Israel...

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
No I'm talking about Palestine.
This summary is from a different site but it states the exact same thing, independance was promised and then reneged on.

1906 the Zionist congress decided the Jewish homeland should be Palestine.
1914 With the outbreak of World War I, Britain promised the independence of Arab lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, in return for Arab support against Turkey which had entered the war on the side of Germany.
1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized.
1917 The British government issued the Balfour Declaration on November 2, in the form of a letter to a British Zionist leader from the foreign secretary Arthur J. Balfour prmissing him the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
1917-1918 Aided by the Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. The Arabs revolted against the Turks because the British had promised them, in correspondence with Shareef Husein ibn Ali of Mecca, the independence of their countries after the war. Britain, however, also made other, conflicting commitments in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with France and Russia (1916), it promised to divide and rule the region with its allies. In a third agreement, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised the Jews a Jewish "national home" in Palestine .
1918 After WW I ended, Jews began to migrate to Palestine, which was set a side as a British mandate with the approval of the League of Nations in 1922. Large-scale Jewish settlement and extensive Zionist agricultural and industrial enterprises in Palestine began during the British mandatory period, which lasted until 1948.
1919 The Palestinians convened their first National Conference and expressed their opposition to the Balfour Declaration. 1920 The San Remo Conference granted Britain a mandate over Palestine. and two years later Palestine was effectively under British administration. Sir Herbert Samuel, a declared Zionist, was sent as Britain's first High Commissioner to Palestine. 1922 The Council of the League of Nations issued a Mandate for Palestine.
1929 Large-scale attacks on Jews by Arabs rocked Jerusalem. Palestinians killed 133 Jews and suffered 116 deaths. Sparked by a dispute over use of the Western Wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque ( this site is sacred to Muslims, but Jews claimed it is the remaining of jews temple all studies shows clearly that the wall is from the Islamic ages and it is part of al-Aqsa Mosque). But the roots of the conflict lay deeper in Arab fears of the Zionist movement which aimed to make at least part of British-administered Palestine a Jewish state.
1936 The Palestinians held a six-month General Strike to protest against the confiscation of land and Jewish immigration.
1937 Peel Commission, headed by Lord Robert Peel, issued a report. Basically, the commission concluded, the mandate in Palestine was unworkable There was no hope of any cooperative national entity there that included both Arabs and Jews. The commission went on to recommend the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a neutral sacred-site state to be administered by Britain.
1939 The British government published a White Paper restricting Jewish immigration and offering independence for Palestine within ten years. This was rejected by the Zionists, who then organized terrorist groups and launched a bloody campaign against the British and the Palestinians.
1947 Great Britain decided to leave Palestine and called on the United Nations (UN) to make recommendations. In response, the UN convened its first special session and on November 29, 1947, it adopted a plan calling for partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international zone under UN jurisdiction.

http://israelifacts.blogspot.com/2007/03/breif-history-of-israel.html

Now You may call the below what you want but it certainly looks like a plan to take over a certain parcel of land. 200 influential (rich) men meeting with the thought of having a homeland just for Jews, what is the proper word, ah yes, house hunting.

First Congress - Basle [Basel], 1897

The first Zionist Congress was to have taken place in Munich, Germany. However, due to considerable opposition by the local community leadership, both Orthodox and Reform, it was decided to transfer the proceedings to Basle, Switzerland.
Theodore Herzl acted as chairperson of the Congress which was attended by some 200 participants. The major achievements of the Congress were its formulation of the Zionist platform, known as the Basle program and the foundation of the World Zionist Organization. The program stated,
"Zionism seeks for the Jewish people a publicly recognized legally secured homeland in Palestine."​
This gave clear expression to Herzl's political Zionism in contrast with the settlement orientated activities of the more loosely organized Hibbat Zion. Herzl was elected President of the Zionist organization and an Inner Actions Committee and a Greater Actions Committee were elected to run the affairs of the movement between Congresses.
In his diary Herzl wrote,
“Were I to sum up the Basle Congress in a word - which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly - it would be this: At Basle I founded the Jewish State.”
Second Congress - Basle, 1898

