[joseph333]

The bible says so!!

[therber2]

Let's see how fast this goes to the private zone.

Anyways, I have to wonder: what would happen if we threatened to terminate support to Israel? Any ideas?

[Dark Horse]

The Jewish lobby would be up in arms in no time. Political pressure and the familiar double edged sword of 'Holocaust', eternally rehashed for eternal sympathy, on one side, and antisemitic accusations thrown at any critic of Israel/Zionists/Jews. The underlying implication being that any critic, on any point, would surely wish the extermination of all Jews.

I continue to be amazed that America has fallen for this, but that seems to be the case.

Washington is considered to be Israeli-occupied territory (Pat Buchanan), and criticism of Israel is considered political suicide. Obviously, this must end. But how?

[coldhardfacts]

Actually, our policy in the middle east is and always has been even handed. We support an autonomous Jewish state; we support an autonomous Palestinian state. What could be fairer?

The problem is, the Israelis accept this policy, but the Palestinians do not, and have continued a campaign of kidnapping, terrorism, and bombardment. The Arabs, and their allies in this country and around the world, have convinced much of the public that this represents "blind support" for Israel. Of course it doesn't. When the Arabs renounce violence, and decide to make the same kinds of concessions that the Israelis have made, only then will there be a real chance at peace. But don't hold your breath.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

The Jewish lobby would be up in arms in no time. Political pressure and the familiar double edged sword of 'Holocaust', eternally rehashed for eternal sympathy, on one side, and antisemitic accusations thrown at any critic of Israel/Zionists/Jews. The underlying implication being that any critic, on any point, would surely wish the extermination of all Jews.

A familiar canard against those of us who dare to support the Jews. But I defy you to show me accusations of anti-semitism from any credible source made against critics of Israel.

[jon101]

I am not an anti semite and I think we should support the palestinians, because we supported their war and land thefts and they don't listen to reason in a two state solution. Maybe we get lucky and Iran takes care of em anyway.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by jon101

I am not an anti semite and I think we should support the palestinians, because we supported their war and land thefts and they don't listen to reason in a two state solution. Maybe we get lucky and Iran takes care of em anyway.

1. Could you define "land thefts"? Are you ignorant of the meaning of the term or just of the history of the middle east?

2. I don't know you, but not many people who aren't anti-semites would actually want Iran to "take care" of the 6 million or so Jews (AND OTHERS) who live in Israel.

[jon101]

Well is 1949 when the british took their leased palestinian land and allowed the un to create israel, they didn't exactly ask. So thats thievery!

I always opt for the thief getting their hand cut off, so Israel deserves whatever Iran does.

[Willie Bee]

Well, I've gone through my Bible on the off chance I missed it before, but still come up empty with regards to any reference to the United States of America in the good book. Therefore, did the thread starter just use poor grammar and mean 'We' instead of 'Us' and, if so, who are 'We?'

History lesson: True or False - The USA has had an agreement with Saudia Arabia to protect them longer than the USA has recognized Israel as a state.

Once y'all start to actually learn something on your own and begin to get a clue just what America's interests in the Middle East really are, the better off you will be. Would love to stay and chat, but I have to catch a train back to Reality.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by coldhardfacts

A familiar canard against those of us who dare to support the Jews. But I defy you to show me accusations of anti-semitism from any credible source made against critics of Israel.

From the names below, both Ford and Lindbergh have been smeared as antisemitic. And that was then. Things are far more serious now.

The observation that Zionists dominate the American media, government, academia, and Hollywood has been made by many prominent Americans and is easily verifiable by public information.

Henry Ford said this:

"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and "investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the disobedient. Usually a man with a "past" proves the most obedient instrument, but even a good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise him. It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American election campaigns have been so skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him." 33

Charles Lindbergh said this:

"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government." 34

Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan said this:

"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." 35

While a guest on ABC's Face the Nation, William Fulbright - US Senator and Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee - said this before a national television audience:

"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned about the United States' interests." 36

Nationally syndicated columnist and former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan said:

"The United States Congress is Israeli occupied territory." 37

And US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once had the following exchange, which was caught on tape:

GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain".
NIXON: "You believe that?"
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it" 38

The emergence of the internet since Nixon has made this media control stand out even clearer.

