Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think we were against a two state solution but we were facing a huge backlash from the area locals by allowing the Jews to go there so we realised we fked up by promising them a sovereign state / land and blocked them coming in literally the worst time possible for Jews
We lost our position in WWI in my opinion
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think we were against a two state solution but we were facing a huge backlash from the area locals by allowing the Jews to go there so we realised we fked up by promising them a sovereign state / land and blocked them coming in literally the worst time possible for Jews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We really, really fked it all up there. I think greed and imperialism played a part but I honestly think that best of intentions also played a part but it didn't materialise that way in the slightest.
For those that solely blame Britain - we’re not the only party at fault here. The Ottoman Empire ruled over the region until the end of WWI, the other Arab nations have controlled the region, have invaded the region various times and even to this day are not really supportive of the Palestinians, probably just preferable to Israel / The West.
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/CaelanConrad/status/1714377325943386471?t=ochpBlQuJ50uFM_2AV2msw&s=19
wonder if this is real
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty damn accurate.
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 25 minutes ago
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I too was reading on this the other day. Irgun was the name of their terrorist organisation and they bombed the King David Hotel killing 91 people. One of their members Menachem Begin went on to become Prime minister.
The format of this website is so bad. Can't even see the comment I'm replying to (or post a reply without deleting it from my own post).
What I've read is that Britain was against a 2 state solution.
The Peel Commission in 1937 recommended a 2 state solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#/media/File:PeelMap.png
but the government rejected it (see point 4):
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
Also see here:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
I believe the reluctance of the British to agree to a Zionist state was the main reason for the Jewish insurgency campaign, where they for example bombed the British HQ in Jerusalem in 1946.
I think it's debated that the Balfour Declaration intended to offer Sovereignty btw. Britain had clearly already offered Sovereignty to an area which included all of Palestine to King Hussain in 1918.
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 36 seconds ago
Yeah, I too was reading on this the other day. Irgun was the name of their terrorist organisation and they bombed the King David Hotel killing 91 people. One of their members Menachem Begin went on to become Prime minister.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't know the last bit.
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/CaelanConrad/status/1714377325943386471?t=ochpBlQuJ50uFM_2AV2msw&s=19
wonder if this is real
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty damn accurate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true!
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 2 minutes ago
The format of this website is so bad. Can't even see the comment I'm replying to (or post a reply without deleting it from my own post).
What I've read is that Britain was against a 2 state solution.
The Peel Commission in 1937 recommended a 2 state solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#/media/File:PeelMap.png
but the government rejected it (see point 4):
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
Also see here:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
I believe the reluctance of the British to agree to a Zionist state was the main reason for the Jewish insurgency campaign, where they for example bombed the British HQ in Jerusalem in 1946.
I think it's debated that the Balfour Declaration intended to offer Sovereignty btw. Britain had clearly already offered Sovereignty to an area which included all of Palestine to King Hussain in 1918.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah what I understood was that we promised it to both peoples, limited Jewish immigration numbers in their time of need to say the least and then passed the buck to the UN - you deal with it.
Didn’t know they bombed the British HQ though.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 minutes ago
Believe it or not, there are still Christians in the Holy Lands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you fekin serious? Of course I know that.
All I was saying is a place called the XX XXXX Baptist hospital is (going out on a branch here,) is more than likely run by Christians. I'd even say obviously run by Christians. But thanks for letting us know that Baptists are Christians.And Arabs too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you on drugs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you drunk?
Yes I know Christians still live there. That;s why I thought your post was redundant. WTF? Redundant because anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't post on it as They'd jist be showing they're ignorance of the situation. Hope that clears that up for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
The Hospital was established by the British in early 1900s. It's has "baptist" in it's name and has a church inside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was merely adding to this statement by Mamba by way of pasting something I had just learnt.
Obviously I should have known that was common knowledge and I apolgise for insulting everyone elses intelligence.
Maybe it's a wake-up call to deal with my alcohol dependency and lack of education.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 2 minutes ago
The format of this website is so bad. Can't even see the comment I'm replying to (or post a reply without deleting it from my own post).
What I've read is that Britain was against a 2 state solution.
The Peel Commission in 1937 recommended a 2 state solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#/media/File:PeelMap.png
but the government rejected it (see point 4):
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
Also see here:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
I believe the reluctance of the British to agree to a Zionist state was the main reason for the Jewish insurgency campaign, where they for example bombed the British HQ in Jerusalem in 1946.
