Shame on Canada! re: Propaganda and Canada's Support of Ethnic Cleansing.

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

What the hell is a "defensive tunnel"???????? Were the Hamas planning to flee.....into ISRAEL??????

Jimmy Carter has lost his freaking mind. They were trying to INFILTRATE into Israel, the IDF had little choice but to stomp them.......HAMAS broke the truce, Israel engaged in self-defence.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
C:

A defensive tunnel could be bunker or a tank trap. Hamas obviously has good reason to build underground fortifications in preparation for an Israeli invasion. There are lots of reasons why Hamas might dig holes in the ground besides kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

Regardless, if the tunnel didn't leave Gaza then whatever its purpose, it was not a ceasefire violation. Where is your evidence this tunnel crossed into Israel? Did the Israelis even make such a claim? If the tunnel didn't cross into Israel, then the only Israeli soldiers it could capture are ones inside Gaza violating the ceasefire...

When it comes to US politics, former US president Jimmy Carter's opinion carries more weight than yours.

Jon Stewart regarding this conflict:
YouTube - Stewart Disses Israel - A Little
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Please Earth As One; Think!



It's called DEMOCRACY! The PEOPLE of the USA support Israel.....it has nothing to do with lobbies, or PACs, or undue influence in gov't by anyone but the majority of the people.

Deal with it.

Only about 50% of Americans support Israel's actions in Gaza. The rest either disagree or don't know:

Overview: Modest Backing For Israel in Gaza Crisis

Considering how the mainstream US media and all elected politicians unanimously support Israel, that level of support is pretty weak. If the media reported accurately the events regarding this conflict, and politicians could criticize Israel without fear of ending their political careers, I expect few people would support Israel.
 

einmensch

Electoral Member
Mar 1, 2008
937
14
18
Please Colpy think, if that is possible, Carter is very astute
Israel continued to bombard Gaza from ships. The soldier that was killed was on the Gaza side.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
When it comes to US politics, former US president Jimmy Carter's opinion carries more weight than yours.
To Quote Jimmy Carter from the daily show "I am the least informed of any of the living presidents"

Jon Stewart regarding this conflict:
YouTube - Stewart Disses Israel - A Little

Jon Stewart is saddened and disheartened every time people consider him a valid news source, he does fart and pot jokes and comes on after prank calling puppets in his words.

He is to entertain not inform and his greatest sadness is that US media is so terrible at informing that he is taken as a news source.

That being said he is a fairly smart man, but he also never claims to be an expert at these things because thats not his job.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
You obviously don't know much about New Zealand...

Until recently Canadians were far safer than Americans traveling abroad. I'm not so sure that's true any more.

Uh huh, where I do reference new zealand in that?

That kind of inability to pull information from written material is why you are so easily swayed by propaganda.
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
hmm it would be interesting to point out what factual errors exist in the facts as presented on TDS- they are pretty careful to use actual truth for fear of lawsuits from rabid right-wing jag-offs. As for editorializing, well, people are allowed to state their opinion, but if the Daily Show were to show utter falsehoods you can bet there'd have been lawsuits by now- that's why the right-wing loudmouths can only mock him, cos in fact he is NOT full of crap and spin dictated to him by agencies, he calls it like it sure as hell appears to be and that makes ideologues nervous
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
hmm it would be interesting to point out what factual errors exist in the facts as presented on TDS- they are pretty careful to use actual truth for fear of lawsuits from rabid right-wing jag-offs. As for editorializing, well, people are allowed to state their opinion, but if the Daily Show were to show utter falsehoods you can bet there'd have been lawsuits by now- that's why the right-wing loudmouths can only mock him, cos in fact he is NOT full of crap and spin dictated to him by agencies, he calls it like it sure as hell appears to be and that makes ideologues nervous

Oh Give Me a BREAK!!!!

The host himself has said over and over: the show is ENTERTAINMENT, NOT NEWS!!!!

I like the show.....but no one should take it seriously.....
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Dion, Harper and Kent are agents of Zionist occupation.So are Bush, Obama and McCain.

From the link above...listed by einsmench and DB.......

No guys, not blocked, the Great Jew Conspiracy failed here....

As for the above, a quote, to which one needs reply....yeah, Right.:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: we should take these guys seriously.......
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
That would be 394,000 Jews in Canada, or about 1.2%.:roll:

In the USA, about 2%.

World wide, less than 14 million.

Influence isn't about numbers, its about power. The Zionist lobby has power. Enough power to control what the BBC reports. Its probably the same here in Canada and the US:

How and why the BBC is not impartial
Alan Hart, formerly an ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent, author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.
DATELINE: 17/2/09

In the light of the BBC’s refusal to give air-time to the Disaster Emergency Committee’s Gaza appeal, and even if it changes its mind before this article is published, it really is time for an open and honest debate about what, really, determines the corporation’s editorial decision-making on matters to do with Israel.

On 23rd January, the first on-air words of Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler to Caroline Thomson, the BBC’s Chief Operating Officer, were, “This looks as if you are just scared of the Israelis” (for which read the lobby of supporters of Israel right or wrong, and which should properly be called the Zionist lobby not the Israel lobby because it doesn’t speak for all Israelis let alone all Jews).

