Aish.com relies on your support. Click here to support us.
Visitor Comments: 2
(2)
Harvey Rogers
,
June 1, 2009
Screw the Jew
That has always, for 3000 years at least, been the position of most of the world. After the promise in the "Balfour Declaration" in 1917, in 1922, Britain gave away to a gang from Saudi Arabia 80% of the Palestinian Mandate. It wasn't theirs to give away. So what. The Jews were effectively screwed.
Britain left 20% of the mandate. Why didn't they give away 100% of the Mandate. Was it because they were willing to give the Jews 20% of what they been promised?
Even 20% was too much for the Arabs to accept, so after much political fighting the UN consented to giving the Jews almost 10% of the original Mandate. The remaining slightly more than 10% was given to the Arabs.
They didn't want it as a state for the Arabs living in the region.
They wanted to kill or drive out the Jews who now legally occupied 10% of the Mandate.
The lying Arabs set about misleading most of the world, claiming that they had been dispossessed from a country that never was.
Jews should make greater efforts to make the truth known, but nevertheless stick to their guns. Getting a fair shake may be impossible.
(1)
Peter M Howell
,
May 31, 2009
USA intervenes and forces Great Britain, France and Israel to give up the Suez Canal
The publicity rider that you display is simplistic. 'For fear of jeopardizing oil interests, the British refuse to allow Jews into Israel.'
Decisions were more likely stumbled into as events dictated and the hindsight analysis of gainsayers is troubling because it takes little to have the masses warm to a theme of resentment when the 'intellectuals' decide to herd us in one direction.
Some consideration should be given to the element of fair play, the land was occupied in significant numbers by non-Jewish Semitic peoples [Aka Arabs]
Lest you forget, and people have selective memories: 'During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.' That was the Balfour Declaration 2nd November 1917, and arguably, without it the state of Israel would not have been recreated in modern times.
It is equally abhorrent to watch revisionist history created in Hollywood, and you do seem to have selected an unworthy scapegoat when castigating Great Britain in that pithy
Advertising blurb for 'The Miracle of Israel'.
How was the USA positioned in the middle east after the war, significantly the USA were single mindedly intent on the commercial exploitation of the middle east reserves, not even the excuse that the oil was a strategic necessity… just money.
Why not 'USA intervenes and forces Great Britain, France and Israel to give up the Suez Canal'.
_(english).jpg "Kislev: Uniting the Colors of the Rainbow")
(2) Harvey Rogers , June 1, 2009
Screw the Jew
That has always, for 3000 years at least, been the position of most of the world. After the promise in the "Balfour Declaration" in 1917, in 1922, Britain gave away to a gang from Saudi Arabia 80% of the Palestinian Mandate. It wasn't theirs to give away. So what. The Jews were effectively screwed. Britain left 20% of the mandate. Why didn't they give away 100% of the Mandate. Was it because they were willing to give the Jews 20% of what they been promised? Even 20% was too much for the Arabs to accept, so after much political fighting the UN consented to giving the Jews almost 10% of the original Mandate. The remaining slightly more than 10% was given to the Arabs. They didn't want it as a state for the Arabs living in the region. They wanted to kill or drive out the Jews who now legally occupied 10% of the Mandate. The lying Arabs set about misleading most of the world, claiming that they had been dispossessed from a country that never was. Jews should make greater efforts to make the truth known, but nevertheless stick to their guns. Getting a fair shake may be impossible.
(1) Peter M Howell , May 31, 2009
USA intervenes and forces Great Britain, France and Israel to give up the Suez Canal
The publicity rider that you display is simplistic. 'For fear of jeopardizing oil interests, the British refuse to allow Jews into Israel.' Decisions were more likely stumbled into as events dictated and the hindsight analysis of gainsayers is troubling because it takes little to have the masses warm to a theme of resentment when the 'intellectuals' decide to herd us in one direction. Some consideration should be given to the element of fair play, the land was occupied in significant numbers by non-Jewish Semitic peoples [Aka Arabs] Lest you forget, and people have selective memories: 'During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.' That was the Balfour Declaration 2nd November 1917, and arguably, without it the state of Israel would not have been recreated in modern times. It is equally abhorrent to watch revisionist history created in Hollywood, and you do seem to have selected an unworthy scapegoat when castigating Great Britain in that pithy Advertising blurb for 'The Miracle of Israel'. How was the USA positioned in the middle east after the war, significantly the USA were single mindedly intent on the commercial exploitation of the middle east reserves, not even the excuse that the oil was a strategic necessity… just money. Why not 'USA intervenes and forces Great Britain, France and Israel to give up the Suez Canal'.