Authorities don't stop violent anti - Israel protests In Britain

[Sean]

BTW Ireland expelled it's Jews in 1290 as well. According to Edwin Green of the International Council Of Christians And Jews Ireland's "love" of the Jew goes back even further, "In the year 1079 and it is recorded in the annals of Inisfallen that ‘ Five Jews came over the sea with gifts for the King of Munster . . . and they were sent back again over the sea.’

Yeah, my family were dirt poor farmers. I doubt they had much influence on a country that wasn't even unified until the 17th century.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

How am I a hypocrite?

You claim that each country has a right to defend itself. Apart from the Palestinians, obviously. Tell me, when the US stopped Turkey from bombing Kurdish "training camps" in Northern Iraq, how was that different than the IDF bombing Hizbollah camps in Lebanon?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[where]

*tossing a cat amongst the pigeons*

How about the suggestion that the prime motive for the USA supporting the Zionist movement was to reduce the number of Jewish immigrants into the States?

 

[Sean]

This is off the subject of British benevolence towards Jews, but I suspect it had something to do with endangering or own special ops troops who might have been in their ranks.

LMAO. The US had assets in Kurdistan but not in Lebanon?

It's about Israel, Vette. Israel can do no wrong in US foreign policy.

When Israel disguises it's planes to bomb a US ship, that's OK too? Killing US sailors gets you no retaliation if you're Israeli?

Dead US sailors doesn't matter, huh?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

*tossing a cat amongst the pigeons*

How about the suggestion that the prime motive for the USA supporting the Zionist movement was to reduce the number of Jewish immigrants into the States?

Funny how all those settlers have American accents, huh?

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

policy.

When Israel disguises it's planes to bomb a US ship, that's OK too? Killing US sailors gets you no retaliation if you're Israeli?

Dead US sailors doesn't matter, huh?

cant come up with anything recent?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Hey no doubt most came from Europe and many have duel citizenship with the USA...which I oppose.

Nope. All the Israel hard core, they're all Americans.

Funny, what?

 

[lavender]

I will never understood why speaking out, at all, against any action of Israel makes one anti-semitic.

It's the logical equivalent of equating convicting an African-American of a crime he committed is being racist.

Can't you decry the act without decrying a whole people?

Further, just because you disagree with some actions of Israel, how does that necessarily make you pro-Palestinian? Are we that brain-dead that we can't see that there are actions on both sides that are wrong?

This is not a zero-sum game. It's not a "you're with us or you're against us" idea. You can respect and understand the need for the Israelis and their people to be safe and to be able to maintain their government and rights and still say there are significant problems with the settlements or that Israel used excessive force, etc.

Have you guys actually seen the videos of what happened in Gaza around the Inauguration?

 

[where]

*looking askance at the shaved pussy*

Are you kidding? New York, Miami, and Los Angeles, are the centers of their universe.

Because I'm nice like that, here's the link... about a third of the way down there is an extensive quote from a CATO institute publication.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/119/the-middle-east-conflict-a-brief-background

Sometimes you know, you need to expand your mind out of the narrow confines of the paradigm you feel comfortable with.

And it's a cunt, not a pussy.

 

[Sean]

I will never understood why speaking out, at all, against any action of Israel makes one anti-semitic.

It's the logical equivalent of equating convicting an African-American of a crime he committed is being racist.

Can't you decry the act without decrying a whole people?

Further, just because you disagree with some actions of Israel, how does that necessarily make you pro-Palestinian? Are we that brain-dead that we can't see that there are actions on both sides that are wrong?

This is not a zero-sum game. It's not a "you're with us or you're against us" idea. You can respect and understand the need for the Israelis and their people to be safe and to be able to maintain their government and rights and still say there are significant problems with the settlements or that Israel used excessive force, etc.

Have you guys actually seen the videos of what happened in Gaza around the Inauguration?

idiot, Israel murder means you are anti semitic.

 

[where]

Funny how all those settlers have American accents, huh?

I was talking about the 40's post war to reduce immigration quotas. I know you think I'm a 'retard' and everything, but even you may find the link informative.

 

[torchthebitch]

I know it is wiki but it is agood overview.

The Palestine Mandate,[1] sometimes referred to as the The Mandate for Palestine,[2] the British Mandate for Palestine, or the British Mandate of Palestine, was a League of Nations Mandate that had been drafted by the principal Allied and associated powers, after the First World War, and that was formally approved by the League of Nations, in 1922.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(mandate)

The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over it, was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000, spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_White_Paper

Britain was Arabist in it's inclinations.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[where]

Yes, yes, yes, I know all of this but the immigration quotas were already set in place at the end of WWI. Both Truman and Eisenhower were concerned about the safety of Jews in devastated European countries at the end of WWII. That had more to do with the establishment of the State of Israel than any fear they would all come here. Our immigration laws would have to have been re-written for that to happen.

I am not here to defend how that was done BTW, or the right and wrong of it, but it is a present day reality that hey exist that isn't going to go away.

It may be of interest that between the years of 1968 and 1983 16 million have entered the US legally and 85% of those from developing countries.

I thought you threw in a cat?

oh... you knew all that? hence your response to my post.

 

[unregistered]

 

[where]

In other words dear, those Jews couldn't have just come here anyway, so that assumption doesn't support your position.

I do appreciate, dear, that your reading comprehension is demonstrably fucked, so try reading ALL of it, not just the little bits you want to be true.