BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 03:21 PM

In 1956 Musket?
The UN had only created Israel eleven years previously.
In 1956 the UN had not accused Israel of stealing any Arab land.

It is only in recent years that the UN has become predominantly anti Western.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 06:56 PM

all fellow Jew haters to hop onto the thread to perform their usual Israel bashing song and dance number

"Jew-Haters" like Shin Bet, obviously.

Seems the usual Israeli apologist crowd crowd is still pushing "Its not my fault, Mommie - it all started when Johnnie hit me back!!!"

Plus c'est la même chose...

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:47 PM

"Anti western". Evidence please.

1956. Fuck all to do with my post. Apology please

The diatribe by braidedbeardedbruce. - Nobody gives a fuck about Zionism and its criminal terrorist aims inspired by Sky pixies. To equate the disgusting mindset of the Israeli government to the plight of Europeand who happened to be Jews is not only repugnant but shows your ignorance of a situation and geography you know absolutely nothing about but have some ancestory claim on, judging by your post.

Fine. I have ancestors who rolled in shit.

How does it feel and smell? I have no fucking idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 10:46 PM

Let's see, what are the stats currently doing the rounds on facebook? 40% of Arab children arrested by Israeli forces are sexually molested and 100% are tortured - are those the stated statistics?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 10:51 PM

https://truthdox.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/israelis-raping-children-report/

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:53 AM

"Anti western". Evidence please.

Most regimes in the world, and so most in UN, are corrupt dictatorships and/or irrational theocracies.
They easily outvote the liberal democracies.

Scandinavian countries, EU and other European countries, countries like Canada, Australia and India, do not make those wild accusations against Israel.
They have friendly relations and trade.

In 1956 the UN had not accused Israel of stealing any Arab land.

It is only in recent years that the UN has become predominantly anti Western.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 05:25 AM

Terrorism, Again (Israel)

Terrorism, Again (Philadelphia).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 07:54 AM

I believe we have us an imposter folks. I do not believe that Mr. Bridge, in spite of the disdain he has expressed towards Israel and Jews, would link to such a hateful and virulently antisemitic blog as evidenced above. I hope I am not proven wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:36 AM

Keith
You have supplied not one shred of evidence (despite you two contradictory reasons) for David Ben Gurion's statement either being a fake or his not meaning what he said.
It is a one man campaign to debunk the words of the Father of Israel - there's dedication for you.
You are the self-appointed David Irving of Israeli State Terrorism.
"Scandinavian countries, EU and other European countries, countries like Canada, Australia and India, do not make those wild accusations against Israel.
They have friendly relations and trade."
The Us is one of Israel's strongest supporters yet for 14 years it bombed a South East Asian country with missiles containing napalm and toxic Agent Orange which even gave its own pilots cancer.
No country, certainly those you mention, openly supports Israel,s behaviour in the Middle East - not one - and the Israeli regime is condemned worldwide by every human rights group - yet you go with the politicians - why wouldn't you?
Wot - no historians!!!!! I have no doubt they're waiting in the wings to be called.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 09:17 AM

Jim,
You have supplied not one shred of evidence (despite you two contradictory reasons) for David Ben Gurion's statement either being a fake or his not meaning what he said

Wrong. He is supposed to have said it in an uncorroborated private conversation in 1956.
It was first related in 1978.
That would not stand up in court Jim.

Anyway, he only gave the Arab view, which we all know so what is your point in posting it?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:18 AM

"Wrong. He is supposed to have said it in an uncorroborated private conversation in 1956."
Which has never been denied by anybody other than you - a touch of meglomaia, I think.
Do you not find irt a bit lonely to be th only person on the planet to deny he ever made the statement? It would worry me.
"Anyway, he only gave the Arab view,"
There you go - two for the price of one - he didn't say it but he meant something else ----- get help
Even David Irving makes a better fist of Holocaust denial
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:47 AM

Do you actually have any grounds for claiming that Ben Gurion didn't make the statement - if so, what are they - so far you have just denied it because it doesn't suit your arguments in favour of State terrorism
Jim Carroll
Another interesting quote from a Zionist Rabbi
"Speaking of quotes, here is one from Vladimir Jabotinsky, father of Revisionist Zionism: "The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively,
they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them
was only natural ….. There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but
a natural conflict. …. No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab;
they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."

I saw somewhere an account of a speech that Moshe Dayan gave, back in the '50's, at a funeral of an Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. I wish I could find the source. But his speech was described as starting out sounding like an eloquent defense of the right of Palestinians to resist. He talked of how they lost land and homes, and spoke poignantly of what it must be like to look across a border at your home, but not be allowed to go back to it. But then he went on to say basically what Jabotinsky said – some version of, "They may have a right to fight us but we have to win."

