Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

@izzythepush,

This is absurd. Imagine some one kills a 5 year old kid with a hand gun. And then I say something like "I remember a 4 year old being shot with a riffle". Really, this difference is what makes you jump?

No, you didn't "take in 228 people". You sent the rest to die in gas chambers. What would ever happen to the Great British Empire if 900 people entered it?

To be fair, I shouldn't focus on the UK. The whole World is to blame, including the UK.

I think I will have to survive without your forgiveness

3 Replies

@0bserver,

0bserver wrote:

Unbiased does not exist as a concept. There are only those who are able to broker an agreement and those who are not. The EU is not going to do that

Good for the EU.

We shouldn't either.

0 Replies

@0bserver,

That is a complete lie. There weren't any gas chambers in 1939. Holland Belgium and France were not occupied. The prevailing mood during the phony war was reconciliation, Chamberlain bombed Germany with leaflets urging peace. The French thought their defences were more than a match for Germany. The Germans didn't invade Holland in WW1, nobody thought Holland would be invaded.

You're using the benefit of hindsight to jump to wild conclusions. Who was to say that Britain was any safer than France, Holland or Belgium. Do you know how close we came to losing the Battle of Britain?

America, of whom you've been completely uncritical, sent the whole boat back. And America's a lot bigger than Britain.

You are lying, you're just not man enough to admit it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Did I say "deliberately" ? They sent them back to Europe, and the people died in concentration camps. They just couldn't care less.
I'm not blaming anyone else besides the Nazi's for the Holocaust. I am blaming the whole world for ignoring it.

I have no intention of lying, and why would I need to? The facts are there. You are just not man enough to admit the guilt of ignoring the Holocaust - not for causing it. You never answered my question, what would happen to the UK if it took in 900 people? Not enough room? It's easier to find some word plays to attack me instead. Sure, have fun

BTW, the US and Canada are equally guilty of the same thing. I never denied that.

Chamberlain is also not the best side of the UK politics (IMHO)

1 Reply

@0bserver,

You were talking about 1939, Chamberlain was pm in 1939.

There was no Holocaust in 1939. Britain, along with all Holland, France and Belgium took in all the refugees. There was no way of knowing what the Nazis had planned, nor any guarantee that Britain was safer than Holland, France or Belgium.

Later on in the war Britain didn't pay as much attention to things like the Babi Yar massacre as, with hindsight, we should have, but we were fighting a war at the time. The Holocaust was so unimaginably horrible that when the Soviets showed pictures of liberated Auschwitz the Allies thought it was Stalinist propaganda. It was only when the Allies started liberating extermination (not concentration) camps that the Holocaust was really taken seriously.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I'm not going to argue about all the attempts to convince the allies at least bomb the extermination camps, because I'm sure you'll find some bug in that too. I don't think the allies could have done anything in Kiev at that time even if they wanted to.

On an unrelated subject: What do pro-Palestinian activists think about the situation in Egypt? No one seems to respond to the post by gungasnake. Is it just too confusing, or not interesting enough?

2 Replies

@0bserver,

I very rarely respond to Gungasnake's posts. He posted this earlier today.

Quote:

Same basic story as Trayvon Martin, i.e. a walking piece of ****

http://able2know.org/topic/216816-190#post-5413847

Regarding Egypt, it's terrible.

0 Replies

@0bserver,

0bserver wrote:

On an unrelated subject: What do pro-Palestinian activists think about the situation in Egypt? No one seems to respond to the post by gungasnake. Is it just too confusing, or not interesting enough?

In my opinion, admitting that the Egyption authorities can shoot a few hundred Egyption citizen protestors, in one day, would be embarrassing to the demonization of Israel, since Israel might just make Palestineans wait in line a bit. The two are not morally equal, so perhaps, it should be ignored.

It's actually quite telling that there are pro-Palestinean activists that feel that Arab on Arab atrocity may be understandable, though horrid, yet let a Jew be responsible for making a Palestinean not have an easy and fast route for one's daily errands, and damn Israel and all pro-Israel people (but ignore the Evangelical Christians, since no one wants to start with them).

2 Replies

@Foofie,

What happens in Egypt or any place else on this planet has nothing to do with Israel. How the governments of the Middle East views Israel has changed with the times, and will continue to change with their leadership.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I'm sure there will be condemnations, like in Syria. And I'm almost sure nobody will actually do anything. "Embarrassing" is a relative concept - depends on in front of whom. The US public in its majority does not find Obama's 50 shades of red embarrassing - they find it wise.

I wonder if the EU ever considered defining Turkey or Iraq as not including their Kurdish regions. Or China with Tibet.

The Israel-boycott supporters often say: well, we do what we can. We can't do anything to China or North Korea or Iran etc on human rights - they won't listen to us. Israel can be affected by the boycott, so lets hit them the hardest. Like that King from the Little Prince who is careful to give orders that are likely to be carried out

1 Reply

@0bserver,

China, North Korea, and Iran doesn't have restrictions against their citizens like in Israel. They all have some level of freedom to move around in their own country.