In the face of a more active opposition to Zionism from amongst various Jewish leaders, Herzl called on the Congress to “conquer the communities.” In essence, this was a demand that the Zionist movement focus its attention not only on political activity for Palestine but also on work within the Jewish communities. At this Congress, the foundations were laid for the establishment of the Jewish Colonial Trust, a financial body aimed at the development of Palestine. It was also at this Congress that a group of Socialists first appeared demanding representation within the Zionist leadership.
Third Congress - Basle, 1899

Herzl opened the Third Congress with a report on his meetings with Kaiser William II in Constantinople and Jerusalem. Despite the fact that these meetings produced no practical results, the fact that they took place was of considerable symbolic value.
The Congress spent a good deal of its time discussing the political dimensions of Zionism although opposition to this orientation was voiced by those who thought that the more practical efforts of settlement should be encouraged. In a debate on the Jewish Colonial Trust, Congress decided that its funds could only be spent in Palestine or Syria.
Whilst delegates were increasingly concerned with what was called the question of culture—the Zionist attempt at a national/ethnic identity for the Jews—Herzl was preoccupied with the political matters at hand. Some historians argue that Herzl was not so much disinterested in these cultural matters as he was frightened of their potential to split the infant movement.
Fourth Congress - London, 1900

The Congress was held in London in order to affect public opinion in that country in sympathy with the Zionist idea. The Congress met in an atmosphere of growing concern over the situation facing Rumanian Jewry where many thousands had been forced to leave and the remainder were subject to persecution. Although this appeared to provide further evidence of the need for a “Charter,” Herzl had nothing substantial to offer that might bring succor to these Jews.
On the cultural question, the religious Zionists led by Rabbi Yitzhak Ya’akov Reines demanded that the Zionist movement restrict itself solely to political matters. The Congress also discussed the problems of the Jewish workers in Palestine and the question of a national Jewish sports movement.
Fifth Congress - Basle, 1901

Herzl reported to the Congress of his meeting with Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Turkey and of the progress of the Jewish Colonial Trust. These achievements did not satisfy all the delegates, in particular those associated with the recently formed Democratic Faction.
The group led by Leo Motzkin, Martin Buber and Chaim Weizmann called on the Zionist movement to adopt a program of Hebrew culture and a greater degree of democracy within the organization. The more concrete achievement of the Congress was the establishment of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) which was to raise funds for land purchase in Palestine.
Sixth Congress - Basle, 1903

At the Fifth Zionist Congress, a resolution was adopted determining that the next Congress would take place every alternate year and not —as had been the practice—annually.
In his opening speech, Herzl detailed the efforts to secure a Charter on behalf of the movement, but these attempts were increasingly desperate as the situation of the Jews, particularly following the Kishinev pogrom, deteriorated. This gave rise to various temporary solutions such as the “El Arish” project, which was negotiated with the British statesmen, Joseph Chamberlain and Lord Landsdowne.
After the collapse of this scheme, the British then offered Herzl the possibility of an autonomous Jewish settlement in East Africa (commonly known as the Uganda project). Herzl called on the Congress to give serious consideration to the plan, even though he appreciated that it could not replace Palestine as the Jewish Homeland. In the lively debate that followed, Max Nordau, Herzl's major confidante, argued that “Uganda” would be a night refuge. Despite considerable opposition and a demonstrative walk-out by the Russian Zionists, the delegates agreed by 295 in favor, 178 against and 98 abstentions that a committee should be dispatched to examine the possibility of Jewish settlement in East Africa.
Among other matters discussed at the Congress was a report by Franz Oppenheimer on the possibility of cooperative settlement on the land, a program that was to have influence on the creation of various settlements in Palestine a few years later. This was to be Herzl's last Congress: he died a year later.
Seventh Congress - Basle, 1905

The Congress opened with a eulogy on Herzl by Nordau. Immediately thereafter, debate resumed on the question of settlement outside Palestine. The Congress heard the report of the Commission that had been sent to East Africa which had concluded that “Uganda” was unsuitable for mass Jewish settlement and proceeded to vote against a national home anywhere except Palestine and its immediate vicinity. The Territorialists, led by Israel Zangwill left the Congress in protest and established the Jewish Territorial Association.
The Congress also discussed practical work in Palestine e.g. giving support to agricultural settlements and industrial activity. Although Nordau seemed the natural choice to succeed Herzl as President of the Zionist Organization, he refused and instead David Wolfsohn assumed this position. The Executive of the WZO moved its offices from Vienna to Cologne.
Eighth Congress - The Hague, 1907