For instance, thanks to the internet we know that Larry Silverstein was the brand new leash holder of the Twin Towers when those towers collapsed. He had already owned WTC #7. (virtually nothing about this in mainstream media). And what have the mainstream media told you about the mysterious collapse of WTC#7 and Silverstein's comments about that?

Another example. The media always refer to the Fed as the government. The Fed is a privately held bank that has pretty much hijacked this country. But, again, the media aren't interested in informing the public. Instead, the media participate in keeping up the appearance...

These days, what the media clearly and blatantly omit, is the point where the real story begins.

Iranian leader Ahmadinejad was widely painted as another 'Hitler' by the media during the closing days of the Bush regime? Why? Because Israel wanted the US to attack Iran as well. How obvious does it have to be? Now that this option is off the table, so are the smear tactics against Ahmadinejad.

It is so easy to make people believe exactly what you want them to believe if you control the media.

Here's another story, this one of Israeli spying operation at the level of US government, that is all but ignored in the media. http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11695

It goes on and on and on.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

From the names below, both Ford and Lindbergh have been smeared as antisemitic. And that was then. Things are far more serious now.



The emergence of the internet since Nixon has made this media control stand out even clearer.

For instance, thanks to the internet we know that Larry Silverstein was the brand new leash holder of the Twin Towers when those towers collapsed. He had already owned WTC #7. (virtually nothing about this in mainstream media). And what have the mainstream media told you about the mysterious collapse of WTC#7 and Silverstein's comments about that?

Another example. The media always refer to the Fed as the government. The Fed is a privately held bank that has pretty much hijacked this country. But, again, the media aren't interested in informing the public. Instead, the media participate in keeping up the appearance...

These days, what the media clearly and blatantly omit, is the point where the real story begins.

Iranian leader Ahmadinejad was widely painted as another 'Hitler' by the media during the closing days of the Bush regime? Why? Because Israel wanted the US to attack Iran as well. How obvious does it have to be? Now that this option is off the table, so are the smear tactics against Ahmadinejad.

It is so easy to make people believe exactly what you want them to believe if you control the media.

Here's another story, this one of Israeli spying operation at the level of US government, that is all but ignored in the media. http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11695

It goes on and on and on.

WOW. I mean WOW.

You made the statement that anyone who attacks Israel is labeled as being anti-semitic. And your prime examples are Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh neither of whom, as far as I know, ever made a single statement about Israel. I will grant you, anyone who categorizes all Jews as greedy or venal or evil, or thought that the US should have supported Hitler, may well be labeled as anti-semitic. Gee - I wonder why? But you - or I should say any RATIONAL person - has no basis therefore to conclude that criticism of Israel, or our policy with regard thereto, is included in that criticism.

The rest of your post is equally puzzling. What does Larry Silverstein have to do with Israel? What does the Fed have to do with Israel? And, any RATIONAL person would conclude from Pat Buchanan's statements that HE is the one doing the name calling. I mean, if someone happens to disagree with him about our policy regarding the middle east, they are being controlled by the Jews?

As for Iran, Ahmadinijead SAID he wanted to destroy Israel and that he questioned the existence of the holocaust. If anyone's doing the smearing, it's him. And, as far as I know, we haven't attacked Iran. In fact, Obama has been extremely conciliatory toward them.

And as for the spying, one wonders why, if the Israelis are as much in control of our Government as people like you believe, they bother to arrest their own spies? Why do they have to spy on us in the first place??

Sensible people can disagree rationally about our middle east policy or the rightness or wrongness of Israel's actions without resorting to name calling. This post proves that you cannot.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by jon101

Well is 1949 when the british took their leased palestinian land and allowed the un to create israel, they didn't exactly ask. So thats thievery!

I always opt for the thief getting their hand cut off, so Israel deserves whatever Iran does.

