The Bloke On Who Wants To Be A...
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Oh God...its Really Got Serious Now...israeli Boots On The Ground In Gaza
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, I’m neither Jewish nor Arab – but since I’ve already said that I’m an independent observer, you knew that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, yes, but when that opinion directly supports the imposition of anything less than decent ethical human principles, as yours does, I don't consider it valid and I don't consider it worthy of respect. To be perfectly honest, in the current world climate, I don’t see the Palestinians as a people to be trusted by the west – but why would they trust us? They have no reason to trust us. However, if we’re talking about moral principles – which we are - there is no justification whatsoever for what the Palestinians have been subjected to and no amount of bleating about anti-Semitism will ever change that. They have been treated disgracefully – and I’m making an educated guess when I say that I really don’t think you’d want to be in their shoes.
So… naomi, you're just maintaining your sources of information are superior to mine and therefore your views spout superiority as well….
"Bleating about anti-Semitism" really takes the cake though … tell that to my friends whose parents were buried with identification tattoos still on the underneath of the forearms. It's pure sciolism to maintain that the Israelis are responsible for the horrific conditions in Gaza… Hamas kills all that threaten it's iron grip on the populace, including other citizens of Gaza. Fact… unarguable. Just as unarguable that Israel fully intends to live by the motto coined after WWII… "Never Again"…
So in one respect we find ourselves in agreement… you say "...when that opinion directly supports the imposition of anything less than decent ethical human principles, as yours does, I don't consider it valid and I don't consider it worthy of respect…" With the exception of recognizing who the true villains are here.
It's been said… "There is no nationalistic cause that justifies rolling hand grenades into a hotel lobby or bombing people standing outside a cafe. It is only killing for killing's sake, hatred for hatred's sake that defines such behavior; except that in the minds of the killers and those who create, protect and send these fanatics to their deaths, all of this is justified by the fact that they are killing Jews. No Jew is ever an innocent victim in their eyes."
It'd be helpful if you could suggest what it is that you would have from Israel… what is the "naomi solution", other than total abandonment of their homeland… and while we're at it perhaps you could explain why, when the combined territories of Arab countries are 650 fold greater than Israel why one of the Arab nations hasn’t provided land for the Palestinians.
It's obvious that the Iranians especially as well as other Muslim interests, would rather see the Palestinian population suffer thereby hoping to forge world opinion against Israel than truly help their own...
"Bleating about anti-Semitism" really takes the cake though … tell that to my friends whose parents were buried with identification tattoos still on the underneath of the forearms. It's pure sciolism to maintain that the Israelis are responsible for the horrific conditions in Gaza… Hamas kills all that threaten it's iron grip on the populace, including other citizens of Gaza. Fact… unarguable. Just as unarguable that Israel fully intends to live by the motto coined after WWII… "Never Again"…
So in one respect we find ourselves in agreement… you say "...when that opinion directly supports the imposition of anything less than decent ethical human principles, as yours does, I don't consider it valid and I don't consider it worthy of respect…" With the exception of recognizing who the true villains are here.
It's been said… "There is no nationalistic cause that justifies rolling hand grenades into a hotel lobby or bombing people standing outside a cafe. It is only killing for killing's sake, hatred for hatred's sake that defines such behavior; except that in the minds of the killers and those who create, protect and send these fanatics to their deaths, all of this is justified by the fact that they are killing Jews. No Jew is ever an innocent victim in their eyes."
It'd be helpful if you could suggest what it is that you would have from Israel… what is the "naomi solution", other than total abandonment of their homeland… and while we're at it perhaps you could explain why, when the combined territories of Arab countries are 650 fold greater than Israel why one of the Arab nations hasn’t provided land for the Palestinians.
It's obvious that the Iranians especially as well as other Muslim interests, would rather see the Palestinian population suffer thereby hoping to forge world opinion against Israel than truly help their own...
>
However, Dr. Filth... the original Declaration was approved in 1917, no? Doesn't matter what happened much later under different political circumstances... the original Declaration was entilrely British and sustained as such. <
>> Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1]
The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917.[2] The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.
However, Dr. Filth... the original Declaration was approved in 1917, no? Doesn't matter what happened much later under different political circumstances... the original Declaration was entilrely British and sustained as such. <
>> Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1]
The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917.[2] The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.
Clanad, It seems you’ve allowed your passion for the cause of the Jews to get the better of you, but I’ll address your post as best I can.
I have no idea of the source of your information with regard to conditions in today’s Israel, but whatever it is, speaking not from a ‘source’ but from personal experience, I can tell you it is inaccurate.
