letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, in which he promised Hussein to recognize Arab independence "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" in return for Hussein launching a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The pledge excluded "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo".[65][h] In the decades after the war, the extent of this coastal exclusion was hotly disputed[67] since Palestine lay to the southwest of Damascus and was not explicitly mentioned.[65]

The Arab Revolt was launched on June 5th, 1916,[70] on the basis of the quid pro quo agreement in the correspondence.[71] However, less than three weeks earlier the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Russia secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which Balfour described later as a "wholly new method" for dividing the region, after the 1915 agreement "seems to have been forgotten".[j]

This Anglo-French treaty was negotiated in late 1915 and early 1916 between Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot, with the primary arrangements being set out in draft form in a joint memorandum on 5 January 1916.[73][74] Sykes was a British Conservative MP who had risen to a position of significant influence on Britain's Middle East policy, beginning with his seat on the 1915 De Bunsen Committee and his initiative to create the Arab Bureau.[75] Picot was a French diplomat and former consul-general in Beirut.[75] Their agreement defined the proposed spheres of influence and control in Western Asia should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I,[76][77] dividing many Arab territories into British- and French-administered areas. In Palestine, internationalisation was proposed,[76][77] with the form of administration to be confirmed after consultation with both Russia and Hussein;[76] the January draft noted Christian and Muslim interests, and that "members of the Jewish community throughout the world have a conscientious and sentimental interest in the future of the country."[74][78][k]

Prior to this point, no active negotiations with Zionists had taken place, but Sykes had been aware of Zionism, was in contact with Moses Gaster – a former President of the English Zionist Federation[80] – and may have seen Samuel's 1915 memorandum.[78][81] On 3 March, while Sykes and Picot were still in Petrograd, Lucien Wolf (secretary of the Foreign Conjoint Committee, set up by Jewish organizations to further the interests of foreign Jews) submitted to the Foreign Office, the draft of an assurance (formula) that could be issued by the allies in support of Jewish aspirations:

In the event of Palestine coming within the spheres of influence of Great Britain or France at the close of the war, the governments of those powers will not fail to take account of the historic interest that country possesses for the Jewish community. The Jewish population will be secured in the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, equal political rights with the rest of the population, reasonable facilities for immigration and colonisation, and such municipal privileges in the towns and colonies inhabited by them as may be shown to be necessary.

On 11 March, telegrams[l] were sent in Grey's name to Britain's Russian and French ambassadors for transmission to Russian and French authorities, including the formula, as well as:

The scheme might be made far more attractive to the majority of Jews if it held out to them the prospect that when in course of time the Jewish colonists in Palestine grow strong enough to cope with the Arab population they may be allowed to take the management of the internal affairs of Palestine (with the exception of Jerusalem and the holy places) into their own hands.

Sykes, having seen the telegram, had discussions with Picot and proposed (making reference to Samuel's memorandum[m]) the creation of an Arab Sultanate under French and British protection, some means of administering the holy places along with the establishment of a company to purchase land for Jewish colonists, who would then become citizens with equal rights to Arabs.[n]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
#15178922
To start with your article presents a British-centric perspective and so reflects that bias.

I do not have time to debate the full history of Jews in the Middle East with you and will limit my comments.

After the failed Russian Revolution of 1905, growing numbers of Eastern European and Russian Jews began to immigrate to Palestine, joining the few thousand Jews who had arrived earlier.

These Jewish settlers insisted on the use of Hebrew as their spoken language. So they began arriving since the 1890's to join Jews already there.

It was only after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, Britain took over Palestine and one has to question that very phrase. Why did Britain "take over"? To find that out one must understand Britain convinced the Leage of Nations it would undertake a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations to create two homelands one for Jews and one for Muslims in what was called Judea and Somaria and which is now Israel, the West Bank, Jordan and some parts of southern Lebanon and Syria.

The term "Palestine" did not refer to a nation but a geographic zone.

Your British take on history reflects just that. It ignores interestingly the memoirs of Winston Churchill sent to pursue that mandate and he made it clear in his memoirs, the British engaged in lying. They never had any intention to create a Jewish state. They owed many Arab leaders for helping the British defeat the Ottoman Empire and so promised them there would be no Jewish state despite saying they would set up to states.

The British and French broke international law and public domains records it and you seem to have conveniently skipped over the Picot agreement and why it came about.