What the f*!k are you talking about? The British took control of the area known as Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman Empire following WWI. They weren't "leasing" the land from the Palestinians. There were both Jews and Arabs living legally in the area. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 divided the land equally between the two groups, but England never followed through on the promise. What the Jews were finally given, by the UN Mandate of 1948 after 6 million of them were slaughtered, was roughly 10% of what was in the original Declaration. Immediately, the Arabs tried to steal back this small piece of land FROM THEM - not the other way around. Subsequent attempts at annihilating Israel were made in 1967 (when the Jews, in a DEFENSIVE war, took control of what is now referred to as the "occupied territories") and 1973.

Maybe you should spend a little less time ranting and a little more time reading.

[jon101]

Nice try, but the whole process started out as a land lease where brittain had the land, and the lease came to an end. The palestinians were then robbed of their land by the UN and the JEWS began the holocaust on the palestinians all over land. Too bad they didn't stand up to hitler like they are the poor palestinians.
In 1948 the UN created the state of Israel with property left over from that land lease.
Then the JEWS like the thieves they are stole as much land from the palestinians as it could.
Today we outfit the JEWS with guns, tanks, aircraft, and more, at your expense, all to keep our theft from being reversed. The UN was wrong to give away land that didn't belong to it, and Israel will get what it deserves.

[jon101]

BTW let me steal from you under the guise of the UN and see what you call it!

[jon101]

Britain boycotts tycoon over Jewish settlements
British embassy not to move into building owned by supporter of settlements illegally built on Palestinian land.

TEL AVIV - The British embassy in Israel has scrapped plans to move into a building owned by an Israeli magnate because of his support for illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, the press said on Wednesday.
The embassy had planned to lease a floor in a high-rise office tower owned by Africa-Israel, a company belong to Lev Leviev.
But the plans sparked controversy because Leviev's company is engaged in construction in several settlements in the West Bank, one of the main obstacles to a Middle East peace deal and considered illegal under international law.
"Ambassador Tom Phillips requested details from Africa-Israel about the nature of its activities in the settlements, and a week ago, the British embassy in Tel Aviv received the information. As a result, plans to move into the tower were frozen," said the Haaretz daily.
Officials at the embassy told the daily the decision "stemmed from the fact that Africa-Israel's response regarding its involvement in settlement activity failed to assuage Britain's concerns."
The 52-year-old Leviev has been called by Forbes magazine "the largest cutter and polisher of diamonds on the planet" and worth an estimated 4.5 billion dollars in 2008.
Born in Uzbekistan in the former Soviet Union, Leviev immigrated to Israel in 1971. The father of nine recently moved with his wife to London's Hampstead neighbourhood.
Jewish settlements are illegal under international law because they are built on Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation since 1967.

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by jon101

Nice try, but the whole process started out as a land lease where brittain had the land, and the lease came to an end. The palestinians were then robbed of their land by the UN and the JEWS began the holocaust on the palestinians all over land. Too bad they didn't stand up to hitler like they are the poor palestinians.
In 1948 the UN created the state of Israel with property left over from that land lease.
Then the JEWS like the thieves they are stole as much land from the palestinians as it could.
Today we outfit the JEWS with guns, tanks, aircraft, and more, at your expense, all to keep our theft from being reversed. The UN was wrong to give away land that didn't belong to it, and Israel will get what it deserves.

Oh, the beauty of the internet, where any and every fruitcake can dream up any fantasies they please and present them as fact. And there's always some ignorant sucker eager to believe whatever they want to believe.

Not that you'll bother to read it, since it doesn't fit in with your self delusional view of history, but here's a summation of how the British gained control of the area known as Palestine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_a...stine_Campaign

I know, I know, the Jews control Wikipedia....

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by jon101

Britain boycotts tycoon over Jewish settlements
British embassy not to move into building owned by supporter of settlements illegally built on Palestinian land.