The decision to hold the Congress in the Hague was based on the knowledge that the Second International Peace Conference was to be held in that city.
At the Congress the major debate concerned the conflicting approaches of the practical and political Zionists.
The political Zionists demanded that a charter be secured before practical work began in Palestine, while the practical Zionists argued that without substantial settlement there was little hope of gaining legal sanction from one or more of the Great Powers.
In the event, the movement supported a number of practical efforts and established a Palestine branch of the WZO to be headed by Arthur Ruppin.
However, the adoption of synthetic Zionism—a synthesis of the two positions—became the clarion call of not a few delegates, their major spokesperson being Chaim Weizmann.
Ninth Congress - Hamburg, 1909

At this Congress, Wolffsohn and Nordau expressed the hope that following the Young Turk Revolution, Zionist endeavors might enjoy a change in fortune.
In the meantime, the Congress once again divided over the question of how to implement the Zionist program. The practical lobby accused Wolffsohn of focusing on political activity and his executive—of judging projects by their commercial value. This rival leadership included Menahem Ussishkin, Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow who gained support from the representatives of the workers' movement in Palestine.
Tenth Congress - Basle, 1911

This Congress has often been described as the Peace Congress because it finally laid to rest the debate between the practical and political Zionists with Synthetic Zionism becoming the operational mode of the movement.
Considerable attention was given to the question of practical work in Palestine as well as Hebrew culture. Shlomo Kaplansky raised the question of Zionist relations with the Arabs and, for the first time, a session of the Congress was held in Hebrew.
David Wolfsohn was succeeded as President by Otto Warburg, a German Jew and distinguished scientist who was identified with the practical Zionist camp. The WZO moved its headquarters from Cologne to Berlin.
Eleventh Congress - Vienna, 1913

The Congress spent much of its time discussing settlement activities in Palestine and the work of the organization's office in Jaffa. Nordau, who had objected to this deviation from Herzl's approach was conspicuous by his absence.
Weizmann and Ussishkin won the support of Congress for the establishment of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. However, twelve years were to pass before the facility opened.
Twelfth Congress - Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary), 1921

This was, of course, the first Congress to be held after the First World War, during which time the Zionist movement had won British support for its endeavors to create a Jewish national home in Palestine (the Balfour Declaration). The Congress passed resolutions welcoming the decision of the principal Allied Powers to grant the mandate for Palestine to Britain and encouraged the ratification of the Mandate by the League of Nations.
With the end of the war, the defeat of Germany and the success of the London branch of the movement, it was clear that the leadership there would be rewarded. Weizmann became President of the WZO and Sokolow President of the executive.
The Congress discussed the activities and organization of Keren HaYesod, which had been established a year earlier at the London Conference and whose purpose it was to raise funds for the upbuilding of Palestine from among the Jewish communities of the Diaspora.
A further issue discussed at the Congress was the question of Zionism's relations with the Arabs. This matter had become serious as a result of Arab riots in Jerusalem (1920) and in Jaffa (1921). The Congress passed a resolution declaring that Zionism seeks,
“to live in relations of harmony and mutual respect with the Arab people,”
and called on the Executive to achieve a,
“sincere understanding with the Arab people.”
The Congress reflected the growing trend of party and territorial divisions within the Zionist movement. The Executive now met in London and Jerusalem.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/firstcong.html


I actually laughed when I read this statement,
"Anti-Semitism menaces both the poor helpless Jews and the all-powerful Rothschilds. The latter, however, understand very well where the source of the trouble lies: the poverty-ridden Jewish masses are at fault. The Jewish plutocracy abhors these masses, but anti-Semitism reminds it of its kinship to them."
http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=191
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
My apologies, I thought you were disputing that the zionist plan was to buy their way into Palestine.

