Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Google.
Israel is a terrorist nation.
LINK to a non partisan source that states this officially, this means no ISLAMONAZI sources.
Moron.
No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.
Yes, we've all heard that canard time and again in the past.No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.
Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.
Not all of it. they put lines and you moved the lines and built property on the land.
STEALING is what it is called.
And we have a problem with ISIS, Israel is ISIS. NO different. The Christians and the Shia are the Palestinians. And you call them the terrorists.
Israel is ISIS? I picked the land myself? Shut up idiot
Truth hurts doesn't it.
No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.
Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.
I miss blaming Bush!
Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:
1. The British were very naive.
2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.
Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.
Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:
1. The British were very naive.
2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.
Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.
No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.
Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.
Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:
1. The British were very naive.
2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.
Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.
The British were probably just looking for another bunch of dupes to help them expand their empire.
Originally, they wanted to give the whole region to the Zionists, but there weren't a lot of Jews signing up to die for King and Country.
Cowards murder women and children for money or market share.Google.LINK to a non partisan source that states this officially, this means no ISLAMONAZI sources.
Moron.
If someone did Google 'moron' - they'd come up with a picture of Pbel, or perhaps Billo.
Georgie, otoh, is the poster thing for 'coward'.....
True enough.Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:
1. The British were very naive.
2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.
Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.
"...who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries."True enough.Provided it did not prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.Yes, but the British knew that the zionists wanted to set up a Jewish nation. The zionists were well-known for their desire to set up their own state.
So, there are 2 possibilities:
1. The British were very naive.
2. The British indirectly supported a Jewish state in Palestine without saying it out loud in the Balfour Declaration.
Probably, it was the 2nd one. The British chose for the safe way, but they probably knew that the Zionists would set up their own state.
Then again, that was an asinine provision.
All 'outsider' proposals to create a Jewish State in Old Palestine seem to have included such a provision.
It was tantamount to saying...
"You may have your own State embedded within the lands of Old Palestine, but only if you can convince the tribal folk and townsfolk of the region - who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries - and which has been in a sporadic shooting war with you for the past 3-4 decades - to let you become the new masters of the land, rather than them. We all know this is never going to happen but it lets us pretend to have sympathy for your aspirations while winking amongst ourselves and chuckling behind your back while you're not looking."
Realizing this truth, the Jews said "Fuck that!", screwed-up their courage, and fought for a home of their own, and rationalized it by cherry-picking the best parts out of those proposals.
States are rarely created by man-wussies who prostrate themselves before their enemies and ask 'pretty-please."
States are usually created by men with balls who fight for a home, and win.
No, Palestine was legally given by the British leaders to the zionist movement as a place to set up a Jewish homeland.
Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.
If one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.
Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.
So was Albert Einstein.Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.
Not quite, the British government in 1917 promised the establishment in a future British Palestine of a "national home" for the Jewish people; the intention was never to create an idependant state, more an established "tribal homeland" of which there were many in existance throughout the British Empire at the time. In time and under the right circumstsnces, this "tribal homeland" might have been allowed to evolve into a "nation" or "commonwealth" and eventually become a Dominion within the structure of the Empire.
If one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.
Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.
Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.
No need.Give us an example of how Palestinian Arabs held the Jews of Palestine in second class status for centuries......the tribal folk and townsfolk of the region - who are members of a competing religion which has held yours in thrall in second class status for centuries...
My admiration of Israeli courage does not stem from the period of the British Mandate....allowed your manly Jews to shelter behind British bayonets long enough to craft Plan Dalet...
True. Beat a house pet long enough and it will begin to whimper and lie down in a corner and manifest exemplary behavior. Same for the Jews, beaten and taxed into submission centuries beforehand....Jew and Arab lived relatively peacefully alongside one another for centuries in Palestine...
I'm pretty sure that (a) the British Navy had successfully transitioned from coal to oil by the time they assumed the Mandate and (b) there wasn't enough oil and gas in Old Palestine to make that the reason why the British attacked the Ottomans there during WWI and (c) the British established no permanent colonies in Old Palestine for the purposes of securing nearby oil and gas fields....until 'outsiders' decided to colonize the land between the River and the sea at the time their navy was switching from coal to oil to power their fleets.
Harry S. Truman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIf one is to proceed on the basis of "intention" - there needs to be very clear evidence of such an "intent". And you have cited NOTHING to support your assertion above.
Additionally, while we might disapprove of the entire concept of the Mandate - it was legal at that time, under the LoN rules. I agree that what is legal may indeed not be what is best or fairest or 'right'. But laws remain in force until they are formally changed.
Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.
Citations, please?
So was Albert Einstein.Really that is why Truman had such a huge discussion with his Zionist group about it, and might I add General Marshall was very against it.