TEL AVIV - The British embassy in Israel has scrapped plans to move into a building owned by an Israeli magnate because of his support for illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, the press said on Wednesday.
The embassy had planned to lease a floor in a high-rise office tower owned by Africa-Israel, a company belong to Lev Leviev.
[font=arial]But the plans sparked controversy because Leviev's company is engaged in construction in several settlements in the West Bank, one of the main obstacles to a Middle East peace deal and considered illegal under international law.[/FON
"Ambassador Tom Phillips requested details from Africa-Israel about the nature of its activities in the settlements, and a week ago, the British embassy in Tel Aviv received the information. As a result, plans to move into the tower were frozen," said the Haaretz daily.
Officials at the embassy told the daily the decision "stemmed from the fact that Africa-Israel's response regarding its involvement in settlement activity failed to assuage Britain's concerns."
The 52-year-old Leviev has been called by Forbes magazine "the largest cutter and polisher of diamonds on the planet" and worth an estimated 4.5 billion dollars in 2008.
Born in Uzbekistan in the former Soviet Union, Leviev immigrated to Israel in 1971. The father of nine recently moved with his wife to London's Hampstead neighbourhood.
Jewish settlements are illegal under international law because they are built on Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation since 1967.

And how does this prove that Israel was created as a result of land stolen from Arabs?

[jon101]

Simple the land didn't belong to the UN and was arbitrarily given to the JEWS because they are a weak race unable to defend themselves against the Nazis.

[jon101]

Historian > Timeline of U.S. Diplomatic History > 1945-1952 Creation of Israel, 1948
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day. Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.
Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.
Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.
Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State's endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.

[jon101]

Right from the State Departments Website (and they support that Israeli trash)

[coldhardfacts]

Originally Posted by jon101

Right from the State Departments Website (and they support that Israeli trash)

You are obviously so stupid that you don't understand that the very things you post contradict your own points! There is nothing in this summary that even implies that the British were "leasing" the land from Palestine, or that the founding of the state of Israel was illegal. True, there was robust debate at the time of Israel's founding as to whether the US should have supported its creation, but we ultimately decided to comply with the internationally accepted Palestine mandate. It would be comical if there weren't so many morons like yourself in the world - too bad for you that Mr. VanBrunn beat you to the punch.

In any case, I'm through wasting my time responding to idiots and bigots who are too ignorant and intellectually lazy to actually try to learn anything about a subject and instead would rather rely on their own delusional prejudices. So post away. Fortunately, at least some of the folks who read this forum can think for themselves and will understand the posts of people like yourself and Dark Horse for what they really are.

I'm just glad that both of you are also gamblers, like your hero David Duke. Makes it alot easier for those of us with half a brain to be successful at it.

[Dark Horse]

Coldhardfacts, you're rather predictable, so I challenged you to connect the dots. I didn't think it would be that hard, but clearly I was wrong. If you want things spelled out for you, the mainstream media will do just fine.

[jon101]

Too bad ignorant asses like you think they know everything Coldhardfag.
The article not only implies the British had land interests its true.
Your just to dumb and young to acknowledge the facts of Israels creation.
I don't care if your a moron, and want to believe your jew buddies.

[jon101]

Prior to the end of World War I, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. The British, under General Allenby, defeated the Turkish forces in 1917 and occupied Palestine and Syria. The land was administered by the British for the remainder of the war. The British military administration ended starvation with the aid of food supplies from Egypt, successfully fought typhus and cholera epidemics and significantly improved the water supply to Jerusalem. They reduced corruption by paying the Arab and Jewish judges higher salaries. Communications were improved by new railway and telegraph lines.
The United Kingdom was granted control of Palestine by the Peace Conference of Versailles which established the League of Nations in 1919 and appointed Herbert Samuel, a former Postmaster General in the British cabinet who was instrumental in drafting the Balfour Declaration, as its first High Commissioner in Palestine. During World War I, the British had made two promises regarding territory in the Middle East. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British and Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.
The British had, in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence previously promised the Hashemite family lordship over most land in the region in return for their support in the Great Arab Revolt during World War I.
In 1920 at the Conference of San Remo held at San Remo, Italy, the League of Nations mandate over Palestine was assigned to Britain. This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan. The population of this area was approx. 750,000 (11% Jewish). It was multi-ethnic but spoke mainly Arabic and was largely Muslim in faith. Because of their European origin most Jews spoke Yiddish rather than Hebrew. It contained a significant Bedouin population (approx. 270,000), and substantial groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs (many of them were of the 1,000,000 refugees who fled west after the Hashemite Hejaz - Saudi Nejd war).
In June 1922 the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including: "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", and "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine".
The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Many articles of the document specified actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status. However, it was also stated that in the large, mostly arid, territory to the east of the Jordan River, then called Transjordan, Britain could 'postpone or withold' application of the provisions dealing with the 'Jewish National Home'. A government under the Hashimite Emir Abdullah who had just been displaced from ruling the Hejaz was soon established in 'Transjordan'. In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved on 11 September. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transjordan remained under British control until 1946.
In 1923 Britain transferred a part of the Golan Heights to the French Mandate of Syria, in exchange for the Metula region.
Palestinian Arab opposition to Jewish immigration

