Rising anti-Semitism? One in eight Americans think Jews use Holocaust to get sympathy

[Lucy Hamilton]

Nearly half of Americans hold anti-Semitic views, a survey has revealed. It also found that one in eight US citizens surveyed (13 percent) thought Jews used talking about the Holocaust to get sympathy.

A "Gallup" asked 3,411 US adults about their attitudes toward USA Jewish citizens. It found that 45 percent polled believed at least one anti-Semitic view presented to them was “definitely or probably true.”

Many found clichés and stereotypes about Jews to be true. One in four believed Jewish people “chase money more than others,” while one in six people felt Jews thought they were better than other people and had too much power in the media.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which commissioned the study, said America was at a“tipping point” in its Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer report.

Around 6,768,855 Jewish people live in the USA, or 2.2 percent of the American population, according to CAA.

The survey also found that one in 10 people (11 percent) claimed Jews were not as honest in business as other people, while one in five believed their loyalty to Israel made US Jewish citizens less loyal to the US, and 10 percent of all surveyed said they would be unhappy if a relative married a Jewish person.

Last year, police recorded a record number of anti-Semitic attacks.

Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?

The whole anti-Semitic thing has reached absurd proportions. I mean even mentioning that someone is Jewish causes a fit.

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

Completely ridiculous. They are legitimate questions and in a Free Speech society are perfectly reasonable.

That's not my quote.

What's not your quote?

 

[Skylar]

I think Israel has every right to exist. What I (and international law) aren't simpatico with is Israel occupying territory that isn't its own. And then colonizing it.

Either annex the territory or leave. But colonizing the territory is a war crime. And utterly inconsistent with the legal basis of Israel's right to exist.

The annexing of the West Bank (which Israel has every right to) is inevitable however it will take time, we are talking about decades.

Why? And of course, its a war crime to transfer your civilian population to territory you occupy. So the only delay seems to be to allow Israel to continue to commit this war crime.

If international law is our basis, then Israel has every right to exist. If this is just a battle royale in which international law does not apply.....then why are we involved? Either international law affirms BOTH Israel's right to exist and the criminality of civilian settlements in the occupied territories. Or it affirms neither.

I argue it affirms both. With the upholding of international law being a valid reason for the US to be involved. And a a valid reason to condemn Israeli action in colonizing the west bank.

HUH?

Well, NOT in Palestine.

Read the Palestinian Mandate, then, and only then, repost



ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Did you miss the intro or was it intentional?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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 favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

AND IN 1939 THE UK CLARIFIED THAT A "NATIONAL HOME FOR JEWISH PEOPLE " MEANT A 100 x 100 SF LOT SOMEWHERE IN PALESTINE .


.

Where is this mentioned in the source you're citing? I wasn't able to find any of it.

 

[Skylar]

Nearly half of Americans hold anti-Semitic views, a survey has revealed. It also found that one in eight US citizens surveyed (13 percent) thought Jews used talking about the Holocaust to get sympathy.

A "Gallup" asked 3,411 US adults about their attitudes toward USA Jewish citizens. It found that 45 percent polled believed at least one anti-Semitic view presented to them was “definitely or probably true.”

Many found clichés and stereotypes about Jews to be true. One in four believed Jewish people “chase money more than others,” while one in six people felt Jews thought they were better than other people and had too much power in the media.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which commissioned the study, said America was at a“tipping point” in its Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer report.

Around 6,768,855 Jewish people live in the USA, or 2.2 percent of the American population, according to CAA.

The survey also found that one in 10 people (11 percent) claimed Jews were not as honest in business as other people, while one in five believed their loyalty to Israel made US Jewish citizens less loyal to the US, and 10 percent of all surveyed said they would be unhappy if a relative married a Jewish person.

Last year, police recorded a record number of anti-Semitic attacks.

Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?

The whole anti-Semitic thing has reached absurd proportions. I mean even mentioning that someone is Jewish causes a fit.

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

Completely ridiculous. They are legitimate questions and in a Free Speech society are perfectly reasonable.

That's not my quote.

What's not your quote?

"Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?"

Your post attributes it to me. I didn't say that.

 

[Contumacious]

The annexing of the West Bank (which Israel has every right to) is inevitable however it will take time, we are talking about decades.

Why? And of course, its a war crime to transfer your civilian population to territory you occupy. So the only delay seems to be to allow Israel to continue to commit this war crime.

If international law is our basis, then Israel has every right to exist. If this is just a battle royale in which international law does not apply.....then why are we involved? Either international law affirms BOTH Israel's right to exist and the criminality of civilian settlements in the occupied territories. Or it affirms neither.