I think it's debated that the Balfour Declaration intended to offer Sovereignty btw. Britain had clearly already offered Sovereignty to an area which included all of Palestine to King Hussain in 1918.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah what I understood was that we promised it to both peoples, limited Jewish immigration numbers in their time of need to say the least and then passed the buck to the UN - you deal with it.
Didn’t know they bombed the British HQ though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good link that second link
Point 5 is interesting and also empty / shallow in hindsight
5. His Majesty's Government will therefore continue their responsibility for the government of the whole of Palestine. They are now faced with the problem of finding alternative means of meeting the needs of the difficult situation described by the Royal Commission which will be consistent with their obligations to the Arabs and the Jews. His Majesty's Government believe that it is possible to find these alternative means. They have already given much thought to the problem in the light of the reports of the Royal Commission and of the Partition Commission. It is clear that the surest foundation for peace and progress in Palestine would be an understanding between the Arabs and the Jews, and His Majesty's Government are prepared in the first instance to make a determined effort to promote such an understanding. With this end in view, they propose immediately to invite representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and of neighbouring States on the one hand and of the Jewish Agency on the other, to confer with them as soon as possible in London regarding future policy, including the question of immigration into Palestine. As regards the representation of the Palestinian Arabs, His Majesty's Government must reserve the right to refuse to receive those leaders whom they regard as responsible for the campaign of assassination and violence.
Translation - we promised you both the same thing, you’re both now needing it and claiming it, we allowed Jewish immigrants but have now limited that. Yo guys get together and sort it out and we’ll be arbiters but not arbiters
As for the Jewish people being at their most vulnerable when Britain reduced immigration (and it can never be forgotten that what they suffered under the Narsies was unimaginably horrific) I think this is misleading.
From 1922-1938, on average 25,000 Jewish people had emigrated to Palestine. Around 400,000 in 17 years.
Since the Narsies had taken power in Germany in 1933 this was an average of 35,000 a year.
Britain introduced a cap on Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next 5 years. But it wasn't introduced until May 1939.
In September 1939 we'd declared war on Germany. I don't see any way even without the White Paper policy of restricting immigration, Britain would have allowed mass immigration from a country it was at war with (and by then Germany had invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia).
I don't think therefore that the policy change had any effect at all on the number of Jews who made it to Palestine.
I've seen it suggested that 6 million Jewish people could have gone to Palestine in 1939. This is absolute nonsense. The population of the whole country was 1 million.
Also btw, America introduced a cap on immigration in the 1930s, which was per capita 20 times lower for all migrants from Europe, Asia and Africa, than the amount of Jewish people Britain was importing to Palestine.
Nobody could get out of German controlled territories from July 1921 anyway even if a few of them may have been able to in the preceding 18 months if they'd had somewhere to go.
Awful awful awful situation, but I think it's completely wrong to blame Britain in any way.
Main story on the BBC website is not the missle attack itself but Israel's denial of it.
Good night.
I still think that the promises to the Arabs (1918) and the Jews (1917) could arguably be read as being consistent, or at least nearly consistent.
The Arabs had been promised their own state in recognition of them kicking the Turks out. The Jews has been offered a "national home" within that state.
My reading is that national home isn't necessarily a sovereign state.
I think the British could be interpreted as having had an intention to make it an Arab state which accommodated Jewish people.
Arguably the odd one out though, was the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) in which Britain and France agreed to divi the area up between them to administrate (although only for a period of c30 years so arguably the other promises could come to fruition after that).
It was the French who put quashed the idea of King Faisal's Arab Syria state which he declared in 1920 over the whole of this area, similar to Britain's promise to King Hussain in 1918. Apparently the British didn't object but the French insisted on the Arabs complying with the 1916 agreement between France and Britain, and put King Faisal's state down by arms.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
As for the Jewish people being at their most vulnerable when Britain reduced immigration (and it can never be forgotten that what they suffered under the Narsies was unimaginably horrific) I think this is misleading.
From 1922-1938, on average 25,000 Jewish people had emigrated to Palestine. Around 400,000 in 17 years.
Since the Narsies had taken power in Germany in 1933 this was an average of 35,000 a year.
Britain introduced a cap on Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next 5 years. But it wasn't introduced until May 1939.
In September 1939 we'd declared war on Germany. I don't see any way even without the White Paper policy of restricting immigration, Britain would have allowed mass immigration from a country it was at war with (and by then Germany had invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia).
I don't think therefore that the policy change had any effect at all on the number of Jews who made it to Palestine.
I've seen it suggested that 6 million Jewish people could have gone to Palestine in 1939. This is absolute nonsense. The population of the whole country was 1 million.
Also btw, America introduced a cap on immigration in the 1930s, which was per capita 20 times lower for all migrants from Europe, Asia and Africa, than the amount of Jewish people Britain was importing to Palestine.
Nobody could get out of German controlled territories from July 1921 anyway even if a few of them may have been able to in the preceding 18 months if they'd had somewhere to go.
Awful awful awful situation, but I think it's completely wrong to blame Britain in any way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had read 10,000 I think
Ah yeah 10,000 a year. I think given what those years were, it’s terrible. I mean rock and a hard place but I’d have chosen the Jews at that time
https://twitter.com/SaqibMeerOnline/status/1714352975823470750/photo/1
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted about 5 hours ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 minutes ago
Believe it or not, there are still Christians in the Holy Lands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you fekin serious? Of course I know that.
All I was saying is a place called the XX XXXX Baptist hospital is (going out on a branch here,) is more than likely run by Christians. I'd even say obviously run by Christians. But thanks for letting us know that Baptists are Christians.And Arabs too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you on drugs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you drunk?
Yes I know Christians still live there. That;s why I thought your post was redundant. WTF? Redundant because anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't post on it as They'd jist be showing they're ignorance of the situation. Hope that clears that up for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
The Hospital was established by the British in early 1900s. It's has "baptist" in it's name and has a church inside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was merely adding to this statement by Mamba by way of pasting something I had just learnt.
Obviously I should have known that was common knowledge and I apolgise for insulting everyone elses intelligence.
Maybe it's a wake-up call to deal with my alcohol dependency and lack of education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry. I am a d!k. And I am on drugs now, as I peruse the net for some calming vibes. Why else would I be on here?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 50 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/leylahamed/status/1714363246516355569?t=6ypsiJlPZLdKdrVY2KoUjQ&s=19
The hospital 20 hours before it was bombed 😩
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep posting these bro. Someone posted a link to Middle East eye I think it is and it’s on my feed now every day. Very important to see every angle.
As others have said, MSM is heavily Israeli-favoured. We all ‘know’ the suffering of the Palestinian people but sometimes seeing is necessary.
I’m not a religious person by any means but please lord, whether it’s a sheet money-driven deal or land deal please let talks progress for hostages to be returned and a ceasefire agreed.
Then, we need the population of both Palestine & Israel to assign blame to the extremes of their respective representatives and get the removed over the next few years so peace talks can resume from 15 years ago.
Ffs thousands of years ago, Christians, Muslims and Jews all lived there in relative peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll just add to this, without wanting to undo any positivity, that I really don’t subscribe to the 75 year / since 1948 this and that. Not to say that atrocities haven’t occurred but just that occupation / displacement / removal / extermination took place all over the world (and still is but we don’t talk about Armenia - Azerbaijan or Sudan) long before 1948.
The current occupiers and aggressors are the Israelis, the current victims and oppressed are the people name Palestinians but it’s really not that simple and imo there is no ‘legitimate’ claim to this or that anymore, nor moral superiority- we have a much larger & more powerful nation smashing an area causing untold death and suffering to much weaker ‘opponents’ and we have those weaker opponents carrying out worse actions (as their more ‘acceptable’ responses would be too insignificant) in response.
Extremists on both sides not fully representing the moderates need to be removed.
Sadly, what Israel has been doing has undeniably lead to an awful response (unjustified in my humble opinion) that we saw October 7 which, as we all knew, would lead to a ridiculous response from Israel.
I know that many on here feel that people like TLIV and I do not care enough for the Palestinian people and their suffering as they’ve only seen our reaction to last weekend but I don’t think that’s fair. Actions like last weekend are always going to provoke a spiked response. But if anyone asked me or TLIV (not to speak for he/him) if we thought that the Palestinians have suffered unjustly at the hands of various Israeli governments, we would agree and if we could we would change it. But what has truly vexed me is that there really are some on here, and many across the overall population, that genuinely cannot bring themselves to condemn atrocities carried out by one side in this. The equivalent would be one of us refusing to admit that Israel has gone way too far over the years, to refuse to admit that cutting off energy & water is too far, to admit that the video shared of either public or IDF killing or injuring clearly innocent unarmed Palestinians is utterly disgusting and war crimes, that Israel have at least debatably got away with breaking international law. But people like TLIV and I aren’t saying that. And we shouldn’t be responded to as if we are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One problem is that you don't factor in the way Palestinians live from day to day under Israel's apartheid. They don't have basic human rights like doing business with whomever they want or even freedom of movement just to mention a few.
Israel clearly wants to expand but faces stiff opposition, but they take up more land everytime they are conveniently attacked by Hamas while ignoring the PLO.
Hamas the extreme element of Palestine is a violent organisation that does not represent the Palestinian people. The extreme element of Israel is their elected leadership. Won't be easy to get rid of the latter and we don't have years to wait until it happens, if at all. People are suffering right now and have been suffering for a long time! Only an outsider would propose solutions that take years as they don't feel the pain themselves.
Why don't you suggest that first thing that should happen is the removal of Hamas reasons for existing and destroy their base of support? This can be done by Israel complying with international law which they are signatory to, and so stopping expansionism, give Palestinians freedom, equal rights and justice as declared by the international community as inherent and UNCONDITIONAL, give them control of their own destiny and treat them the way Israelis treat each other, with respect and understanding.
This first eliminates human suffering and as Hamas would no longer be worth the trouble to Palestinians they would be more willing to go out their way and expose Hamas. They'd even get arrested by Palestinian police under a Palestine leadership who would be keen and would have signed the treaty to not let anyone jeorpadise their new found freedom.
I don't understand this both sides must do x or y business before peace can come. It doesn't make sense. How do you engage in peace negotiations while overseeing apartheid over your fellow negotiators? Wouldn't be a fair negotiation between equals, would it?
It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel sympathisers are now at a stage where the can't keep doing what they've been doing since Saturday, and so their buzz word has become "both sides" in an effort to appear fair, but it's still biased as they still won't admit that Israel is in the best position and could easily make moves that will open a path to peace and good neighborliness which they could have done at any time in the past but choose not to.
Bolllocks, they don’t want any Palestinians living in their country. The Arab nations are the biggest disgrace going, and that’s including Iraq. No one wants to help their people. Makes me sick.
What does their people mean?
Awful awful awful situation, but I think it's completely wrong to blame Britain in any way.
======
I know some blame is unfairly placed on Britain but to say it's wrong to blame Britain in any way is taking the pee.
I don't even know where to start? How about promising the land to both Jews and Palestinians? How about creating a state for the Jews and no state for Palestinians when it was 100% guaranteed to become problematic in future? The argument that Britain and it's allies are directly responsible for this isn't that absurd because basically that's where the problem started. It didn't have to be like this.
Not all but most of the historical fack up situations in the world today can be directly traced back to either UK, USA, France, Belgium and such. Why couldn't we just mind our own business you ask? Because we needed to and had the ability to and so proceeded to rob the knowledge, wealth and resources from nearly all the world.
We have a strong propaganda machine in Britain and the west too, that starts grinding no sooner you are out your mum's tummy, and so it's hard for some people to accept some things.
We were rubbish at nation building in the 40s and 50s (cough; partition) and when the Americans started doing it more they were no better.
People believe what suits.
I’m not going to say the IDF didn’t bomb that hospital, because it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, but if it came out that is was an Islamic militant group, the nodding donkeys on here would claim it was propaganda. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to bomb its own people in the hope it causes outrage within the Muslim world.
John Simpson has just said “ it isn’t necessary the facts, it’s what people believes what counts”.
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 17 minutes ago
People believe what suits.
I’m not going to say the IDF didn’t bomb that hospital, because it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, but if it came out that is was an Islamic militant group, the nodding donkeys on here would claim it was propaganda. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to bomb its own people in the hope it causes outrage within the Muslim world.
John Simpson has just said “ it isn’t necessary the facts, it’s what people believes what counts”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamas have planes?
There's actual videos of it being bombed ffs.
You are a nodding donkey claiming it's propaganda ffs.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 3734 of 4713
3735 | 3736 | 3737 | 3738 | 3739
posted on 17/10/23
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
posted on 17/10/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think we were against a two state solution but we were facing a huge backlash from the area locals by allowing the Jews to go there so we realised we fked up by promising them a sovereign state / land and blocked them coming in literally the worst time possible for Jews
posted on 17/10/23
We lost our position in WWI in my opinion
posted on 17/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think we were against a two state solution but we were facing a huge backlash from the area locals by allowing the Jews to go there so we realised we fked up by promising them a sovereign state / land and blocked them coming in literally the worst time possible for Jews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We really, really fked it all up there. I think greed and imperialism played a part but I honestly think that best of intentions also played a part but it didn't materialise that way in the slightest.
For those that solely blame Britain - we’re not the only party at fault here. The Ottoman Empire ruled over the region until the end of WWI, the other Arab nations have controlled the region, have invaded the region various times and even to this day are not really supportive of the Palestinians, probably just preferable to Israel / The West.
posted on 17/10/23
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/CaelanConrad/status/1714377325943386471?t=ochpBlQuJ50uFM_2AV2msw&s=19
wonder if this is real
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty damn accurate.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 25 minutes ago
Haven't read the comments on here, so don't know what side everyone's on. I like to think I'm neutral. My heart certainly goes out to all the victims in Israel and in Palestine.
I was reading up a bit on the background earlier in the week. I was surprised to learn that the Israeli Jewish actually fell out with Britain in the mid-late 1940s, and started bombing the British who were governing Palestine at the time!
Apparently the British were against a 2 state solution (contrary to popular belief). The British also tried to stop Jewish Immigration to Palestine from 1944 due to Arab protests, but the Americans pressured them to admit a further 100,000 European Jewish, under threat of withdrawing post war loan payments.
It was after that that the British announced they were leaving (whereupon Israel announced its birth).
Quite incredible that Britain had lost half a million people fighting the Nartsees (in part to free the Jewish people), had lost its position as a world power as a result, had been responsible for at that point around half a million Jewish relocating to Palestine, and then (a faction of) the Jewish in Palestine thanked them by embarking on a shooting and bombing campaign against them!
Also amazing how history gets forgotten and re-written!
Anyway, I probably digress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I too was reading on this the other day. Irgun was the name of their terrorist organisation and they bombed the King David Hotel killing 91 people. One of their members Menachem Begin went on to become Prime minister.
posted on 18/10/23
The format of this website is so bad. Can't even see the comment I'm replying to (or post a reply without deleting it from my own post).
What I've read is that Britain was against a 2 state solution.
The Peel Commission in 1937 recommended a 2 state solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#/media/File:PeelMap.png
but the government rejected it (see point 4):
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
Also see here:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
I believe the reluctance of the British to agree to a Zionist state was the main reason for the Jewish insurgency campaign, where they for example bombed the British HQ in Jerusalem in 1946.
I think it's debated that the Balfour Declaration intended to offer Sovereignty btw. Britain had clearly already offered Sovereignty to an area which included all of Palestine to King Hussain in 1918.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 36 seconds ago
Yeah, I too was reading on this the other day. Irgun was the name of their terrorist organisation and they bombed the King David Hotel killing 91 people. One of their members Menachem Begin went on to become Prime minister.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't know the last bit.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/CaelanConrad/status/1714377325943386471?t=ochpBlQuJ50uFM_2AV2msw&s=19
wonder if this is real
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty damn accurate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So true!
posted on 18/10/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 2 minutes ago
The format of this website is so bad. Can't even see the comment I'm replying to (or post a reply without deleting it from my own post).
What I've read is that Britain was against a 2 state solution.
The Peel Commission in 1937 recommended a 2 state solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#/media/File:PeelMap.png
but the government rejected it (see point 4):
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
Also see here:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
I believe the reluctance of the British to agree to a Zionist state was the main reason for the Jewish insurgency campaign, where they for example bombed the British HQ in Jerusalem in 1946.
I think it's debated that the Balfour Declaration intended to offer Sovereignty btw. Britain had clearly already offered Sovereignty to an area which included all of Palestine to King Hussain in 1918.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah what I understood was that we promised it to both peoples, limited Jewish immigration numbers in their time of need to say the least and then passed the buck to the UN - you deal with it.
Didn’t know they bombed the British HQ though.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 minutes ago
Believe it or not, there are still Christians in the Holy Lands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you fekin serious? Of course I know that.
All I was saying is a place called the XX XXXX Baptist hospital is (going out on a branch here,) is more than likely run by Christians. I'd even say obviously run by Christians. But thanks for letting us know that Baptists are Christians.And Arabs too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you on drugs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you drunk?
Yes I know Christians still live there. That;s why I thought your post was redundant. WTF? Redundant because anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't post on it as They'd jist be showing they're ignorance of the situation. Hope that clears that up for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
The Hospital was established by the British in early 1900s. It's has "baptist" in it's name and has a church inside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was merely adding to this statement by Mamba by way of pasting something I had just learnt.
Obviously I should have known that was common knowledge and I apolgise for insulting everyone elses intelligence.
Maybe it's a wake-up call to deal with my alcohol dependency and lack of education.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 2 minutes ago
The format of this website is so bad. Can't even see the comment I'm replying to (or post a reply without deleting it from my own post).
What I've read is that Britain was against a 2 state solution.
The Peel Commission in 1937 recommended a 2 state solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission#/media/File:PeelMap.png
but the government rejected it (see point 4):
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2
Also see here:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an unpartitioned Palestine"
I believe the reluctance of the British to agree to a Zionist state was the main reason for the Jewish insurgency campaign, where they for example bombed the British HQ in Jerusalem in 1946.
I think it's debated that the Balfour Declaration intended to offer Sovereignty btw. Britain had clearly already offered Sovereignty to an area which included all of Palestine to King Hussain in 1918.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah what I understood was that we promised it to both peoples, limited Jewish immigration numbers in their time of need to say the least and then passed the buck to the UN - you deal with it.
Didn’t know they bombed the British HQ though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good link that second link
Point 5 is interesting and also empty / shallow in hindsight
5. His Majesty's Government will therefore continue their responsibility for the government of the whole of Palestine. They are now faced with the problem of finding alternative means of meeting the needs of the difficult situation described by the Royal Commission which will be consistent with their obligations to the Arabs and the Jews. His Majesty's Government believe that it is possible to find these alternative means. They have already given much thought to the problem in the light of the reports of the Royal Commission and of the Partition Commission. It is clear that the surest foundation for peace and progress in Palestine would be an understanding between the Arabs and the Jews, and His Majesty's Government are prepared in the first instance to make a determined effort to promote such an understanding. With this end in view, they propose immediately to invite representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and of neighbouring States on the one hand and of the Jewish Agency on the other, to confer with them as soon as possible in London regarding future policy, including the question of immigration into Palestine. As regards the representation of the Palestinian Arabs, His Majesty's Government must reserve the right to refuse to receive those leaders whom they regard as responsible for the campaign of assassination and violence.
Translation - we promised you both the same thing, you’re both now needing it and claiming it, we allowed Jewish immigrants but have now limited that. Yo guys get together and sort it out and we’ll be arbiters but not arbiters
posted on 18/10/23
As for the Jewish people being at their most vulnerable when Britain reduced immigration (and it can never be forgotten that what they suffered under the Narsies was unimaginably horrific) I think this is misleading.
From 1922-1938, on average 25,000 Jewish people had emigrated to Palestine. Around 400,000 in 17 years.
Since the Narsies had taken power in Germany in 1933 this was an average of 35,000 a year.
Britain introduced a cap on Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next 5 years. But it wasn't introduced until May 1939.
In September 1939 we'd declared war on Germany. I don't see any way even without the White Paper policy of restricting immigration, Britain would have allowed mass immigration from a country it was at war with (and by then Germany had invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia).
I don't think therefore that the policy change had any effect at all on the number of Jews who made it to Palestine.
I've seen it suggested that 6 million Jewish people could have gone to Palestine in 1939. This is absolute nonsense. The population of the whole country was 1 million.
Also btw, America introduced a cap on immigration in the 1930s, which was per capita 20 times lower for all migrants from Europe, Asia and Africa, than the amount of Jewish people Britain was importing to Palestine.
Nobody could get out of German controlled territories from July 1921 anyway even if a few of them may have been able to in the preceding 18 months if they'd had somewhere to go.
Awful awful awful situation, but I think it's completely wrong to blame Britain in any way.
posted on 18/10/23
Main story on the BBC website is not the missle attack itself but Israel's denial of it.
Good night.
posted on 18/10/23
I still think that the promises to the Arabs (1918) and the Jews (1917) could arguably be read as being consistent, or at least nearly consistent.
The Arabs had been promised their own state in recognition of them kicking the Turks out. The Jews has been offered a "national home" within that state.
My reading is that national home isn't necessarily a sovereign state.
I think the British could be interpreted as having had an intention to make it an Arab state which accommodated Jewish people.
Arguably the odd one out though, was the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) in which Britain and France agreed to divi the area up between them to administrate (although only for a period of c30 years so arguably the other promises could come to fruition after that).
It was the French who put quashed the idea of King Faisal's Arab Syria state which he declared in 1920 over the whole of this area, similar to Britain's promise to King Hussain in 1918. Apparently the British didn't object but the French insisted on the Arabs complying with the 1916 agreement between France and Britain, and put King Faisal's state down by arms.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
As for the Jewish people being at their most vulnerable when Britain reduced immigration (and it can never be forgotten that what they suffered under the Narsies was unimaginably horrific) I think this is misleading.
From 1922-1938, on average 25,000 Jewish people had emigrated to Palestine. Around 400,000 in 17 years.
Since the Narsies had taken power in Germany in 1933 this was an average of 35,000 a year.
Britain introduced a cap on Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next 5 years. But it wasn't introduced until May 1939.
In September 1939 we'd declared war on Germany. I don't see any way even without the White Paper policy of restricting immigration, Britain would have allowed mass immigration from a country it was at war with (and by then Germany had invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia).
I don't think therefore that the policy change had any effect at all on the number of Jews who made it to Palestine.
I've seen it suggested that 6 million Jewish people could have gone to Palestine in 1939. This is absolute nonsense. The population of the whole country was 1 million.
Also btw, America introduced a cap on immigration in the 1930s, which was per capita 20 times lower for all migrants from Europe, Asia and Africa, than the amount of Jewish people Britain was importing to Palestine.
Nobody could get out of German controlled territories from July 1921 anyway even if a few of them may have been able to in the preceding 18 months if they'd had somewhere to go.
Awful awful awful situation, but I think it's completely wrong to blame Britain in any way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had read 10,000 I think
posted on 18/10/23
Ah yeah 10,000 a year. I think given what those years were, it’s terrible. I mean rock and a hard place but I’d have chosen the Jews at that time
posted on 18/10/23
https://twitter.com/SaqibMeerOnline/status/1714352975823470750/photo/1
posted on 18/10/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted about 5 hours ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 minutes ago
Believe it or not, there are still Christians in the Holy Lands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you fekin serious? Of course I know that.
All I was saying is a place called the XX XXXX Baptist hospital is (going out on a branch here,) is more than likely run by Christians. I'd even say obviously run by Christians. But thanks for letting us know that Baptists are Christians.And Arabs too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you on drugs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you drunk?
Yes I know Christians still live there. That;s why I thought your post was redundant. WTF? Redundant because anyone who doesn't know that shouldn't post on it as They'd jist be showing they're ignorance of the situation. Hope that clears that up for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 29 minutes ago
The Hospital was established by the British in early 1900s. It's has "baptist" in it's name and has a church inside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was merely adding to this statement by Mamba by way of pasting something I had just learnt.
Obviously I should have known that was common knowledge and I apolgise for insulting everyone elses intelligence.
Maybe it's a wake-up call to deal with my alcohol dependency and lack of education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry. I am a d!k. And I am on drugs now, as I peruse the net for some calming vibes. Why else would I be on here?
posted on 18/10/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 50 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/leylahamed/status/1714363246516355569?t=6ypsiJlPZLdKdrVY2KoUjQ&s=19
The hospital 20 hours before it was bombed 😩
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep posting these bro. Someone posted a link to Middle East eye I think it is and it’s on my feed now every day. Very important to see every angle.
As others have said, MSM is heavily Israeli-favoured. We all ‘know’ the suffering of the Palestinian people but sometimes seeing is necessary.
I’m not a religious person by any means but please lord, whether it’s a sheet money-driven deal or land deal please let talks progress for hostages to be returned and a ceasefire agreed.
Then, we need the population of both Palestine & Israel to assign blame to the extremes of their respective representatives and get the removed over the next few years so peace talks can resume from 15 years ago.
Ffs thousands of years ago, Christians, Muslims and Jews all lived there in relative peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll just add to this, without wanting to undo any positivity, that I really don’t subscribe to the 75 year / since 1948 this and that. Not to say that atrocities haven’t occurred but just that occupation / displacement / removal / extermination took place all over the world (and still is but we don’t talk about Armenia - Azerbaijan or Sudan) long before 1948.
The current occupiers and aggressors are the Israelis, the current victims and oppressed are the people name Palestinians but it’s really not that simple and imo there is no ‘legitimate’ claim to this or that anymore, nor moral superiority- we have a much larger & more powerful nation smashing an area causing untold death and suffering to much weaker ‘opponents’ and we have those weaker opponents carrying out worse actions (as their more ‘acceptable’ responses would be too insignificant) in response.
Extremists on both sides not fully representing the moderates need to be removed.
Sadly, what Israel has been doing has undeniably lead to an awful response (unjustified in my humble opinion) that we saw October 7 which, as we all knew, would lead to a ridiculous response from Israel.