During the 1920s, 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine, and 6,000 non-Jewish immigrants did so as well. Jewish immigration was controlled by the General Federation of Jewish Labour, which selected between applicants on the grounds of their political creed. Land purchased by Jewish agencies was leased on the condition that it be worked only by Jewish labour, and that the lease should not be held by non-Jews.
Initially Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to markedly increase, to much Arab resentment.
There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership which led to violent attacks against the Jewish population. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jews of the kibbutzim. The Arabic speakers prior to World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict. The olive tree is particularly important as it can remain productive for over 1,000 years.
The British government put limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine, which were controversial, particularly in the latter years of British rule. Jewish immigration was allowed only up to a certain quota. Both Arabs and Jews disliked this policy, each side for its own reasons. Tensions led to widespread violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1921, 1929 and 1936-1939. The 1929 disturbances were primarily violent attacks by 'Arabs' on Jews (see Hebron). For 1936-9 see the following section. In response to numerous Arab attacks on Jewish communities, the Haganah was formed on June 15th, 1920. Beginning in 1936, several Jewish groups such as Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) conducted their own campaign of violence against British and 'Arab' targets.
Great Uprising

Main article: Great Uprising
In 1936 the British proposed a partition between Jewish and Arab areas, which was rejected by both the Arabs and the Zionist Congress.
In 1936-1939 the mandate experienced an upsurge in militant Arab nationalism, that became known as the Great Uprising. The Arabs felt they were being marginalized in their own country, but in addition to non-violent strikes they resorted to terrorism, that left hundreds of Jews dead. The Jewish organization Etzel replied with its own terrorist campaign, with marketplace bombings and other violent acts that killed hundreds. Eventually, the uprising was put down by the British, with the help of the Jewish self-defence organization, Haganah.
The British placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in the remaining land, allegedly contradicting the provision of the Mandate which said "the Administration of Palestine ... shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes." According to the Israeli side, the British had by 1949 allotted over 8500 acres (34 km&sup2) to Arabs, and about 4000 acres (16 km&sup2) to Jews.
The Holocaust

As in most of the Arab world, there was no unanimity amongst the Palestinian Arabs as to their position regarding the combatants in WWII. Many signed up for the British army, but others saw an Axis victory as their best hope of wresting Palestine back from the Zionists and (as they saw it) their British protectors. Some of the leadership went further, especially the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini (by then expelled from Palestine) who on November 25, 1941 formally declared jihad against the Allied Powers and spent much time thereafter in what was then Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia, recruiting Bosnia's Muslims and Kosovo's ethnic Albanians into Nazi SS units. Even though Arabs were only marginally higher than Jews in Nazi racial theory, the Nazis naturally encouraged Arab support as much as possible as a counter to British hegemony throughout the Arab world.
Arabs who opposed the persecution of the Jews by the hands of the Nazis included Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia, and Egyptian intellectuals such as Tawfiq al-Hakim and Abbas Mahmoud al-Arkad (Source: Yad Vashem)
The Holocaust, the killing of approximately 6 million European Jews by the Nazis, had a major effect on the situation in Palestine. During the war, the British forbade entry into Palestine of European Jews escaping Nazi persecution, placing them in detention camps or deporting them to other places such as Mauritius. Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi terrorist gang had advocated an alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, believing these ties would assist the nationalist effort in Eretz Yisrael. The Jewish Irgun gang were implicated in the assassination in Cairo on 6 November 1944 of Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State. Fighting Jewish terrorists on one hand and the Germans in North Africa on the other did not endear the British to the Jews in Palestine at this critical stage of the war.
The British considered it more important to get Arab backing due to their important interests in Egypt and other Arab lands. The influx of Jewish refugees had already caused severe problems in Palestine and the British did not wish to further exacerbate the situation. The British authorities were also concerned about the possibility of German agents entering Palestine on a refugee boat.
Opposing this policy, which continued during and after the war's end, and as a result of their general opposition to British control of Palestine, in 1946 the Zionist rebel group Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people. In a more tempered move, the accepted Jewish leadership decided to begin an illegal immigration (haa'pala) using small boats operating in conditions of secrecy. About 70,000 Jews were brought to Palestine in this way between 1946 and 1947, and a similar number were captured and imprisoned by the British while sailing.
Seeing that the situation was quickly spiraling out of hand, the British announced their desire to terminate their mandate and to withdraw by May 1948. This decision threw Palestine into the middle of civil and ethnic unrest.
Division of Palestine by United Nations