As I frequently point out in arguments about the history of the I/P situation, such quotes prove that the facts are not really in dispute. No serious historian believes that the Zionists just settled on empty land, or even that the Palestinians didn't have valid reasons to resist. The dispute is all about values. Benny Morris was one of the first Israeli mainstream historians to expose the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (Palestinian historians, of course, were saying this from the beginning). But Morris then concludes by saying basically the same thing as Ben Gurion, Jabotinsky, Dayan and the others – "Yeah, we did it, but it was necessary and we had to win."

It is both necessary to be educated about the facts, as well as to look at with what system of values we view them. Thankfully, we have the Henry Cliffords, the Phil Weiss's and the Adam Horowitz's of the world around to remind us of both.

To understand the history of Palestinian dispossession look to the words of Zion

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 12:12 PM

"Mahmoud Abbas' recent statements, unreported in the West, show that the wave of knifings and car-rammings against Israelis is a national campaign whose fighters act according to the directives of their leadership."

Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 12:50 PM

Jim, I have not denied that he said it. I just pointed out that it was very unconvincing, and that even if he did say it, he was only stating the well known Arab view.
My question, given all that, is why you think it worth posting?!
It is about three times now.
Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 12:52 PM

"is a national campaign "
ANOTHER NATIONAL CAMPAIGN
AND ANOTHER
AND YET ANOTHER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:23 PM

he wave of knifings and car-rammings against Israelis is a national campaign

Surely some mistake.
The victims are not just Israelis. Only Jews are singled out for death.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:47 PM

Only Jews are singled out for death.

Exactly, this is from Haaretz, don't forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:00 PM

The victims are not just Israelis. Only Jews are singled out for death.

Unless, of course, they happen to be Muslim/Palestinian Israelis.......

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:06 PM

Unless, of course, they happen to be Muslim/Palestinian Israelis....... ???????

I haven't heard of Palestinian terrorists targeting Muslim/Palestinian Israelis. If it has happened it was a case of mistaken identity - the killers thinking the victim was a Jew.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:12 PM

Greg,
Have any Arab Israelis been targeted?
If not, what is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:27 PM

I believe that Greg, in his usual inimitable fashion, is trying to make an equivalence between the attack on the Dawabsha family by a gang of Israeli extremists, who have been caught and arrested, with the national terror campaign targeting Jews orchestrated by the Palestinian Government of Abbas. Nice try there Greg but it don't wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:21 PM

"Only Jews are singled out for death."
Perhaps it might help if the Antisemites among us stop accusing The Jews for the Israeli regimes terrorism.
No backers for your "Ben Gurion didn't say it campaign" yet Keith?
Must be lonely up there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 11:46 PM

Jim Carroll: "Perhaps it might help if the Antisemites among us stop accusing The Jews for the Israeli regimes terrorism."

Arabs are Semites. Your bias is misplaced, and therefore fictional.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 04:10 AM

"Arabs are Semites."
And I'm not supporting any antisemitism - but accusations of "antisemitism" whenever the behaviour of the Israeli regime is brought up is both damaging to the Jewish people and is antisemitic according to the definition of the term accepted by the Jewish people - the right wing extremist government in Israel does not represent 'the Jewish people' and linking their behaviour to them is as bad as the activities of the worst antisemetics
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
From 'Zionism on the web'
Jim Carroll

A FURTHER NATIONAL CAMPAIGN
MORE STILL
IS THERE NO END TO THIS PERSECUTION

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 04:48 AM

The fact that Arabs are also a semitic people is a semantic irrelevance. The term 'Antisemitism', by long usage which to any linguist trumps adventitious & factitious etymology, only means prejudice against Jews -- consult any decent dictionary*. The affectation that it must mean Arabs too is a profoundly irritating bit issue-muddying smartarsery.

≈M≈

*eg in online Dictionary.com, the sole definition is

noun
1.
discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 05:14 AM

No backers for your "Ben Gurion didn't say it campaign" yet Keith?

You originall claimed he said it in interview, but you were wrong.
If he said it, it was in 1956 (!) but only in a private conversation so we only have one person who claims to have heard it.
Not very convincing Jim, and he is only supposed to have said that Arabs believed their land had been stolen which is hardly a revelation.