I didn't realize the Arabs were promised all of the mandate of Palestine. Thanks for that tidbit. Still they did get the vast majority of it, did they not? I'll have to read up on that, I don't know (remember) much about the French and Russian involvement.

I still don't understand why a tiny slice of Palestine for the Jews was such an affront. There has to be some room for compromise among people who "lived peacefully together for generations", regardless of British (Edit: and UN) meddling, one would think.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
A couple of massacres and the 'good will' kind of vanishes.1948 was a busy year.
http://www.palestinehistory.com/issues/massacre/masslist.htm

How do you think things would go over here if the Courts decided that since most treaties were broken that Native North Americans were the Gov now in Canada and the US?

Back over there, how would you react to being promised independence if you fought for one side in a war and then that promise just vanished, in this case it was worse because your land was given away. Palestinians had no say on who came to live there, almost every country had some type of quotas. Basically the Brits said fuk you, our promises to you don't mean a thing, it is our promises to the Jews (which we make in secret) that we will keep. Who wouldn't be a bit pissed?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That remark reminds me of a post I did several years ago, almost the same subject. Lots of scanned images of actual documents but the person I sent it to rejected it all because it had 'Palestine' in the .com name. She just couldn't get it past her pro-Israel bias that each of those scanned images was an actual Israeli document.
Oh it wasn't the words in the link or anything in what you posted, it was a cursory inspection of the site and the organisation that runs it. I wouldn't suspect you know anything more then what you copied and pasted to support your view, as education bores you. Your words.

I never said conquest doesn't come with some strife, does it not sink in that some Jews had they eye on that land long before WWII and were taking steps to ensure it would become theirs, under any definition that is plotting a conquest of another person's land. So it was not a 'gift from the world for their suffering in WWII'.
Ummm, actually you did. I was the one that dismissed your asinine video due to the comment of there not being much strife in the Palestine region until the Jews showed up. You were the one that disagreed. Please try and keep up.

As for your further silly commentary about 'another persons land'. As a Native I know all to well what it feels like to be a stranger in your country. So I can easily identify with the Jews. As they have been a stranger in theirs for a millennium.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Indeed, there are.



You're talking about Jordan, right? Because I'm sure you're aware that the Balfour Declaration was made in 1917, before the end of WW1, and referred to ALL of the Palestinian mandate....of which the Jews ended up getting about 17%. Which was exactly 17% too much in the Arab view. The British were decidedly biased toward the Arabs after WW1 (you know, the whole Lawrence of Arabia thing and all) to reward them for their help. In fact, the British bent over backwards to tip the scales in the Arabs favour just preceding the war of 1948 by banning Jewish immigration and possession of weapons.

You're off to a good start, but keep reading.

Why stop with Palestine and Jordan? Jews own property in Canada too. Should Canada have been included in creating a Jewish homeland. How would Canadians feel if the UN awarded Zionist Jews 17% of Canada to start their own country? Its only 17%. That sounds fair doesn't it?

Since Jews are getting 17% of Canada, which part should they get? Wouldn't giving them Toronto, Montreal and all the farmland in between be fair? Canada is a huge country. Its not like ethnically cleansing all the land from Toronto to Montreal of non-Jews to build Jewish only colonies would cause undo hardship on Canadians. Look at a map. Canadians can relocate to places like Baker Lake and Yellowknife. Almost no one lives up there. Canada doesn't need Toronto or Montreal to be a viable country. Canada has even more land than Jordan and Palestine to accomodate a Jewish homeland. Giving Zionist Jews all the land from Toronto to Montreal would only be a small percent of Canada and would be a fair division. There must be a reference in a religious document somewhere which could be used to justify awarding Zionists Jews 17% of Canada. That would mean that such a deal would not only be fair, but blessed by God.

Think Canadians would resist that type of plan, even if it was approved by God?

Including Jordan in your calculations is misleading. Few Jews lived or owned property in what is today Jordan. Why stop at just Jordan? Why not factor in other places few Jews live or own property. How about factoring in Antartica? If the UN awarded Zionist Jews only 17% of Palestine, Jordan and Antartica, then Jews would get all of Palestine and Jordan while non-Jews currently living in Jordan and Palestine would have all of Antartica. This scenario based on the same rationale makes relocating millions of people to Antartica sound fair. When the UN divided Palestine, they gave 1/3 of the population 55% of the land which included most large cities and arable land. 2/3 of the population got 45% of the land which consisted of mostly desert. Does that sound fair?