Main article: 1947 UN Partition Plan
The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations, attempted to solve the dispute between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs. The UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from several states. None of the Great Powers were represented, in order to make the committee more neutral. UNSCOP considered two main proposals. The first called for the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states in Palestine, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. The second called for the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. A majority of UNSCOP favoured the first option, although several members supported the second option instead and one member (Australia) said it was unable to decide between them. As a result the first option was adopted and the UN General Assembly largely accepted UNSCOP's proposals, though they made some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal.
The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the Palestinian Arabs, although much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews, had a Jewish majority, or was under state control. Most of the Jews accepted the proposal, in particular the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation. Numerous records indicate the joy of Palestine's Jewish inhabitants as they attended the U.N. session voting for the division proposal. Up to this day, Israeli history books mention November 29 (the date of this session) as the most important date in Israel's acquisition of independence.
Several Jews, however, declined the proposal. Menachem Begin, Irgun's leader, announced: "The partition of the homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. The Land of Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever". His views were publicly rejected by the majority of the nascent Jewish state. Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, claim that this publicly expressed acceptance was mainly propaganda for the consumption of Western nations, and that Begin's statement more accurately reflected the real intentions of the founders of the State of Israel.
On the date of British withdrawal the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel, and the provisional government said that it would grant full civil rights to all within its borders, whether Arab, Jew, Bedouin or Druze. The declaration stated:
We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. Thus, upon creating the state - any inhabitants inside the newly formed State of Israel, whether Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Arabs, became Israeli.
Palestinians consider a far more accurate statement of the intention of the founders of Israel to be that of Chaim Weizmann, who reportedly said:
[Our intention is to] finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English, or America is American. Population of the British Mandate of Palestine

In 1922 the British undertook the first census of the mandate. The population was 752,048, comprising 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups. The 1922 figures may refer to both banks of the Jordan river, at least for the non-Jews. After a second census in 1931, the population had grown to 1,036,339 in total, comprising 761,922 Muslims, 175,138 Jews, 89,134 Christians and 10,145 people belonging to other groups. There were no further censuses but statistics were maintained by counting births, deaths and migration. Some components such as illegal immigration could only be estimated approximately. In 1945 a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups.

[NFLMAN]

Most of you have a shattered view of reality, here is why...


The United States Council on Foreign Relations is staffed with chairmen from the 5 major branches of our media, working closely with our government and the most profitable companies in the world, all of which have offices within the Council. They have the power now to only put what they want you to know in the news, they can make an animation seem like a real event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...eign_Relations



The war on terror is a front for a military campaign to empower Israeli precedence in the Mid East. Nothing more.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by NFLMAN

Most of you have a shattered view of reality, here is why...


The United States Council on Foreign Relations is staffed with chairmen from the 5 major branches of our media, working closely with our government and the most profitable companies in the world, all of which have offices within the Council. They have the power now to only put what they want you to know in the news, they can make an animation seem like a real event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...eign_Relations

That's right.

It's no longer about countries, but about a financial network that spans the globe. If you control the money flow and the media, you control the world. That is what these people are after! Corporate fascism.

Whenever the media look the other way, pay close attention. The CFR would make a huge 'story', but not to these media.

If you control the media, you control what people think about, and, conversely, also what they don't think about. In that light, I think Israel is only a piece on the chess board. It can always be used to stir up conflict, anger and divide people, and keep the attention from the real story.