Weizman on behalf of the Zionist movement and Faisal on behalf of a loosely knitted group of tribal leaders agreed to two states. They were ready to sign an agreement. Then night before that agreement a French emissary told Faisal of a supposed Zionist plot to break the agreement. In his memoirs Churchill and in other memoirs of the French they all admitted there was no such plot. It was a ruse. The very day Faisal ripped up the agreement in anger the French arrested him and deported him from Damascus Syria where he lived.

France in the Picot agreement felt Faisal was in the way. They were setting up colonies in Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon as part of a French vision for the Arab world. The British meanwhile also had their interests according to Churchill and it was oil. They knew they had to placate Faisal so they did.

To placate him they illegally and unilaterally created Transjordan and placed one of his sons as its "King". This state was called the Palestinian state of Transjordan and to this day it refers to itself as a Palestinian state. It was created illegally by the British to as a Jewish free Palestinian state and the British version of history ignores the creation of Transjordan and pretends Palestine only referred to the West Bank and Israel. They then placed his other son as King of Iraq a nation created forcing together 3 feuding peoples, Kurds, Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims. This country was created the same way Lebanon created a country out of 3 feuding peoples, Christian Maronite, Sunni and Shiite and Syria was created forcing together feuding Sunnis, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Kurds. This was all part of divide and conquer.

The British then flooded the West Bank with non Palestinian Muslims from Iraq and other Muslim nations to swell the Muslim population to try prevent a Jewish majority population in the remainder of Palestine. High Commissioner Samuel and Churchill were quite clear in their memoirs of this intent.

The Balfour Declaration was created based on an assumption that Europeans would decide what was best for Jews and Muslims in the Middle East.

In 1917 when the British government issued a letter to Baron Walter Rothschild. The letter, now known as the “Balfour Declaration”, instructed Baron Rothschild to inform the Zionist Federation that the British Government “viewed with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.

The fact is Jews had already established a de facto Jewish National home in Palestine BEFORE that delcaration.

Jews had already lived in the land for millenia, had established this de facto state without the assistance of ANY colonial power.

Let us be clear, The Balfour Declaration did not establish a Jewish state, it was in fact an endorsement by the British government of a Jewish protectorate. But according to British government papers now public domain and Churchill's memoirs Britain had NOT intent of assisting but the exact opposite, prevent a Jewish country from forming because they owed favours to Faisal and other Arab leaders for defeating the Ottoman Empire.

Now to say Britain created Israel is just absolutely untrue. Here is the actual time line of the British trying to prevent an Israeli nation:

A timeline of British opposition to a Jewish state
1903 – Britain blocks the establishment of a Jewish State in the Sinai Peninsula and proposes the Jews establish a British protectorate in Kenya, which the Zionists reject.
1917 – Britain drafts the Balfour Declaration, recognising the right of the Jews to a “National Home” in their ancestral land. The language of the declaration inferred a British protectorate, rather than a Jewish State, which they would only support if the Jews outgrew the Arab population. Something the British consistently tried to prevent.
1920 – After defeating the Ottoman Empire in World War I the region lacked a sovereign power. The Sans Remo conference awarded the British control of the land on the condition they honour the Balfour Declaration and create a Jewish National Home.
1920– Col. Waters-Taylor, British Field-marshal Allenby’s Chief of Staff, met with Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseinu a few weeks before Easter. He told Al-Husseini “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine Administration but in Whitehall and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General Bols [Chief Administrator in Palestine, 1919-20] and General Allenby [Commander of Egyptian Force, 1917-19, then High Commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home.”
1921 – Britain reneges on the San Remo deal and gives three quarters of Mandatory Palestine to the Arabs who establish the Emirate of Transjordan.
1921 – Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later Chief Political Officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.”
1922 – Britain is granted Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations, until such time as the inhabitants of the land are able to stand alone.
1937 – The British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden ferociously campaigns to block Jewish sovereignty, on 26 November 1937 he told the British Ambassador in Washington he was looking for a solution “which would not give Jews any territory exclusively for their use.”
1937/8 – The British government first proposes dividing the Mandate into Jewish and Arab states (in the Peel and Woodhead Commissions), it then does a u-turn and declares that dividing Mandatory Palestine into two states is untenable.
1939 – While unfettered Arab immigration swells, made possible by Britain’s unrestricted immigration policy for Arabs to Mandatory Palestine. Britain issue the White Paper, a policy paper which severely restricts Jewish immigration to Palestine. For context, in 1939 Jews were being subject to Nazi persecution in Europe and Britain kept these immigration quotas in place throughout the Holocaust (if they had lifted them millions of Jews could have potentially found refuge in Israel).
1946 – Britain creates internment camps in Cyprus to imprison Jews attempting to enter Mandatory Palestine. Over 53,000 Jews are held captive and 400 die, many of whom had just escaped the Nazi death camps.
1946 – Britain puts the entire city of Tel Aviv, 200,00 Jewish residents, under house arrest.
1946 – British antisemitism is rife. The then British Palestine Commander, Lt. General Evelyn Barker, issued an order banning British troops from socialising with Jews. He went on to say, “[We] will be punishing the Jews in a way the race dislikes as much as any, by striking at their pockets and showing our contempt of them”.1 In a letter to a lover he wrote “Yes I loathe the lot – whether they be Zionists or not. Why should we be afraid of saying we hate them. Its time this damned race knew what we think of them – loathsome people” 2
1947 – The British government requests France and Italy prevent Jews from embarking for Palestine.
1947 – The British ask the American government to ban fundraising for Israel, the Truman administration capitulates.
1947 – In a United Nations vote on the partition of Mandatory Palestine, 72% voted for the creation of Jewish and Arab states. Britain was one of two Western nations that refused to vote.
1948/9 – After Israel had been established. Britain again refused to vote in favour of admitting Israel to the United Nations (on both occasions Israel sought admission).