I just do not understand why you think it so significant.
You have posted it several times.
Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 06:16 AM

Where are your supporters that Bn Gurion didn't say what he said Keith
Your one-man-campaign would be risible id it wasn't do disturbing (as is all fanaticism)
"I just do not understand why you think it so significant."
You don't see a statement by the father of the Israeli state describing the occupation of Palestine as having "stolen their land" significant - my, my - you are in a bad way!
The man he said it to, Nahum Goldmann, was the founder of The World Jewish Council - a respected man in Israel and throughout the world and the last person to make up such a profound statement
Now, once again - were are your supporters?
"You have posted it several times."
And I will continue to post it until somebody shows it is a fake - it is a profound statement.
You people are no different than the Isis maniacs - just and fanatical and every bit as dangerous, when in power (as shown by the links you are studiously ignoring).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 06:25 AM

I do not know or care if anyone else doubts that he said it, but it is a fact that only one person ever claimed to have heard it and only wrote it down twenty two years later!

the occupation of Palestine as having "stolen their land" significant -

No. Not in 1956.
Israel was created by the UN just nine years previously.
If anyone had stolen the land it was the UN.

Arab armies tried to steal all the Jewish land when they attacked Israel on its first day of existence, and kept on trying for decades.
That is significant.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM

"but it is a fact that only one person ever claimed to have heard it and only wrote it down twenty two years later!"
And nobody has ever challenged that it was said - nobody other than you
Personally - I don't care too much for anything said by someone who expresses the hatred you do for an entire culture as implanted potential perverts - shows a very disturbed mindset
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 08:13 AM

MYTH

"Jews stole Arab land."

    FACT

    Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. 18

    Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price." 19

    It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry. 20

    When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." 21

    In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer. 22

    In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al--Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded. 23

    The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased. . . . there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." 24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities. 25

    Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews. 27

    The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre." 28

    By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. 29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el--Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFmandate.html

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 09:32 AM

"Jews stole Arab land.""
FACT
Since the formation of the State of Israel the people who have occupied that land for millennia have been systematically driven off that land.
No nation - Empire - whatever has th right to give away occupied land AN OLD COLONIAL HABIT .
That is what the trouble is about
The Isrealis are setting up an apartheid state (just as they encouraged athe South Adrican Apartheid state to become nuclear efficient) and are preventing Israeli children t learn about assimilation
The Palestinians have a right to be there and the Israelis want a monotheistic state - Ben Gurion recognised that - that is why he said what he said.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM

the Israelis want a monotheistic state

No, they want and have created a secular state where any religion can be practised. Unusual for that region.

Ben Gurion recognised that - that is why he said what he said.

David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 01:16 PM

"No, they want and have created a secular state where any religion can be practised"
They wish to creat a Jewish state where Muslims are either excluded (hence their opposition assimilation) or have no rights - certainly not enough to protect them from expulsion in favour of settlers - you've been given links to the films of them actually been thrown out of their homes by settlers -
BUT JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...
The Equality Report' which you have also been given, shows exactly how "equal" they are.
Israel's predatory nature regarding land has even extended to Bedoins being driven out by water cannons and chemical sprays
Bedouin Jewish Justice in Israel
Wonder what Ben Gurion would have thought of that!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:31 PM

All citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law whatever their religion, and are free to practise any religion, which is not true of many surrounding countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 03:14 PM

"All citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law whatever their religion,"
You have just been given two examples of how "equal" tha Arabs are in Isreel - you refuse to respond
You have been given a formidable list of forms of persecution carried out by Israel - your response - can't be true because the politicians and businessman wouldn't trade with them - how crass can you get (especially in the light of what's happening in Saudi Arabia at the present time).
You're letting the side down Keith - you've forgotten everything David Irving taught you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 04:10 PM

....which is not true of many surrounding countries.

Careful now Keith or he'll be screaming Islamophobe at you in capital letters any moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 07:17 PM

"*eg in online Dictionary.com, the sole definition is

noun
1.
discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews."

Well, to quote their own scriptures, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 08:52 PM

The Palestinians have rejected every offer for a two state solution that Israel has accepted:
In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO.
In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO.
In 1967, The Palestinians were offered a state (Khartoum), they said NO.
In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO.
In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO.
In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO.
Each time it was offered and they refused, they resorted to violence against Israel. What do you think the Palestinians really want?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 08:52 PM

The Palestinians have rejected every offer for a two state solution that Israel has accepted:

In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO.
In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO.
In 1967, The Palestinians were offered a state (Khartoum), they said NO.
In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO.
In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO.
In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO.

Each time it was offered and they refused, they resorted to violence against Israel.

What do you think the Palestinians really want?

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Aaron Swartz
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 02:44 AM

Globalution

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 02:53 AM

I'd have thought the first thing they want is a less aggressive neighbour who might start respecting borders, stop nicking all the water and stop bombing schools and hospitals. Perhaps a neighbour who respects and engages with The UN might be nice too.