//"Bleating about anti-Semitism" really takes the cake though … tell that to my friends whose parents were buried with identification tattoos still on the underneath of the forearms.//
It isn’t beneficial to allow emotion to cloud judgement, but since you introduced the subject I too have friends with similar stories to tell – and some whose relations were taken and never seen again – fodder for the gas ovens – so please, the pain that the most disgusting example of man’s inhumanity to man causes to you is no more severe than the pain it causes me and your compassion is no greater. However, unlike you, my empathy is not restricted to just one section of the human race.
Stepping away from emotive, let us remember that we’re talking about moral principle here, and there is no moral principle in ejecting a people from its homeland in favour of newcomers. That, as far as I can see is the crux of the argument.
"There is no nationalistic cause that justifies rolling hand grenades into a hotel lobby or bombing people standing outside a cafe……”
You haven’t quoted your source, but I’m assuming that refers to the Palestinians and not to the Zionist terrorists who, among other things, bombed the King David Hotel.
//It'd be helpful if you could suggest what it is that you would have from Israel… what is the "naomi solution", other than total abandonment of their homeland…//
I wouldn’t have anything from Israel. It’s too late. What’s done is done, the Middle East is in turmoil – and there is no solution.
// and while we're at it perhaps you could explain why, when the combined territories of Arab countries are 650 fold greater than Israel why one of the Arab nations hasn’t provided land for the Palestinians.//
The Palestinians want their homeland back and nothing else will do. Sounds familiar, eh?
I have no idea of the source of your information with regard to conditions in today’s Israel, but whatever it is, speaking not from a ‘source’ but from personal experience, I can tell you it is inaccurate.
//"Bleating about anti-Semitism" really takes the cake though … tell that to my friends whose parents were buried with identification tattoos still on the underneath of the forearms.//
It isn’t beneficial to allow emotion to cloud judgement, but since you introduced the subject I too have friends with similar stories to tell – and some whose relations were taken and never seen again – fodder for the gas ovens – so please, the pain that the most disgusting example of man’s inhumanity to man causes to you is no more severe than the pain it causes me and your compassion is no greater. However, unlike you, my empathy is not restricted to just one section of the human race.
Stepping away from emotive, let us remember that we’re talking about moral principle here, and there is no moral principle in ejecting a people from its homeland in favour of newcomers. That, as far as I can see is the crux of the argument.
"There is no nationalistic cause that justifies rolling hand grenades into a hotel lobby or bombing people standing outside a cafe……”
You haven’t quoted your source, but I’m assuming that refers to the Palestinians and not to the Zionist terrorists who, among other things, bombed the King David Hotel.
//It'd be helpful if you could suggest what it is that you would have from Israel… what is the "naomi solution", other than total abandonment of their homeland…//
I wouldn’t have anything from Israel. It’s too late. What’s done is done, the Middle East is in turmoil – and there is no solution.
// and while we're at it perhaps you could explain why, when the combined territories of Arab countries are 650 fold greater than Israel why one of the Arab nations hasn’t provided land for the Palestinians.//
The Palestinians want their homeland back and nothing else will do. Sounds familiar, eh?
> league of nations Balfour Declaration vote <
did no expert spot this or were they drunk the vote was the new un formed from the lon
posted to test the sober expert
> In 1947, the newly-created United Nations (the postWWII reorganization of the League of Nations) passed Resolution 181, recommending the "Partition Plan,"which would divide the country into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-controlled territory around Jerusalem.
In May of 1948, Great Britain announced it was ending its Mandate over Palestine, and Israel declared its independence. The neighboring Arab countries immediately declared war on the new country. By the end of the 1948 War of Israeli Independence, Israel had increased its land by over fifty percent. <
did no expert spot this or were they drunk the vote was the new un formed from the lon
posted to test the sober expert
> In 1947, the newly-created United Nations (the postWWII reorganization of the League of Nations) passed Resolution 181, recommending the "Partition Plan,"which would divide the country into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-controlled territory around Jerusalem.
In May of 1948, Great Britain announced it was ending its Mandate over Palestine, and Israel declared its independence. The neighboring Arab countries immediately declared war on the new country. By the end of the 1948 War of Israeli Independence, Israel had increased its land by over fifty percent. <
In a previous post, naomi, you stated precisely where you believed my information originated "...I can only assume that, as an American, you’ve been watching too much biased television reporting…"
But, you're in the bow of the same boat of which you accuse me of occupying the stern seat… you only see what you want to see… for what ever reason. You can't have it both ways, you know? On the one hand you have no solution and, in fact, state there is no solution, and on the other condemn the Israelis solely for the historical realities.