There is truth in what Gavin Esler said even if he was only being properly provocative, but it needs to be unpacked. Caroline Thomson’s initial justification for the refusal to give air-time to DEC’s appeal was the need to “avoid compromising public confidence in the impartiality of the corporation”. A day later this was qualified a bit. Interviewed on the BBC’s World TV News, she said it was important not to endanger the trust of “certain parts of the audience”. (My emphasis added).

That implies, surely, that the BBC has identified or is aware of a particular and quantifiable part of its audience which would accuse the BBC of having compromised its impartiality if it gave air-time to DEC’s appeal. So which part? Caroline Thomson could not have meant Britain’s Muslim community, in number about two million, because it is rightly outraged by the BBC’s decision. I think it’s more than reasonable to presume that she was meaning - without wanting to say so - Britain’s Jewish community, in number about 300,000 or less, and by no means of one view. (The views of Britain’s Jewish citizens range all the way from total and unquestioned support for Israel right or wrong to condemnation of Israel as a terrorist state).

As I listened to Caroline Thomson, I was reminded of a most revealing statement made to me three years ago by Professor Greg Philo, the research director of Glasgow University’s universally respected Media Unit, and the team leader of its two-year study of BBC and ITN news coverage of what has come to be called the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The unit’s report was an indictment of the BBC’s lack of impartiality which included a “strong emphasis on Israeli perspectives” and an “absence” of Palestinian perspectives.

After the unit’s findings were published in book form - Bad News From Israel - I was sitting alone with Greg in his university office. At a point he told me what had been said to him by an editor of BBC 1’s flagship 10.0pm main news programme. Greg prefaced his revelation by quoting the BBC employee as saying to him, “If you quote me by name, I’ll deny it.” Here’s what the editor told Greg (my emphasis added): “We live in fear of the incoming call from the Israelis. When it comes, we ask ourselves only two questions. From what level did it come - from the Israeli embassy press office, from the ambassador himself or the government in Israel? To what level in the corporation did the call go - to our immediate superiors, to the director general or the chairman?”

At the time Greg was speaking to me in confidence but later that evening he shared a public platform with me and on it he repeated what the BBC news editor had said to him. And that freed me to quote him. So why does the BBC live in fear of incoming calls from Israelis (for which read callers who are part of, or are activated by, the Zionist lobby)? If the BBC was a commercial organisation in the sense of being dependent for most if not all of its income on revenue generated by the selling of air-time for advertising, it would fear punishment in the form of a withdrawal of advertising if the Zionist lobby was offended too much by the corporation’s reporting. (This is, in fact, the fear that almost all newspapers and commercial broadcasting organizations in the Western world have to live with). But the BBC is not a commercial organisation in the sense above. The real problem at the BBC is what is known as HF, the hassle factor, and its consequences.

As all BBC staff who have anything to do with the corporation’s Middle East coverage know, a report that offends supporters of Israel right or wrong generates a highly organised campaign of protest and abuse including false charges of anti-Semitism. Such campaigns can result in many thousands of e-mails, letters and telephone calls, usually directed from two or three places. This intimidation, and the wish to minimise controversy if it can’t avoid it, has resulted in BBC news and management executives opting for an interpretation of what might be called the balance and fairness doctrine which, in effect, makes its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict partial and pro-Israel.

In principle the idea of balance - equal time for both sides - is fine, but it becomes a nonsense when one side is allowed to go on telling obvious propaganda lies without being challenged by the known facts. I’ll give just one of very many examples to make the point. Israel’s line, asserted time after time by its official military and political spin doctors, was that Hamas broke the cease-fire and was therefore responsible for the war. Hamas did not break the cease-fire. Israel did, on 4 November. Two of Israel’s newspapers - Ha’aretz and Yediot Ahronot - are among the prime sources of that truth. (Despite the fact of Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, collective punishment in all but name and a crime against humanity, Hamas not only kept the cease-fire until provoked by Israel, it was also, again contrary to Israel’s assertions, ready and willing to re-new the cease-fire on condition that Israel ended the blockade).

Israel’s spin doctors were not challenged by the facts of this particular matter (and many others) because BBC correspondents have red lines drawn for them by management - red lines that, if crossed, would bring the wrath of the Zionist lobby upon the BBC. (Governments, including the one in Washington D.C., are frightened of offending the Zionist lobby too much, so it’s not surprising that the BBC is frightened, too).

The BBC’s decision-makers need to understand that there is much more to balance and fairness than “one side says this and the other side says that”. The truth, when it can be established, does matter, and BBC reporters ought to be allowed to tell it, even when doing so offends supporters of Israel right or wrong.

The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63

Those maps are patently false. 100% utter trash.

They conveniently leave out the Egyptians and Jordanian claims, which is fine if you want it to be "arab versus jewish", the problem with that is it leaves out the conquered and then returned Sinai (once peace was declared).

But you are claiming Jewish VS Palestinian, which causes the problem that in 1946 they were the same damn thing.