Another obvious problem with the UN's partition plan is that it took land and property from one group of people and gave it to another without consultation or compensation. To be fair, the UN should have only let Zionists build their country on the land they owned. That was far less than 17% of what is today Jordan, Israel and the occupied territories.

In 1947, Jews owned very little of Palestine and almost nothing of Jordan. Yet they were awarded 55% of Palestine and nothing of Jordan (where few lived or owned property).

Here is a UN map of property ownership in Palestine from 1945.
http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

Its the same as this one from Passia




When the UN awarded Zionist Jews land and property which was owned by others without compensation, hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes, property and bank accounts. If you were one of those people, would you regard awarding property which has been in your family for hundreds of years as fair? How about razing villages and grave sites? Look at the maps below. Does it look like the land was divided fairly?



By the time Israel declared independance hundreds of thousands of people had already been forcibly removed at gunpoint by Zionists. Thousands were killed. Many others were raped and tortured. Israel's creation and ongoing expansion is about as fair as armed robbery.

Israel's creation and recognition was about imposing Europe's post WW II Jewish refugee problem on people living Palestine. As a result about 800,000 non-Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area which became Israel. What was fair about that?
 
Last edited:

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Israel's expansion never stopped. Its ongoing. Today what remains of Palestine for the non-Jews resembles very little the original 45% given to 2/3 of the population. Most of the West Bank is inhabited by Jewish settlers living in Jewish only colonies or controlled by Israel. Gaza has become the world's largest prison.

 
Last edited:

einmensch

Electoral Member
Mar 1, 2008
937
14
18
Colpy quoted>>Determined Holocaust denial in the fact of historical evidence indicates a bit of a problem with Jews......

Colpy's evidence is --The Holocaust is an undisputable fact that needs not to be questioned

Just like Germans making soap from Jews could not be questioned.
Colpy give us some proof -you have none --your reply is -Jew Hater that is your whole justification--soon the truth will come out--but of course Auschwitz death books are lies, 6 million Just evaporated--no bones no ashes -but none are needed IT IS FACT--like the Earth is flat

At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for example. 1

And at the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson charged that the Germans used a "newly invented" device to instantaneously "vaporize" 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz "in such a way that there was no trace left of them." 5 No reputable historian now accepts either of these fanciful tales.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/Holocaust/auschwitz-myths_and_facts.htm
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Oh it wasn't the words in the link or anything in what you posted, it was a cursory inspection of the site and the organisation that runs it. I wouldn't suspect you know anything more then what you copied and pasted to support your view, as education bores you. Your words.
Going back to read your previous posts is what I would find boring. Look up anything mentioned on that site, you will find other sites that say exactly the same thing.
Here are some books you should read.
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/05/origins-of-world-war-2.html
(in part)
Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying "Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war". (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says "Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for." (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred." (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
Is all of this merely attributable to antisemitism?
The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.
At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.
According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’
Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc.
Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’
Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5).
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).
The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes ‘For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.’ (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, ‘The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.’ (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).
Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
‘It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
‘To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.’ Other authors agree with this:
"There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).
"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).
"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).

Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (p.267), and "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:
"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." (p 200).
According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose orintenda real threat to Britain or the Empire."
This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.


Ummm, actually you did. I was the one that dismissed your asinine video due to the comment of there not being much strife in the Palestine region until the Jews showed up. You were the one that disagreed. Please try and keep up.

Not much compared to after, would you say there is strife over there for the last 60 years or so.

As for your further silly commentary about 'another persons land'. As a Native I know all to well what it feels like to be a stranger in your country. So I can easily identify with the Jews. As they have been a stranger in theirs for a millennium.
To identify with the Jews you would have to have been removed from North America and then made a come-back. As it is, they lived here and were invaded and then left with a minuscule portion of the worst land, that is what the people of Palestine are going through.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
How do you think things would go over here if the Courts decided that since most treaties were broken that Native North Americans were the Gov now in Canada and the US?