I argue it affirms both. With the upholding of international law being a valid reason for the US to be involved. And a a valid reason to condemn Israeli action in colonizing the west bank.

HUH?

Well, NOT in Palestine.

Read the Palestinian Mandate, then, and only then, repost



ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Did you miss the intro or was it intentional?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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 favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

AND IN 1939 THE UK CLARIFIED THAT A "NATIONAL HOME FOR JEWISH PEOPLE " MEANT A 100 x 100 SF LOT SOMEWHERE IN PALESTINE .


.

Where is this mentioned in the source you're citing? I wasn't able to find any of it.

""Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."


SHORTLY THEREAFTER MENACHEM BEGIN AND THE IRGUN ZIONUT GANG BEGAN TERRORIZING THE BRITS , FOR EXAMPLE, THE UK MILITARY HEADQUARTERS AT THE KING DAVID HOTEL.


.The King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack[1] carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing[2] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[3][4][5] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[6]

 

[Skylar]

Why? And of course, its a war crime to transfer your civilian population to territory you occupy. So the only delay seems to be to allow Israel to continue to commit this war crime.

If international law is our basis, then Israel has every right to exist. If this is just a battle royale in which international law does not apply.....then why are we involved? Either international law affirms BOTH Israel's right to exist and the criminality of civilian settlements in the occupied territories. Or it affirms neither.

I argue it affirms both. With the upholding of international law being a valid reason for the US to be involved. And a a valid reason to condemn Israeli action in colonizing the west bank.

HUH?

Well, NOT in Palestine.

Read the Palestinian Mandate, then, and only then, repost



ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Who mentioned 'Palestine'? The country in question is Israel. And the territories its occupying aren't part of Israel. Says who? Says the Israeli Supreme Court, recognizing them instead as occupied territories.

And Geneva Conventions recognize transferring your civilian population into occupied territories as a war crime.

And yet Israel does it flagrantly. Either international law matters...in which case Israel's right to exist is legally protected. Or international law doesn't matter.....in which case we have no reason to be involved there.

LEGALLY PROTECTED?


BY WHAT? WHOM?

WHEN WAS THE MATTER REFERRED TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE?


SCUMBAG TRUMAN ACCEPTED 2 MILLION DOLLARS FROM BEN GURION IN ORDER FOR THE US TO RECOGNIZE THE JEWISH STATE.


FROM THE ZIONUTS STANDPOINT US RECOGNITION IS ALL THEY NEED.

PALESTINE ---IN ITS ENTIRETY -- IS OCCUPIED TERRITORY.


IN ITS ENTIRETY.


.

Alas, its not. Israel's boundaries are recognized by the UN and the overwhelming majority of the international community.

BULLSHIT


IDENTIFY THE UN RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING/RECOGNIZING ISRAEL'S BORDERS



.

83% of UN member states recognize the Israeli Declaration of Independance.

With the UN recognizing Israel as a member state:

United Nations member States - Information Sources

UN Security Council Resolution 69 was affirmed 9 to 1 recommending Israeli admission as a UN member state.

UN General Assembly resolution 273 affirmed Israel as a member state was adopted on May 11th 1949 by more than the 2/3rd vote necessary for passage.

"The President stated that since every Member of the United Nations was present and voting, the requirement of the Charter for two-thirds majority was satisfied. He therefore formally declared Israel admitted to membership in the United Nations."

Pg 331, 11 May 1949
UN 267th Plenary Meeting

United Nations Official Document

But you'll ignore it anyway, pretending it doesn't exist. Which is why your personal opinion is so gloriously irrelevant to actual law.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Nearly half of Americans hold anti-Semitic views, a survey has revealed. It also found that one in eight US citizens surveyed (13 percent) thought Jews used talking about the Holocaust to get sympathy.

A "Gallup" asked 3,411 US adults about their attitudes toward USA Jewish citizens. It found that 45 percent polled believed at least one anti-Semitic view presented to them was “definitely or probably true.”

Many found clichés and stereotypes about Jews to be true. One in four believed Jewish people “chase money more than others,” while one in six people felt Jews thought they were better than other people and had too much power in the media.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which commissioned the study, said America was at a“tipping point” in its Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer report.

Around 6,768,855 Jewish people live in the USA, or 2.2 percent of the American population, according to CAA.

The survey also found that one in 10 people (11 percent) claimed Jews were not as honest in business as other people, while one in five believed their loyalty to Israel made US Jewish citizens less loyal to the US, and 10 percent of all surveyed said they would be unhappy if a relative married a Jewish person.

Last year, police recorded a record number of anti-Semitic attacks.

Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?

The whole anti-Semitic thing has reached absurd proportions. I mean even mentioning that someone is Jewish causes a fit.