(source for above time line:http://www.israeladvocacy.net/knowledge/the-truth-of-how-israel-was-created/britain-created-israel/)

Let us be clear on what the British did:

Shortly after obtaining the League of Nations the Mandate, in September of 1022, Great Britain went back on their word and NOT create a Jewish state in the area they said they would. They unilaterally decided contrary to their mandate that the provision of setting up a Jewish National Home would not apply to the area east of the Jordan River (which constituted three quarters of the territory included in the Mandate). This region would be awarded to the Arabs and to become the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine-Jordan with a constitution to this day that prohibits Jews from citizenship in that country.

In fact if you read it the original Mandate made no mention of an Arab National Home, but Britain sought to appease the sizeable Arab population6 of Mandatory Palestine (Israel, Jordan and the disputed territories) and gave them 75% of the land.

This is why your British take on history is selective and is challenged.
#15178923
To summarize my previous response:

It is absolutely incorrect to say Britain created the DState of Israel.


To start with it is publiuc record that in 1947 during the United Nations partition vote, 72% of the nations taking part voted for the creation of Jewish and Arab states and in fact Greece and Britain were the only Western nations that chose not to vote for the creation of Israel.

It is also incorrect to say that the UN created Israel, they simply agreed to recognise it as a state. In fact the UN turned its back on Jews and it was the heroic efforts of one person, UN High Commissioner for Jewish Refugees after WW2, Eleanor Roosevelt who singlehandedly took on the UN, the US and the world it turning its back on Jews and lobbying for a homeland for Jews. Her role is one that goes down in history.

Churchill himself interestingly was not per se anti Israel. His job as he said was to push British interests. He bluntly admitted this in his memoirs and bluntly stated the British lied and turned its back on Jews not just to placate Arab allies after the defeat of the Ottoman Emire but because of the discovery of oil in Iraq. The last thing the British and French wanted was a Jewish and Muslim state living peacefully together. This would have meant Jewish technology would have assisted Muslim oil and there would be no involvement of colonial powers to control the need to extract and refine the oil.

It should be further pointed out that Britain went to great lengths to prevent a sovereign Jewish state and the facts are now public domain including:

1-Britain reneged on the San Remo agreement.
2-nstead of creating a Jewish State they gave away the vast majority of Mandatory Palestine to the Arabs, creating the Emirate of Transjordan.
3-Britain went to huge lengths to prevent Jews from settling in their ancestral homeland, while opening the gates to unfettered Arab immigration from outside Palestine to the region.
4-Britain refused to vote in the UN to recognise the creation of a Jewish state.
#15178929
PhantomStranger wrote:You started this thread to pose as an expert and lecture to people as to your negative biases about Israel,

Now you respond with the above words posing yourself as a victim ...

I didn't pose as "an expert" in the OP. Go back and look at it again. I just scribbled a few words about how technology is pushed along by people who are motivated by "all the power."