I'm a proponant of Native self rule. I live on treaty land that by rights should belong to the Six Nations, and as such I'd feel much better paying my property taxes to them rather than to the municipality.

Back over there, how would you react to being promised independence if you fought for one side in a war and then that promise just vanished, in this case it was worse because your land was given away.

So Arabs don't enjoy self rule in Arabia today? I don't think the promise exactly "vanished".

Palestinians had no say on who came to live there, almost every country had some type of quotas.

If there was such a country as Palestine, then there might be something to discuss there.

Basically the Brits said fuk you, our promises to you don't mean a thing, it is our promises to the Jews (which we make in secret) that we will keep. Who wouldn't be a bit pissed?

No they didn't, they still got 83% of Palestine. Being "a bit pissed" is worth generations of misery? They need to get over it.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Why stop with Palestine and Jordan? Jews own property in Canada too. Should Canada have been included in creating a Jewish homeland. How would Canadians feel if the UN awarded Zionist Jews 17% of Canada to start their own country? Its only 17%. That sounds fair doesn't it?

Stop being so obtuse, you know very well why, we've been through it a dozen times.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Canada doesn't need Toronto or Montreal to be a viable country. Canada has even more land than Jordan and Palestine to accomodate a Jewish homeland. Giving Zionist Jews all the land from Toronto to Montreal would only be a small percent of Canada and would be a fair division.

Ironically, I have heard Concordia to be declared as "Palestinian Terrirory". Maybe you're on to something. Let's give Montreal to the Palestinians and the world will live in peace from now on.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
If you were one of those people, would you regard awarding property which has been in your family for hundreds of years as fair?

I've been through this with you before too....I AM one of those people. By Palestinian standards, I AM A REFUGEE ( as in Joe the Canadian :lol: )

My family was never compensated for their property being forcibly taken from them, the world doesn't give a rat's spleen that their property was taken from them, and my people didn't teach me to hate and want to kill the people who took their property from them.

Can you imagine such a thing?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I'm a proponant of Native self rule. I live on treaty land that by rights should belong to the Six Nations, and as such I'd feel much better paying my property taxes to them rather than to the municipality.
You would probably also feel much better if the agreements made in the past had actually been honored by the invaders.


So Arabs don't enjoy self rule in Arabia today? I don't think the promise exactly "vanished".
So what happened to the independence promised Palestine.

If there was such a country as Palestine, then there might be something to discuss there.
Try looking up a map of what this references, you can't carve up something that does not exist.
"Palestine partition plan as approved by the United Nations 128th plenary session Nov. 29, 1947

The resolution was approved by the general assembly, 33 votes in favor, 13 votes against, with 10 abstentions. The vote was as follows: voting for approval: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian soviet socialist republic, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, library, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian soviet socialist republic, union of south Africa, union of soviet socialist republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Voting against approval: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstaining from the vote: Argentina, Chile, china, Columbia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, united kingdom, Yugoslavia.

The general assembly,

Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory power to constitute and instruct a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine at the second regular session.

Having constituted a special committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and Having received and examined the report of the special committee (document a/364) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the special committee.

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 august 1948;

Recommends to the united kingdom, as the mandatory power for Palestine, and to all other members of the united nations the adaptation and implementing, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the plan of partition with economic union set out below;

Requests that;

1.The security council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

2.The security council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain the international peace and security, the security council should supplement the authorization of the general assembly by taking measures under articles 39 and 41 of the charter, to empower the united nations commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;

3.The security council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with article 39 of the charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

4.The trusteeship council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan; Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

Appeals to all governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations,

And, Authorizes the secretary general to reimburse travel and subsistence appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the commission by the general assembly.

UN Resolution 181(II) B

The general assembly,

Authorizes the secretary general to draw from the working capital fund a sum not to exceed $2,000,000 for the purposes set forth in the last paragraph of the resolution on the future government of Palestine."

No they didn't, they still got 83% of Palestine. Being "a bit pissed" is worth generations of misery? They need to get over it.
Notice what that % has changed to in the last 60 years? Perhaps if treaty land was reduced by the same amount you might start to get an idea of what has actually happened over there.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
You would probably also feel much better if the agreements made in the past had actually been honored by the invaders.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Try looking up a map of what this references, you can't carve up something that does not exist.