Jewish Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians. So the solution in that map is that all public land belongs to Palestinians, by which your map, excludes Jewish Palestinians as having any part. Apparently despite living there as long as anyone else (even if you don't buy the longer stuff) they are not actually citizens of Palestine and had no right to any share of public land.

Notice also your map blatantly lies that Jerusalem was part of the UN plan to belong to Palestinians, it also conveniently forgot that Jerusalem was Majority Jewish.

Apparently Jewish land is Palestinian land, if its Jerusalem, otherwise Jews aren't Palestinians.





Notice there is no palestinian Land, No Gaza and No west bank. Just Jordan and Egypt. And Notice how Egypt got their land back when they agreed to recognize Israel and stop fighting, they got every piece back they wanted, they didn't want Gaza.


The kind of revionist crap your map represents is the problem. No one can just be honest, they have to "fudge the truth" and make false implications to get support.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Z, You raise some good points and to some degree you are right. The low resolution maps are inaccurate in minor specific details.

Here is accurate information about who lived where in the various districts of the area which later became Israel and the Occupied territories.

Land ownership by district

The following table shows the land ownership of Palestine by district:
Land ownership of Palestine by district as of 1945DistrictArab ownedJewish ownedPublic and otherAcre87%3%10%Beersheba15%<1%85%Beisan44%34%22%Gaza75%4%21%Haifa42%35%23%Hebron96%<1%4%Jaffa47%39%14%Jenin84%<1%16%Jerusalem84%2%14%Nablus87%<1%13%Nazareth52%28%20%Ramallah99%<1%1%Ramle77%14%9%Safad68%18%14%Tiberias51%38%11%Tulkarm78%17%5%Data from the Land Ownership of Palestine[109]
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a map.


Notice the green majorities?


Jews mostly lived in urban areas and didn't own much rural land. Nor did many Jews have communal rights to communal lands. (But some did) So land ownership tends to skew division against Jews.


The following table gives the demographics of each of the 16 districts of the Mandate.
Demographics of Palestine by district as of 1945DistrictMuslimPercentageJewishPercentageChristianPercentageTotalAcre51,13069%3,0304%11,80016%73,600Beersheba6,27090%5107%2103%7,000Beisan16,66067%7,59030%6803%24,950Gaza145,70097%3,5402%1,3001%150,540Haifa95,97038%119,02047%33,71013%253,450Hebron92,64099%300<1%170<1%93,120Jaffa95,98024%295,16072%17,7904%409,290Jenin60,00098%Negligible<1%1,2102%61,210Jerusalem104,46042%102,52040%46,13018%253,270Nablus92,81098%Negligible<1%1,5602%94,600Nazareth30,16060%7,98016%11,77024%49,910Ramallah40,52083%Negligible<1%8,41017%48,930Ramle95,59071%31,59024%5,8404%134,030Safad47,31083%7,17013%1,6303%56,970Tiberias23,94058%13,64033%2,4706%41,470Tulkarm76,46082%16,18017%3801%93,220Total1,076,78058%608,23033%145,0609%1,845,560Data from the Survey of Palestine[103]
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More accurate than land ownership, but non-Jews were still a clear majority.


By 1945 Jews were a slim majority in some cities and towns, but by district they were still a minority in all but one. If the UN held a referedum and used the first past the poll method to determine which districts should make up Israel, Israel would have been Jaffa.

If the UN would have let all Palestinians vote on whether or not to create a Jewish state, the overwhelming majority would have voted against. Nearly all Palestinians (Jews and Muslims) were against it. Only some of the recent Jewish immigrants were in favor of stealing land from Palestinians. But that minority was heavily armed and supported by powerful international Zionists:

Year Total Muslim Jewish Christian Other 1922752,048589,177(78%)83,790(11%)71,464(10%)7,617(1%)19311,036,339761,922(74%)175,138(17%)89,134(9%)10,145(1%)19451,764,5201,061,270(60%)553,600(31%)135,550(8%)14,100(1%)

Dividing up land between Jews and non-Jews in Jordan was a lot easier.

There were no Jews living in what became Jordan in 1945. To be fair, what percent of the land should 0% of the population get Z?

In 1945, more Jews lived in Japan than in what became Jordan.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
That would be 394,000 Jews in Canada, or about 1.2%.:roll:

In the USA, about 2%.

World wide, less than 14 million.

And how much "power" do they wield in the political process (lobbying, behind the scenes, etc..)? Far in excess of their numbers.

It's not particularly noticable in Canada, but in the US... To quote Ariel Sharon "I own the US"
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
By Districts is a funny way to do it, as districts were redrawn repeatedly to remove Jewish Majorities and prevent Muslim Riots. Even the Ottomans did that.

The Jewish Palestinians had been fighting for independance for years, and they were the vast , vast majority of Jewish people in Palestine.

They had faced centuries of Ethnic Cleansing and were quite adamant (militantly so) about being their own nation.

And of course, the more important sticking point is that none of that Era matters anymore, they are dead and gone for the most part. Their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren live their now, on both sides.