This is part of what makes technology so deadly, and I have commented in many ways on technology-madness.

And I have never posed as a victim either. The Palestinians are victims, without having to pose. And I like to defend people who *I am not even connected to in any way* if the injustice against them is glaring and the reason for it is staring me in the face.

What about you, PhantomStranger? Do you ever defend someone or something that *you yourself* aren't part of or a benificiary of?
#15178970
QatzelOk wrote:I didn't pose as "an expert" in the OP. Go back and look at it again. I just scribbled a few words about how technology is pushed along by people who are motivated by "all the power."

This is part of what makes technology so deadly, and I have commented in many ways on technology-madness.

And I have never posed as a victim either. The Palestinians are victims, without having to pose. And I like to defend people who *I am not even connected to in any way* if the injustice against them is glaring and the reason for it is staring me in the face.
What about you, PhantomStranger? Do you ever defend someone or something that *you yourself* aren't part of or a benificiary of?



Don't back pedal.Of course you posed as a victim with your feelings hurt because I challenged you and I called you out on that. Next if I did not respect you right to your views and take you seriously why did I take so much time to respond to you?

The fact I disagree with you is why we debate. Period.

Next you stated "I like to defend people I am not connected to in any way if the injustice against them is glaring and the reason for it is staring me in the face."


Your comment as to making assumptions as to injustice as well as the phrases" "I like to defend" and " I am not connected to." evidence your biases posed as your motives.

Your motives or feelings of being righteous or a defender of justice are not relevant. It is your words I debate. Its also why I use a DC comic character. It satirizes the concept of being a hero.

Then you asked: "What about you, PhantomStranger? Do you ever defend someone or something that *you yourself* aren't part of or a benificiary of?"

Why are you asking me personal questions? How is that relevant to the issues? Its not.

My personal biases are something you already have projected on me simply because I disagree with you. I have no need to defend myself personally to you because I disagree with your words.
#15178976
PhantomStranger wrote:
The Balfour Declaration was created based on an assumption that Europeans would decide what was best for Jews and Muslims in the Middle East.



Okay, thanks for the rundown -- I don't doubt your historical account, and it's a solid indictment of British imperialism.

Someone else mentioned the partition of India, into India and Pakistan, which is historically similar.

Unfortunately the Palestinians don't deserve the treatment that *they've* received since, roughly, 1947, so I think that brings things up-to-date.
#15178991
Palestinians were first screwed over by their own leaders, then the Arab League of nations, and now their leaders again and also they have been placed in an unfair position on the West Bank.

I do think one day if Palestinians move past their desire to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state and reject their terrorist and corrupt leaders they will be met by Israelis anxious for peace.
#15178993
PhantomStranger wrote:
Palestinians were first screwed over by their own leaders, then the Arab League of nations, then there leaders, and also they have been placed in an unfair position on the West Bank.

I do think one day od Palestinians move past their desire to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state and reject their terrorist and corrupt leaders and they will be met by Israelis anxious for peace.



Along these lines I'd like to simply suggest / indicate that there's a difference of *scale* between a population itself, and the nationalist *entity* that claims to represent them:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Admin Edit: SPAM



History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

https://postimg.cc/tZpPf7BK
#15179002
PhantomStranger wrote:Palestinians were first screwed over by their own leaders, then the Arab League of nations, and now their leaders again and also they have been placed in an unfair position on the West Bank.

I do think one day if Palestinians move past their desire to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state and reject their terrorist and corrupt leaders they will be met by Israelis anxious for peace.


Nope. They will be met with Third Temple nutcases demanding they now be evicted from Mount Moriah. Remembering that the ultimate desire of religious Zionist Jews is to destroy the Dome of the rock and Al Aqsa in order to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash.

They would be met with "oh you let us have everything else, why not give us the holiest site in our religion so we can build a Kosher slaughterhouse, after all it's ONLY the third holiest site in yours!". So we are in a no win situation.

The Palestinians should never change their desire to get justice for the 1948 Nakba. They should never "move past" getting an apology, getting justice, securing a future for Haram Al-Sharif, getting back the west bank and getting at least part of Jerusalem back.

If you don't understand it is the endgame of Religious Zionists(including Christian Zionists) to evict the Muslims from Haram Al-Sharif and demolish the two Islamic buildings on the site, then you need to watch more documentaries.

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]