Are you talking to me? Cause it sure doesn't feel like it? :lol:

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it's not a country. I can find Sudetenland on maps too, that doesn't make it a country.

Ironically, Palestine does indeed exist, and was created to alienate the inhabitants of the land....the Jews. :p
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I've been through this with you before too....I AM one of those people. By Palestinian standards, I AM A REFUGEE ( as in Joe the Canadian :lol: )

My family was never compensated for their property being forcibly taken from them, the world doesn't give a rat's spleen that their property was taken from them, and my people didn't teach me to hate and want to kill the people who took their property from them.

Can you imagine such a thing?
They should have taught you how to file a grievance with the courts though, as long as you have the decades it takes to get it to come to a conclusion.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs3-1010/1997rcs3-1010.html

That is 1, how many have there been in the last 100 years?
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Surely there will be at least one who pooh-poohs the declaration from such a useless organization as UN. Israel was the death of UN. Israel has thumbed her nose at every objection by the international community and has been protected by US veto in all condemnations. Trolls ... do your own search for links. These are facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dancing-loon

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
They should have taught you how to file a grievance with the courts though, as long as you have the decades it takes to get it to come to a conclusion.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs3-1010/1997rcs3-1010.html

That is 1, how many have there been in the last 100 years?


LOL yeah I can see Stalin shaking in his boots. :p:p

Hiding behind curtain..."Who's at the door comrad, it it that scary process server again? Tell him I am not here!!" :lol:
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Surely there will be at least one who pooh-poohs the declaration from such a useless organization as UN. Israel was the death of UN. Israel has thumbed her nose at every objection by the international community and has been protected by US veto in all condemnations. Trolls ... do your own search for links. These are facts.

Yeah that's pretty well trodden territory. Funny what proportion of resolutions, vetoed or otherwise, with all the injustice in the world, are directed at Israel. :?:

Also, a great many of the "100's of UN resolutions Israel has not complied with" that you hear about all the time, were actually two way streets - that placed demands on the Palestinians as well, which interestingly, were also not complied with. Like stop blowing up school buses! :p

You don't hear about that often though.

Reminds of the ceasefire in 2006 with Lebanon, how everyone jumped all over Israel for violating for flying a plane over Lebanon or something. Meanwhile Hizbo was non-compliant from the get go, nobody cares, Israel is the non-compliant one. Just makes me laugh. We see how that worked out, eh. Hezbollah being disarmed and all :p

Welcome Iran jr.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Ironically, Palestine does indeed exist, and was created to alienate the inhabitants of the land....the Jews. :p

Actually Israel was never given back to them after their 1st exile. After Neb took them captive they never occupied the land in full (temple and king). The Romans were the military power the last time they were expelled.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Yeah that's pretty well trodden territory. Funny what proportion of resolutions, vetoed or otherwise, with all the injustice in the world, are directed at Israel. :?:

Also, a great many of the "100's of UN resolutions Israel has not complied with" that you hear about all the time, were actually two way streets - that placed demands on the Palestinians as well, which interestingly, were also not complied with. Like stop blowing up school buses! :p

You don't hear about that often though.

Reminds of the ceasefire in 2006 with Lebanon, how everyone jumped all over Israel for violating for flying a plane over Lebanon or something. Meanwhile Hizbo was non-compliant from the get go, nobody cares, Israel is the non-compliant one. Just makes me laugh. We see how that worked out, eh. Hezbollah being disarmed and all :p

Welcome Iran jr.

Ohh ... nobody said Palestinians weren't exempt from the Mid-east nonsense. What they are denied is recognition (which means there could be NO demands placed upon them anyway) even if Palestine is there in big bold letters on every regional map drawn prior to 1948.

Reminds me of a 1974 cease fire where not a MiG was to be seen near - or especially OVER - the no-fly zone, yet ordinance-laden Mirages and Phantoms were a common thing on "rules-apply-to-the-other-guy" flights into Syrian airspace. Sorry, no link for those who choose to believe only what they see on a screen. See - PC's were ten years in the future and it wasn't yet a CNN world.
 
Last edited: