Thread: Jew Rage

Gotta love it!

Israeli PM Netanyahu Snubs Obama Regime’s Demands, Orders Building of 2,000 New Housing Units In East Jerusalem

Israeli prime minister orders building of 2,000 new housing units, mainly in east Jerusalem.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that the new construction includes settlements near Jerusalem that he believes would be part of Israel in a peace accord.
An Israeli official said the accelerated building in the part of Jerusalem the Palestinians claim is an answer to recent unilateral moves by the Palestinians. He was speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.


Israeli premier orders new east Jerusalem housing - BostonHerald.com


Waiting for the regular Joooo-haters to have a melt down as usual...

Originally Posted by ENT

^ I wouldn't call the handing over of 75% of Palestine under the British mandate over the territory to Arabs, by Churchill, "discrimination" against them.

Did I?

Originally Posted by ENT

They got the lion's share long before the UN allocation.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

The remaining 25% of Palestine was split again, Arabs claiming all the remainder, and Israel having to fight for existence at all, after independence.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

The Arabs were certainly not discriminated against.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

Moslem occupation of Palestina only happened in the last millenium and consolidated by the Ottomans.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

The Jewish anti British campaign under the Hagana and more specifically the Maccabees was a direct result of the British imposition of restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine during Germany's pogrom against Jews in Europe.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

Small wonder the Jews fought, no choice at all.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

The only thing that will satisfy the ragheads is the elimination of Israel.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

The so called displaced Palestinians (aka Arabs) were offered the land given over to them, (the above mentioned 75%) which became known as Trans-Jordan (east bank)
but refused to take the offer up, insisting instead to occupy all of Palestine.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

So what reasonable claim do the Arabs actually have over Palestine, at all, other than being a small population in a land that was largely desert? They didn't cultivate it, the absentee Arab landlords didn't give a shit about it.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

The Ottoman Empire collapsed, France took over, Italy and Germany had eyes on it all too. So the British got the mandate for it on the proviso under the League of Nations that the land be fairly divided between Arab and Jew.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by ENT

That was agreed by the Caliph Hussein and Churchill, a 75% handover.
Then the ragheads wanted the lot, reneging on the original deal.

No, it was definitely the UK and France that renaged on agreements and assurances they had made to Hussein, and who lied to and betrayed Hussein and the Arabs whom they used and sacrificed to defeat the Ottomans in WW1. Though it was Balfour, who was in the pocket of the Rothschilds that is largely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict we have today.

I hold all the sects concerned in equal disdain, I have no favourite between the Jews or the Muslims; nor am I a fan of christians. I am fan of establishing what the facts are without the usual hysterics.

It's no good not acknowledging what happened before "independence",i.e. before Nazi-collaborating immigrant terrorist Jewish groups smuggled in an ethnic group with sole purpose of displacing the extant population and usurping their land - exactly what America did to the Injuns; what China is doing in Tibet; what Indonesia is doing in West Papua; and what England did in Ireland.

It's also no good ignoring the extremist immigrant Jewish groups that were allowed to provoke the Arabs an already tense situation.
(I differentiate between the immigrant Jews and those who had peacefully coexisted there before the invention of Israel).


The proportion of Arabs at about 1900 was about 95%; by 1950 it was down to around 65%, due to the smuggling of Jews into Israel mainly between the two wars. The population of Arabs wasn't small, and what they did with the land is irrelevant - just because I think you are wasting your backyard with a lawn, doesn't mean I can seize it from you and start turning it into an allotment.


So we at least agree that the British are responsible for preventing Jewish immigration into Israel. It's just that you believe that it is acceptable for a self-defined set of people, led my extremists to usurp land that their ancestors may or may not have once controlled at one finite period of history.

On that basis, it would make support for Hawai'ian independence and the repatriation of US immigrants into Hawai'i even more legitimate, given that their nation was only invaded and occupied about a century or so ago (...never mind them Injuns!).


As you probably know the Semitic languages and peoples have common origins, and the notion that Palestinian Arabs have less claim to the land having lived their continuously since biblical times, seems unreasonable.

Describing the muslim population as an "occupation... [that] ...only happened in the last millenium and [was] consolidated by the Ottomans", is simply not supportable by any evidence.

The Jewish population declined under the Byzantine period to around 15% at best by the 7th century, by which time they had long been outnumbered by Arab and other christians and pagans. Muslims would have been a minority until about the 12th century, when Saladin's Kurdish-Arab dynasty swept in, whereupon islam became the overwhelming majority in a short space of time... before the Ottoman empire took control.

There was a choice for the Jews - America.