So, what's your point?

1 Reply

@0bserver,

0bserver wrote:

No, you didn't "take in 228 people". You sent the rest to die in gas chambers.

No. The German captain Gustav Schröder of this German ship made with his German crew arrangements for the the further settlemant of those Jews.
Unfortunately some decided to stay in Belgium. So only a little more than half of them survived.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Why is it ok to be contemptuous of Muslims and Arabs but saying anything against the State of Israel is seen as anti-Semitism?

Criticizing Muslims for always stealing everyone else's holy sites is legitimate because Muslims actually DO go around stealing everyone else's holy sites.

I remember back in the 1990s the Hindus in India had a nice little riot where they butchered a bunch of Muslims and then demolished an Islamic abomination that had been built on top of a Hindu holy place.

It was very nicely done.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

At this point in the conflict a two state solution is a farce,

A negotiated two state solution will get the Palestinians a state based on 1967 borders.

The alternative is forcing the Palestinians out of the West Bank and giving them a state comprised solely of the Gaza Strip.

Take your pick.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
MontereyJack wrote:
0bserver wrote:
Palestinians aren't indigenous to the West Bank even. Let alone Israel

Yes, they are. Demographic history disagrees with you.

Not likely. The Palestinians may have neighbored the Kingdom of Israel, but they were not a part of it.
The boundaries of the West Bank are close to what the boundaries of the Kingdom of Israel were.
There might be a case to be made that the Palestinians are indigenous to the Gaza Strip though.

Genetic research shows that the Palestinians are indigenous to the Levant. They are the descendants of the various peoples that inhabited the area, e.g. Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Israelites, etc.,

Note that the Levant was a much broader area than just the West Bank.

By saying the Palestinians are the descendants of people adjacent to the West Bank, I am not denying they came from the Levant. I'm just saying they came from a different part of the Levant than the West Bank area.

The Canaanites were the Bronze Age culture of the entire region. When that culture collapsed at the end of the Bronze Age, the former Canaanites formed five new Iron Age cultures:

The Israelites
The Phoenicians
The Ammonites
The Edomites
The Moabites

Genetic research is very clear on the fact that the Palestinians are not descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites. They are descendants of one of the other four Iron Age cultures that sprung up from the ashes after the collapse of Canaanite civilization.

Here is a handy map if you want to see where those other four nations were located relative to the Israelites:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_around_Israel_830_map.svg

(I guess my wisecrack about "them maybe being from the Gaza Strip" was off base. The Palestinians aren't descendants of the Philistines.)

InfraBlue wrote:

ridiculous references to “the Kingdom of Israel” notwithstanding.

Nothing ridiculous about me referring to science and history.

InfraBlue wrote:

This whole business of referring to religious mythologies to assert that “the Jews” are the rightful owners of Palestine is asinine.

Pretending that "scientific history" is "religious mythology" does not discredit that science. You only discredit yourself when you deny science.

Nor is it asinine to point out reality.

InfraBlue wrote:

The profession of a religion does not establish the rightful ownership of land.

But historical fact does.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Are you saying UK offered all of them asylum, but they still decided to go to Belgium? If not, then what you're saying doesn't change the fact that many countries including the US and UK, just didn't care about their fate.

Why would people accuse Sharon for Sabra and Shatila then? He also didn't do it, he just didn't interfere with the phalangists who did it. Somehow the Israelis were moral and responsible enough to make him resign. Did any Western minister resign for turning the Jewish refugee ship around?

4 Replies

@0bserver,

What part of this don't you understand? The captain arranged places from them outside of Germany. They would have been safe had war not broken out.

This is because you just won't admit you were wrong. You said a lot that shows you're completely ignorant of European countries and history. Including that of WW2. Nobody delivered any of the passengers up to the Nazis. Any invasions happened later, and people were just as good at predicting the future in 1939 as they are now.

If you continue along this track, all you're doing is showing that you just don't understand.

America sent the whole ship back, why not have a go at them? They didn't bother trying to find them other places to go to.

0 Replies

@0bserver,

0bserver wrote:

This is absurd. Imagine some one kills a 5 year old kid with a hand gun. And then I say something like "I remember a 4 year old being shot with a riffle". Really, this difference is what makes you jump?

I'm sorry, but this analogy is absurd, as is your likening the Sabra and Shabila massacre to this particular ship full of refugees.

Apples and oranges doesn't come close. More like apples and tractor parts.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's just a window into Foofie's mind. Everybody else is shocked at the killing of all those people. Foofie's first thought is how he can use those deaths to make a cheap point.

0 Replies

@0bserver,

0bserver wrote:

Are you saying UK offered all of them asylum, but they still decided to go to Belgium? If not, then what you're saying doesn't change the fact that many countries including the US and UK, just didn't care about their fate.

I was just saying that they didn't send them in the gas chambers.

Besides that: after the war started, the Jews of German nationality were legally enemy aliens in the UK and the USA.

1 Reply

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know