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

Completely ridiculous. They are legitimate questions and in a Free Speech society are perfectly reasonable.

That's not my quote.

What's not your quote?

"Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?"

Your post attributes it to me. I didn't say that.

Doh, sorry.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We are seeing more anti semitism here than I can remember (born 1962). Never mind Europe.
People will say and do things today that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Sure there were anti semites then. But they were a marginalized bunch of idiots in the boobdocks somewhere. Today university professors openly profess anti semitism, usually disguised as anti zionism. This will only get worse.
Halakha psuka hi: Eisav soneh es Yaakov.

When it comes to political platforms: Do Democrats strongly support Israel, or does their rhetoric align itself more towards a need for the United States to separate ourselves from them and be less sympathetic to their needs? Has their favorable view of Isreal been on the decline?

 

[Skylar]

Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?

The whole anti-Semitic thing has reached absurd proportions. I mean even mentioning that someone is Jewish causes a fit.

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

Completely ridiculous. They are legitimate questions and in a Free Speech society are perfectly reasonable.

That's not my quote.

What's not your quote?

"Would the perception that jews use the holocast for sympathy be anti-semetic?"

Your post attributes it to me. I didn't say that.

Doh, sorry.

No worries. Just an FYI.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Why? And of course, its a war crime to transfer your civilian population to territory you occupy. So the only delay seems to be to allow Israel to continue to commit this war crime.

If international law is our basis, then Israel has every right to exist. If this is just a battle royale in which international law does not apply.....then why are we involved? Either international law affirms BOTH Israel's right to exist and the criminality of civilian settlements in the occupied territories. Or it affirms neither.

I argue it affirms both. With the upholding of international law being a valid reason for the US to be involved. And a a valid reason to condemn Israeli action in colonizing the west bank.

HUH?

Well, NOT in Palestine.

Read the Palestinian Mandate, then, and only then, repost



ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Did you miss the intro or was it intentional?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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 favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

AND IN 1939 THE UK CLARIFIED THAT A "NATIONAL HOME FOR JEWISH PEOPLE " MEANT A 100 x 100 SF LOT SOMEWHERE IN PALESTINE .


.

Where is this mentioned in the source you're citing? I wasn't able to find any of it.

""Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."


SHORTLY THEREAFTER MENACHEM BEGIN AND THE IRGUN ZIONUT GANG BEGAN TERRORIZING THE BRITS , FOR EXAMPLE, THE UK MILITARY HEADQUARTERS AT THE KING DAVID HOTEL.


.The King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack[1] carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing[2] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[3][4][5] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[6]

That happened the bombing of the King David Hotel, it was a terrorist attack and the Irgun was a terrorist group. To admit these things isn't anti-Semitic, as they are actual facts, means they're truth and truth itself cannot be considered anti-Semitic.

That would be the ultimate in sheer hysteria and also denying the truth.

 

[Roudy]

The King David wasn't really a hotel, it was the British military HQ and they were warned several times to evacuate it. When was the last time Islamists warned about an imminent terror attack?

 

[Indeependent]

I can't remember the last time a non-Holocaust survivor mentioned the Holocaust in my presence.
This is sort of like one in eight Americans think Priests are screwing Choir Boys.

 

[Roudy]

We are seeing more anti semitism here than I can remember (born 1962). Never mind Europe.
People will say and do things today that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Sure there were anti semites then. But they were a marginalized bunch of idiots in the boobdocks somewhere. Today university professors openly profess anti semitism, usually disguised as anti zionism. This will only get worse.
Halakha psuka hi: Eisav soneh es Yaakov.

When it comes to political platforms: Do Democrats strongly support Israel, or does their rhetoric align itself more towards a need for the United States to separate ourselves from them and be less sympathetic to their needs? Has their favorable view of Isreal been on the decline?

The Democrat party no longer supports Jews. It supports antisemites and Muslim anti Zionist groups. Delusional liberal Jews support the democrat party, because like many democrats, they support party over country.

 

[g5000]

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

I can guarantee you if someone asked, "Why are the President and the Vice President of the United States always Christian?" it would set off a firestorm of outrage on this forum, and all the usual suspects would perceive it as part of the "war on Christianity".

Donald Trump and many other people got upset over a red cup! A RED CUP!!! The War On Christmas™ has reached a whole new level.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

We are seeing more anti semitism here than I can remember (born 1962). Never mind Europe.
People will say and do things today that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Sure there were anti semites then. But they were a marginalized bunch of idiots in the boobdocks somewhere. Today university professors openly profess anti semitism, usually disguised as anti zionism. This will only get worse.
Halakha psuka hi: Eisav soneh es Yaakov.