The issue did include an editorial titled "The Refugees and Ourselves," but it was about the "grave duty" of American Catholics to help European Catholic refugees. Jewish refugees weren't even mentioned.
An editorial in the leading Protestant magazine Christian Century did address the Jewish refugee problem: It argued that America's own economic problems necessitated "that instead of inviting further complications by relaxing our immigration laws, these laws be maintained or even further tightened."
A few months later, refugee advocates proposed legislation to help German Jews that could not be construed as undermining America's economy. The Wagner-Rogers bill would have admitted 20,000 children -- too young to compete with American citizens for jobs. Yet even then, Christian Century found a reason to oppose helping the Jews.
"[A]dmitting Jewish immigrants would only exacerbate America's Jewish problem," it wrote.
One notable Christian response to Kristallnacht was an initiative by the U.S. branch of the Young Women's Christian Association. Less than two weeks after the pogrom, the YWCA established a Committee on Refugees, which undertook information campaigns aimed at persuading the public that refugees were loyal and hardworking. Unfortunately, the YWCA's national board soon lost interest in the project and declined to fund it. According to Professor Haim Genizi, the American Jewish Committee ended up providing much of the committee's budget.

source: Op-Ed: Christians mostly failed to act in response to Kristallnacht | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

^^
Good post, Nemo.

I should have been clearer re Muslim rule, my mistake.Tthe Muslims took over in the 7th century

Your point re. Jewish population declining under the Byzantines is not correct, it peaked at that time to about 25%.

The Arab migration into the remaining 22% of Palestine (post Churchill white paper) increased in the 1930s as Jewish agriculture and industry grew there.

The British did little to stop that illegal immigration.
On the other hand, the British actively blocked Jewish migration into the territory.

Palestine as described in the British mandate included Trans Jordan , 78% of the territory for which population demographics applied at the time of the Balfour declaration (!920).

Churchill's deal with Husayn (1921) and his subsequent white paper (1922) handed all of that territory over to Arab control.

That left only 22% of Palestine to be divided between Arabs and Jews, administered by the British.

The UN then allocated a patchwork of land ( bought and owned by Jews) connected by narrow corridors as a viable "state" of Israel.

The Jews have inhabited Palestine continually, albeit tenuously sever since they arrived in that area.
So have many other Semitic tribes.

All have historic claim to the land, Pagan, Jew, Xtian and Arab, in chronological order.

The rest of your refutations are nonsense, especially mixing in Nazis et al.

And that bit about Arabs not wanting the extermination of Jews, well, you must be deaf, they rant on daily about it.
It's the basis of their whole problem with Jews, pure, unadulterated nazis, yup, the Muslims.

There was a Zionist movement not a genocide, a buy up of unwanted land, not a theft. Arabs benefited from Jews, they migrated to the remaining 22%/Palestine to get that benefit.

It was not there for them in TransJordan Palestine, no industry or agriculture to support them.

The Jews weren't even permitted there.

They got the price for being the most disliked people on earth ever since. Did'nt know they hate each other so much too.



Israeli woman refuses ultra-Orthodox dictate to move to back of bus

When the passenger refused to move to the designated back seats, even when police arrived, the bus continued on its way, despite her refusal.

A woman passenger on a public bus from Ashdod to Jerusalem Friday was told by an ultra-Orthodox male passenger to move to the back of the bus. The man held the door of the bus open and would not allow it to move for approximately 30 minutes.
When other passengers began to complain about the delay, the driver called the police. The policeman who arrived on the scene spoke with the man and then also asked the woman, Tanya Rosenblit, to move to the back of the bus. When she refused, the man who had been holding the door alighted and the bus continued on its way.
Rosenblit, who said she was dressed modestly, was traveling on Egged bus 451 to get to work in Jerusalem. She said a Haredi man, who boarded two stops after she did, refused to allow the driver to close the door after he saw Rosenblit. Rosenblit said the man called her a derogatory word for a non-Jewish woman, and told the driver it was his right to have her sit in the back and that he had paid to be able to do so.
At that point, Rosenblit said other passengers called on the driver to intervene because they were late. Some wanted to get off the bus and have their money refunded. At that point, Rosenblit said, the driver called the police.
The policeman who arrived on the scene took the man aside for "a pleasant conversation," Rosenblit said, after which the policeman asked her if she would move to the back of the bus.
After Rosenblit refused, the man who had held the door got off and Rosenblit continued on her way. "The reason I am posting this story is not to declare that Orthodox Jews as pure evil ... I want to point out that this is a social and educational problem," Rosenblit wrote on her Facebook page.
Egged spokesman Ron Ratner condemned the incident, but said such incidents were increasing and that Egged's directives clearly prohibit the driver from "permitting or creating any separation on the bus unless it is voluntary," and instructing to call the police in such cases. Ratner advised Rosenblit to submit a complaint to Egged's ombudsman so the incident could be scrutinized more closely.


Israeli woman refuses ultra-Orthodox dictate to move to back of bus - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News