20 Feb 11
the jews did not have to leave post-war europe. they could have been given american military passports to settle in most of the english speaking world.
this is true.
but it is always so easy for the "present" to criticize the "past".
if you wish to be truly fair one must place one's mind, emotion, sacrifice and loss in the context of the "present" and then make judgement. to look backward and decide what
should or could have been done without the context of sacrifice and loss is too sit in a vacuum tube and stare out at the moths and wonder why they float about the light.
20 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by reinfeldIf Israel were in Baja Los Aztecas would be harassing them instead of Palestinians. There is no unclaimed land.
there was a time at the turn of the 19th century where some zionists pursued the ideal of purchasing baja california for a new israel. i do believe mexico would have sold it to them since mexico sold the gadsen purchase for five million to the usa a few years before ( the usa needed some flat valleys for a railroad system ) and mexico in the 1920's was qui ...[text shortened]... jew in the mid-east would have continued for the smaller continuing group still in the mandate.
Jews come from the Palestine/Israel region. Israel was first founded 1,500 BCE. That's why they chose that area. They're indigenous to it.
The English word Jew continues Middle English Gyw, Iewe, a loan from Old French giu, earlier juieu, ultimately from Latin Iudaeum. The Latin Iudaeus simply means Judaean, "from the land of Judaea". The Latin term itself, like the corresponding Greek, is a loan from Aramaic, corresponding to Hebrew: Yehudi (sg.); Yehudim (pl.), in origin the term for a member of the tribe of Judah or the people of the kingdom of Judah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Name_and_etymology
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMore like that is why the British Empire chose that area.
If Israel were in Baja Los Aztecas would be harassing them instead of Palestinians. There is no unclaimed land.
Jews come from the Palestine/Israel region. Israel was first founded 1,500 BCE. That's why they chose that area. They're indigenous to it.
The English word Jew continues Middle English Gyw, Iewe, a loan from Old French gi ...[text shortened]... people of the kingdom of Judah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Name_and_etymology
When the Jews think it is god's will to steal land because they came from there so very long ago it is easier to accomplish the British Imperialist plan.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou act as if the British had nothing to do with it. As if the British didn't promote Zionism to serve their own interests.
Are tinfoil hats kosher?
I guess Empires don't do that sort of thing. They are just big charities spreading the good.
You are incredibly naive. Borderline stupid.
20 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's understandable, though, that they might not have been willing to bank on "doing just fine" in Europe in 1945.
Why would they have to go to the English-speaking world? The jews that have remained here after WW2 have been doing just fine.
21 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, it's better to start threads to criticize dead Russian-American authors for incidents that happened many decades ago.
Are pro-Israel zealots so desperate for windmills to flail at that they still have to continue to criticize a 90+ year old retired journalist?
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat exactly IS the age limit beyond which a person can not be criticized for going on a national TV show (which no one watches) to talk about politics?
Are pro-Israel zealots so desperate for windmills to flail at that they still have to continue to criticize a 90+ year old retired journalist?
Just wondering what the rules are, that's all.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by TheBloopThe question is why bother to get so worked up over statements that Helen Thomas makes. The person who made the OP has made several threads already about her other comments (he apparently wishes her dead for making them) but she is not a person in any type of position of power. She seems to be a convenient punching bag for pro-Israel zealots like sh76, but she hardly is a person of any real importance.
What exactly IS the age limit beyond which a person can not be criticized for going on a national TV show (which no one watches) to talk about politics?
Just wondering what the rules are, that's all.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't wish Helen Thomas dead. On the contrary, the more she opens her mouth the more she exposes herself. Let her, I say. The more the better. The OP title was not a wish that she die but an observation that all the condemnations in the world don't seem capable of making her stop spewing anti-Jewish hate.
The question is why bother to get so worked up over statements that Helen Thomas makes. The person who made the OP has made several threads already about her other comments (he apparently wishes her dead for making them) but she is not a person in any type of position of power. She seems to be a convenient punching bag for pro-Israel zealots like sh76, but she hardly is a person of any real importance.
As the longest tenured White House press correspondent and a person who has been an important component of the media's coverage of White House press conferences for decades, I do think she's someone of some importance. She's ss much fair game as, say, oh, Sean Hannity or Ayn Rand, neither of whom have held "any type of position of power" either.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76Sean Hannity and Ayn Rand are (were) morons, it's not like anyone credible cares what they say. I don't really see the significance of this one anti-semitic journalist who has zero impact on developments in Israel/Palestine.
I don't wish Helen Thomas dead. On the contrary, the more she opens her mouth the more she exposes herself. Let her, I say. The more the better. The OP title was not a wish that she die but an observation that all the condemnations in the world don't seem capable of making her stop spewing anti-Jewish hate.
As the longest tenured White House press correspond ...[text shortened]... an Hannity or Ayn Rand, neither of whom have held "any type of position of power" either.
21 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainI love to bash Brits, but I think you're being unreasonable. What did the British DO? Let us judge them on their actions.
You act as if the British had nothing to do with it. As if the British didn't promote Zionism to serve their own interests.
I guess Empires don't do that sort of thing. They are just big charities spreading the good.
You are incredibly naive. Borderline stupid.