When it comes to political platforms: Do Democrats strongly support Israel, or does their rhetoric align itself more towards a need for the United States to separate ourselves from them and be less sympathetic to their needs? Has their favorable view of Isreal been on the decline?

I think the difference is Judaism and Zionism. The former a religion, the latter never a religion but always a political movement that has become more extreme.

We really need to differentiate between the two. Being anti-Zionist isn't being anti-Semitic. Many Orthodox Jews are very anti-Zionist, some Orthodox Jews even take this to the ultimate and reject the State of Israel itself.

I admit myself that I have no problem with Judaism, but I'm very uncomfortable with Zionism.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

I can guarantee you if someone asked, "Why are the President and the Vice President of the United States always Christian?" it would set of a firestorm of outrage on this forum, and all the usual suspects would perceive it as part of the "war on Christianity"

What is the implication behind both of those questions? They are obviously tainted with a bias against the religion in question.

The Obama Administration must be the most anti-Christian Administration in American history, Obama himself is very anti-Christian and seemingly very pro-Islam.

 

[Indeependent]

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

I can guarantee you if someone asked, "Why are the President and the Vice President of the United States always Christian?" it would set off a firestorm of outrage on this forum, and all the usual suspects would perceive it as part of the "war on Christianity".

Donald Trump and many other people got upset over a red cup! A RED CUP!!!

I would simply ask, "Whom would you prefer to occupy those positions?".

 

[skye]

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

I can guarantee you if someone asked, "Why are the President and the Vice President of the United States always Christian?" it would set of a firestorm of outrage on this forum, and all the usual suspects would perceive it as part of the "war on Christianity"

What is the implication behind both of those questions? They are obviously tainted with a bias against the religion in question.

The Obama Administration must be the most anti-Christian Administration in American history, Obama himself is very anti-Christian and seemingly very pro-Islam.

Truer words were never spoken!

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

We are seeing more anti semitism here than I can remember (born 1962). Never mind Europe.
People will say and do things today that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Sure there were anti semites then. But they were a marginalized bunch of idiots in the boobdocks somewhere. Today university professors openly profess anti semitism, usually disguised as anti zionism. This will only get worse.
Halakha psuka hi: Eisav soneh es Yaakov.

When it comes to political platforms: Do Democrats strongly support Israel, or does their rhetoric align itself more towards a need for the United States to separate ourselves from them and be less sympathetic to their needs? Has their favorable view of Isreal been on the decline?

The Democrat party no longer supports Jews. It supports antisemites and Muslim anti Zionist groups. Delusional liberal Jews support the democrat party, because like many democrats, they support party over country.

I think quite a number of people support a political party because either historically it's always been that way or their family has always supported them.

This all has to do with either laziness or just simply lack of independent thinking these days, both of which are equally alarming.

 

[Roudy]

Why? And of course, its a war crime to transfer your civilian population to territory you occupy. So the only delay seems to be to allow Israel to continue to commit this war crime.

If international law is our basis, then Israel has every right to exist. If this is just a battle royale in which international law does not apply.....then why are we involved? Either international law affirms BOTH Israel's right to exist and the criminality of civilian settlements in the occupied territories. Or it affirms neither.

I argue it affirms both. With the upholding of international law being a valid reason for the US to be involved. And a a valid reason to condemn Israeli action in colonizing the west bank.

HUH?

Well, NOT in Palestine.

Read the Palestinian Mandate, then, and only then, repost



ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Did you miss the intro or was it intentional?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

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 favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

AND IN 1939 THE UK CLARIFIED THAT A "NATIONAL HOME FOR JEWISH PEOPLE " MEANT A 100 x 100 SF LOT SOMEWHERE IN PALESTINE .


.

Where is this mentioned in the source you're citing? I wasn't able to find any of it.

""Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."



SHORTLY THEREAFTER MENACHEM BEGIN AND THE IRGUN ZIONUT GANG BEGAN TERRORIZING THE BRITS , FOR EXAMPLE, THE UK MILITARY HEADQUARTERS AT THE KING DAVID HOTEL.


.The King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack[1] carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing[2] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[3][4][5] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[6]

ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

 

[g5000]

If one says, why in general are the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve or US Treasury Secretary nearly always Jewish....this is construed as "anti-Semitic"

I can guarantee you if someone asked, "Why are the President and the Vice President of the United States always Christian?" it would set of a firestorm of outrage on this forum, and all the usual suspects would perceive it as part of the "war on Christianity"

What is the implication behind both of those questions? They are obviously tainted with a bias against the religion in question.

The Obama Administration must be the most anti-Christian Administration in American history, Obama himself is very anti-Christian and seemingly very pro-Islam.

Ipse dixit.