I know that many on here feel that people like TLIV and I do not care enough for the Palestinian people and their suffering as they’ve only seen our reaction to last weekend but I don’t think that’s fair. Actions like last weekend are always going to provoke a spiked response. But if anyone asked me or TLIV (not to speak for he/him) if we thought that the Palestinians have suffered unjustly at the hands of various Israeli governments, we would agree and if we could we would change it. But what has truly vexed me is that there really are some on here, and many across the overall population, that genuinely cannot bring themselves to condemn atrocities carried out by one side in this. The equivalent would be one of us refusing to admit that Israel has gone way too far over the years, to refuse to admit that cutting off energy & water is too far, to admit that the video shared of either public or IDF killing or injuring clearly innocent unarmed Palestinians is utterly disgusting and war crimes, that Israel have at least debatably got away with breaking international law. But people like TLIV and I aren’t saying that. And we shouldn’t be responded to as if we are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One problem is that you don't factor in the way Palestinians live from day to day under Israel's apartheid. They don't have basic human rights like doing business with whomever they want or even freedom of movement just to mention a few.
Israel clearly wants to expand but faces stiff opposition, but they take up more land everytime they are conveniently attacked by Hamas while ignoring the PLO.
Hamas the extreme element of Palestine is a violent organisation that does not represent the Palestinian people. The extreme element of Israel is their elected leadership. Won't be easy to get rid of the latter and we don't have years to wait until it happens, if at all. People are suffering right now and have been suffering for a long time! Only an outsider would propose solutions that take years as they don't feel the pain themselves.
Why don't you suggest that first thing that should happen is the removal of Hamas reasons for existing and destroy their base of support? This can be done by Israel complying with international law which they are signatory to, and so stopping expansionism, give Palestinians freedom, equal rights and justice as declared by the international community as inherent and UNCONDITIONAL, give them control of their own destiny and treat them the way Israelis treat each other, with respect and understanding.
This first eliminates human suffering and as Hamas would no longer be worth the trouble to Palestinians they would be more willing to go out their way and expose Hamas. They'd even get arrested by Palestinian police under a Palestine leadership who would be keen and would have signed the treaty to not let anyone jeorpadise their new found freedom.
I don't understand this both sides must do x or y business before peace can come. It doesn't make sense. How do you engage in peace negotiations while overseeing apartheid over your fellow negotiators? Wouldn't be a fair negotiation between equals, would it?
It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel sympathisers are now at a stage where the can't keep doing what they've been doing since Saturday, and so their buzz word has become "both sides" in an effort to appear fair, but it's still biased as they still won't admit that Israel is in the best position and could easily make moves that will open a path to peace and good neighborliness which they could have done at any time in the past but choose not to.
posted on 18/10/23
Bolllocks, they don’t want any Palestinians living in their country. The Arab nations are the biggest disgrace going, and that’s including Iraq. No one wants to help their people. Makes me sick.
What does their people mean?
posted on 18/10/23
Awful awful awful situation, but I think it's completely wrong to blame Britain in any way.
======
I know some blame is unfairly placed on Britain but to say it's wrong to blame Britain in any way is taking the pee.
I don't even know where to start? How about promising the land to both Jews and Palestinians? How about creating a state for the Jews and no state for Palestinians when it was 100% guaranteed to become problematic in future? The argument that Britain and it's allies are directly responsible for this isn't that absurd because basically that's where the problem started. It didn't have to be like this.
Not all but most of the historical fack up situations in the world today can be directly traced back to either UK, USA, France, Belgium and such. Why couldn't we just mind our own business you ask? Because we needed to and had the ability to and so proceeded to rob the knowledge, wealth and resources from nearly all the world.
We have a strong propaganda machine in Britain and the west too, that starts grinding no sooner you are out your mum's tummy, and so it's hard for some people to accept some things.
posted on 18/10/23
We were rubbish at nation building in the 40s and 50s (cough; partition) and when the Americans started doing it more they were no better.
posted on 18/10/23
People believe what suits.
I’m not going to say the IDF didn’t bomb that hospital, because it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, but if it came out that is was an Islamic militant group, the nodding donkeys on here would claim it was propaganda. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to bomb its own people in the hope it causes outrage within the Muslim world.
John Simpson has just said “ it isn’t necessary the facts, it’s what people believes what counts”.
posted on 18/10/23
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 17 minutes ago
People believe what suits.
I’m not going to say the IDF didn’t bomb that hospital, because it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, but if it came out that is was an Islamic militant group, the nodding donkeys on here would claim it was propaganda. I wouldn’t put it past Hamas to bomb its own people in the hope it causes outrage within the Muslim world.
John Simpson has just said “ it isn’t necessary the facts, it’s what people believes what counts”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamas have planes?
There's actual videos of it being bombed ffs.
You are a nodding donkey claiming it's propaganda ffs.
Page 3734 of 4713
3735 | 3736 | 3737 | 3738 | 3739