Hamas, as I'm sure your own British TV must report, stores deadly rockets in school and hospital basements knowing either that Israel won't attack those stores or if they do they will be condemned by the rest of the world. Literally, Hamas uses children as shields.
But 'nuff said, I would guess, since I'm beginning to repeat myself...
But, you're in the bow of the same boat of which you accuse me of occupying the stern seat… you only see what you want to see… for what ever reason. You can't have it both ways, you know? On the one hand you have no solution and, in fact, state there is no solution, and on the other condemn the Israelis solely for the historical realities.
Hamas, as I'm sure your own British TV must report, stores deadly rockets in school and hospital basements knowing either that Israel won't attack those stores or if they do they will be condemned by the rest of the world. Literally, Hamas uses children as shields.
But 'nuff said, I would guess, since I'm beginning to repeat myself...
Clanad, We know what Hamas does – I said at the beginning that no one disputes what Hamas does – but we are discussing principle.
There are only two historical realities: that the holocaust happened, and that the Jews have for a couple of thousand years maintained an ambition to establish a state of Israel in a land to which their only claim is biblical – which amounts to no justifiable claim at all.
I’m not trying to have it both ways. There is no solution. Israel isn’t going to give up the land, and the Palestinians aren’t going to concede defeat. How can there be a solution?
As far as us being in the same boat goes, Clanad, you and I are not even sailing the same moral ocean.
There are only two historical realities: that the holocaust happened, and that the Jews have for a couple of thousand years maintained an ambition to establish a state of Israel in a land to which their only claim is biblical – which amounts to no justifiable claim at all.
I’m not trying to have it both ways. There is no solution. Israel isn’t going to give up the land, and the Palestinians aren’t going to concede defeat. How can there be a solution?
As far as us being in the same boat goes, Clanad, you and I are not even sailing the same moral ocean.
"Same moral ocean?" "Only two realities"… usually, even if I disagree with you, you make more sense than you are here. Only two realities? Puleez…
Must be securely fulfilling to stake out the moral high ground while at the same time proclaiming "...We know what Hamas does – I said at the beginning that no one disputes what Hamas does – but we are discussing principle…" Attributing any principle to what Hamas does is the peak of sophistry! If that's your moral high ground (or ocean) you're welcome to it!
Must be securely fulfilling to stake out the moral high ground while at the same time proclaiming "...We know what Hamas does – I said at the beginning that no one disputes what Hamas does – but we are discussing principle…" Attributing any principle to what Hamas does is the peak of sophistry! If that's your moral high ground (or ocean) you're welcome to it!
Dr. Filth continues to reference things that happened two decades after the original Balfour Declaration was adopted by Britain… in an organization (the United Nations) that didn't even exist at the time of Lord Balfour's missive.
"Though the Balfour Declaration went through several drafts, the final version was issued on November 2, 1917, in a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist Federation. The main body of the letter quoted the decision of the October 31, 1917 British Cabinet meeting.
This declaration was accepted by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 and embodied in the mandate that gave Great Britain temporary administrative control of Palestine."
The White Paper
In 1939, Great Britain reneged on the Balfour Declaration by issuing the White Paper, which stated that creating a Jewish state was no longer a British policy. It was also Great Britain's change in policy toward Palestine, especially the White Paper, that prevented millions of European Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.
The Balfour Declaration (it its entirety):
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
So, no, I won't be having any of what your drinking...
"Though the Balfour Declaration went through several drafts, the final version was issued on November 2, 1917, in a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist Federation. The main body of the letter quoted the decision of the October 31, 1917 British Cabinet meeting.
This declaration was accepted by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 and embodied in the mandate that gave Great Britain temporary administrative control of Palestine."
The White Paper
In 1939, Great Britain reneged on the Balfour Declaration by issuing the White Paper, which stated that creating a Jewish state was no longer a British policy. It was also Great Britain's change in policy toward Palestine, especially the White Paper, that prevented millions of European Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.
The Balfour Declaration (it its entirety):
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
So, no, I won't be having any of what your drinking...
Clanad do you actually read any of the posts
this i posted friday
> Clanad they could see the problems so that is why britain abstained from the vote
01:19 Fri 18th Jul 2014
this i posted 00:22 Sat 19th Jul 2014
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country <
god gave you the land and anyone who objects must be anti jewish or drunk
this i posted friday
> Clanad they could see the problems so that is why britain abstained from the vote
01:19 Fri 18th Jul 2014
this i posted 00:22 Sat 19th Jul 2014
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country <
god gave you the land and anyone who objects must be anti jewish or drunk
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.