The real focus, I believe, is on establishing a New World Order. The process is in full swing. Remember that the socalled economic recovery is mostly based on the billions of dollars that the US People were forced to give to banks and financial institutions. They bought stocks with that money. The market went up. Doh! So what happens to the economy if, en masse, these same institutions decide to take profit and sell their stocks? Do people have any idea how easy it is to crash this economy?!

Conspiracy? You better believe it. Isn't it funny how 'conspiracy' has become a word to discredit any focus on what is not in the media? As if writers can sit down to weave complex stories, and chess players to think up intricate structures, but somehow any plan to create something in the real world must be fantasy. (people wouldn't be creating wars just to sell weapons to both sides, would they?).

If there's no conspiracy, why is there a media blackout enforced when the Bilderberg Group meets? They not only want secrecy. They insist on it. It is enforced!

The first thing that Netanyahu said, when asked about 9/11, was: "It's very good." He then semi-corrected himself (although I fail to see the correction). "It's very good for Israel." The whole world was in shock, yet he saw clearly how good it was for Israel. To me 9/11 was a Mossad false flag operation, but I don't expect those who still believe the Bin Laden theory to change their view (for the record, terrorists take credit. That's the whole point of the operation. 'Look what we can do to you'. Bin Laden distanced himself from the attack. The false flaggers must have realized this, so they came up with a video of someone who's supposed to be Bin Laden, but who is clearly not Bin Laden...). Perhaps we can agree on one thing. If, at any point in history, the 9/11 attack on the US is irrevocably established as a Mossad operation, then the US withdraws any and all support for the, in that case, enemy nation of Israel...

I don't give a f*ck about Israel, but I do care about our freedom. And it is under attack, as we speak. There's only one bright hope. 'The pen is mightier than the sword'. The mainstream media were the pen for the longest time, controlling the minds of people. But today there is another pen: the internet, the 'People's media'. Are you going to allow 'them', while they seek to control the internet, to discredit the very stories on the internet that they refuse to cover?! What else are they going to tell you than that such stories are not true, are not worth covering, and that you shouldn't worry about them? Who are you going to believe? The mainstream media? Or independent researchers and academics, who do the work that the media should be doing, and uncover stories that show precisely why the 'propaganda' media refuse to cover them?

9/11, as terrible as it was, is not the main story either. The real story is the financial takeover that is in progress. Once that takeover is completed, we will have lost our freedom. And we didn't even fight for it. We just gave it away, too confused by the bs media to see how it happened. Our elected officials will only be there to keep up appearance. They will answer to unelected bankers and corporate leaders. Sounds familiar? That's because the net is almost closed.

This was foreseen by none other than Abraham Lincoln:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ...... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Now there was a President...

[NFLMAN]

We lost it when Woodrow Wilson signed onto the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and you can't say it any better than he did:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

We have been a polyarchy ever since and only few people realize it.

[Dark Horse]

Oligarchy.

They knew they could never get the votes for the Fed (printing our money), so they sneaked it through in the exact same way that the anti internet gambling legislation was sneaked through. In the dark of night, right before Christmas, with everybody but a few (cronies) left for the holidays.

Until around the 1930's this was talked about. People were aware of it. After that the media control took over. Nowadays the media constantly refer to the Fed as the government. That, right there, hidden in clear view, is the 'conspiracy'. Why on earth are they talking about a private bank, that, against the Constitution, prints our money (which the government should be doing), as if it were the government?! Again, if you want a conspiracy, it's staring you right in the face. And what is happening today in our economy is directly related to it.

[NFLMAN]

Chomsky on the topic. He is yellow when it comes to 9/11 or JFK but right on the money when it comes to our system.

[NFLMAN]

One more interesting note involving the CFR and it's obvious ties to the 9/11 conspiracy is that nearly every syndicated television show has had at least one episode in which the 9/11 truth movement is ridiculed, and hardly anyone ever questions the government's cheesy explanation on the collapse. No one at all questions the theory that there were no planes.

They want to discourage people from talking about it.

I will soon post another thread on this forum that will prove to you that there were no planes, and that it was an illusion created and distributed by our Council on Foreign Relations.