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 05:37 AM

Jim,
given two examples of how "equal" tha Arabs are in Isreel - you refuse to respond

You and Richard suck up without question every bit of propaganda put out by Israel's sworn enemies.
I am not so gullible, and neither are all the decent democracies in the world who would shun Israel if all that shit about them was true.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 05:49 AM

"The Palestinians have rejected every offer for a two state solution that Israel has accepted:"
Every "offer" has entailed Palestinians leaving than they have occupied for many centuries to make room for Israeli settlers - every single one.
It is little wonder that thy have refused - and that Israel has accepted.
Britain gave away Palestine in order to wash their hands of a troublesome colony - they left to the sound of hand grenades being tossed into occupied homes by Israeli "freedom fighters".
That "freedom" was won by acts of terror such as the bombing of The King David Hotel and street attacks against military and civilian alike, not unlike the present knife attacks against Israelis, only far more deadly and efficient.   
Israeli aggression towards the Palestinians to further expansionism mounting to crimes against humanity has continued ever since, protectd largely by over 100 US vetoes in the UN - yet the Palesrinians are presented as "the aggressor" - the extremism by the Israelis has reached such a point that it has been condemned by Te Us and its poodle the UK.
Things have come to such a state in Israel that if has become necessary to lock away the writings of David Ben Gurion for fear of embarrassment
None of this will be responded to by the David Irvings of this forum - Keith may have one more go in conjuring a "historian" to back up his support for terrorism but so far, he and 'Brucie of the Shadows' have remained silent on the facts and will probably continue to do so.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 06:03 AM

"Every "offer" has entailed Palestinians leaving than "
Correction - Every "offer" has entailed Palestinians leaving LAND
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 07:56 AM

The Jews have left land they occupied for many centuries in Judea and Samaria when they were evicted and dispossessed and had their property retitled by Jordan during their illegal occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"Britain gave away Palestine in order to wash their hands of a troublesome colony" - Thus spake Jom the Infallible

Tell us all Jom when and how Britain EVER acquired Palestine as a colony.

I am absolutely dying to hear what our resident bigot and anglophobe comes up with this time, because as far as I am aware Palestine has NEVER been a British Colony.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 10:28 AM

Before Jom the Infallible starts up, IIRC Great Britain was given Mandate Responsibility for Palestine in 1921 by an International Organisation called the League of Nations. The Mandate had a finite term of 27 years after which time Great Britain ceased to have any responsibility for the mandated territory. In the course of those 27 years Great Britain could only act with the agreement and approval of the League of Nations.

According to my arithmetic 1921 + 27 years brings us to 1948 and if memory serves me correct that is when Great Britain departed and the Jews declared their independence and founded the sovereign state of Israel, immediately recognised by the U.S.S.R., the USA and the United Nations. All of Israel's Arab neighbours immediately went to war with Israel and were comprehensively defeated. Instead of opting for peace the Arabs elected to go to war and have been losing ever since - more fool them.

So you see Jom - washing hands off anything just simply did not enter into it - Great Britain relinquished mandate responsibility exactly when they originally agreed to do precisely that.

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 10:46 AM

The facts of the 'colony' question are that Palestine'; governance was 'mandated' to Britain by the League of Nations at end of WW1. It was ∴ never a 'colony' as such, in any meaningful sense. The legal question, as to how far the Mandate remained valid after the League of Nations ceased to exist in 1946, was never satisfactorily settled; but the British maintained a 'de facto' administration, of questionable validity, & perhaps some persecutionary authoritarianism [eg flogging & executing some whom elements of the Jewish population would have regarded as guerilla freedom fighters and the British would call 'terrorists'; and receiving back what the Jewish groups in their turn would call 'reprisal actions':- like the assassination of Lord Moyne; the kidnapping and caning of an MP sergeant; & even more notoriously the hanging of two sergeants in Galilee; & the attempted letter-bombing in London of a former administrator which in fact killed his unfortunate brother] until official withdrawal in May 1948, when the State of Israel, which had been authorised by a partition agreement passed by the UN, was proclaimed.

Nasty times. Even after nearly 70 years it's hard to apportion blame for what went on -- if such is even an appropriate thing to try and do.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 11:05 AM

70 years! I meant nearly 100!

Subject: RE: BS: Terrorism, Again (Israel)
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 01:13 PM

When the United Nations was founded certain League of Nations Mandates remained in force. The Mandate for Palestine was one of them - simple matter of record - people blow up hotels and murder people then they should fully expect to be punished for doing so.