Pages

 

Recent Pages by Destro (Destro):
Louis C.K. explains environmentalism to Christians Obama thanks Putin for help in Boston FBI investigated older Boston terrorist 2 years ago at the request of a foreign govt Captured terrorist will not be Mirandized (He will not be advised of his rights) Dedicated to Boston: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get

Jump to bottom

26 comments

1 Buck  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 6:28:12pm

So much muddying of the waters.

The problem is that he said, and apparently still believes, “the Jewish lobby intimidates” lots of members of Congress, and this intimidation is why most members of Congress are more pro-Israel than he is.

It is to suggest that the Jews control the government of the USA. It is that suggestion that has for Jews a dark and deadly past.

To say that this is about settlements (which by the way are not illegal despite what everyone says) is simply a way to avoid the truth.

Again, it is about the suggestion that the Jews, in an inappropriate way, control the government of the USA. Anyone who thinks that way is echoing a libel that has been seen and heard many time before. It was dangerous then, and it is dangerous now.

2 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 6:40:30pm

re: #1 Buck

Compare and contrast two propositions:

1) The jews secretly run the world for their own benefit via international banks, cabals, secret control of governments, subversion of democracy etc.

2) Hard-right pro Israel advocacy and lobbying is a potent force in DC. Perhaps it is too strong.

#1 is straight-up anti-semitism. #2 is not the same as #1.

If someone says something like #2 that you disagree with, deal with the statement on its merits, rather than flogging #1 again.

3 Buck  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 7:06:27pm

re: #2 EPR-radar

But he didn’t say #2 did he?

I mean you can reinterpret what he said, but that does not really make this work does it?

I mean it is nice to speculate. But that is just more mud.

4 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 7:11:24pm

re: #3 Buck

The Hagel quote seems closer to #2 than #1 to me.

5 Buck  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 7:13:49pm

re: #4 EPR-radar

The Hagel quote seems closer to #2 than #1 to me.

Did this become a game of horse shoes?

Maybe you are willing to ignore what he really said and substitute it for what you wish he said.

6 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 7:24:48pm

re: #5 Buck

Why shouldn’t textual interpretation be scored like horse shoes? You are reacting to Hagel as if he had said #1, and I see his statements as more like #2, so the question of whether #1 or #2 is closer to the mark is relevant.

In my interpretation, I am taking Hagel’s reference to “the Jewish lobby” to refer to hard-right pro-Israel advocacy. That seems to be the only bit of interpretation needed to get from Hagel to #2.

Your interpretation seems to rely on inferring some combination of “secretly”, “secret control”, and “subversion” from Hagel’s “intimidation” to get from Hagel to #1. This seems to be more of a stretch.

For example, there is nothing secret or subversive about hard-right pro-Israel lobbying in DC. It is simply a fact of life.

7 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 8:25:32pm

re: #5 Buck

Did this become a game of horse shoes?

Maybe you are willing to ignore what he really said and substitute it for what you wish he said.

It’s a problem people have, you and I included: We act like the person whose words we read had made the argument we wanted him or her to make, instead of the argument he or she actually did make.

8 Flavia  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 9:57:50pm

re: #6 EPR-radar

In my interpretation, I am taking Hagel’s reference to “the Jewish lobby” to refer to hard-right pro-Israel advocacy. That seems to be the only bit of interpretation needed to get from Hagel to #2.

IOW, you are ignoring what he said in favor of what you wish he had said. Now I am sure this is merely you being polite/decent about not wanting to believe another human being could even think what he actually said, & I commend you for your decency, but some of us would rather be safe than sorry.

9 Shvaughn  Tue, Jan 8, 2013 11:42:54pm

re: #1 Buck

To say that this is about settlements (which by the way are not illegal despite what everyone says) is simply a way to avoid the truth.

LOL Buck.

10 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:52am

re: #6 EPR-radar

In my interpretation, I am taking Hagel’s reference to “the Jewish lobby” to refer to hard-right pro-Israel advocacy. That seems to be the only bit of interpretation needed to get from Hagel to #2.

Sure, just interpret what he said. Change the words and the meaning. This way he said what you would have said.

Doesn’t matter. You give an example of the only way that a person can be antisemitic. You only allow for interpretation one way. Seems silly, but it lets you sleep at night.

11 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:37:18am

re: #9 Shvaughn

LOL Buck.

That is right. I said that the settlements are not illegal. There is no law being broken. The title and deed for the land belongs to Israel, and has been since the 20’s.

There was an offer to the Arabs in 1947, but it was rejected.

There is nothing anywhere in international law that says the land is anything except Israels.

There is a lot of rewitten history, based in antisemitism, that has been repeated over decades to make it seem that the matter is not even open for discussion, but that does not make it true.

12 Red Falcons of America  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 9:06:53am

re: #9 Shvaughn

Buck Kahane also believes that Jordan is the rightful property of Israel and Jordans existence is illegal.

13 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 10:02:54am

re: #12 Red Falcons of America

Buck Kahane also believes that Jordan is the rightful property of Israel and Jordans existence is illegal.

Not exactly true. The liar War on Music seems to like to slander instead of debate.


I believe that England was, in 1922, given a clear mandate, a trust if you will to: a) as Mandatory, to secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home… b) as Trustee, to preserve the whole land in trust for the benefit of the Jewish people; and c) as Tutor.

There was a legally binding term to NOT break up the land in anyway.

They did so anyway. That was illegal. However, the Jews agreed to it, and what was done cannot be undone.

You can read the document yourself. This is not some biblical promise. It is written in English (I think that is your mother tongue) This is not based on anything except international law.

If you think that the people who made this mandate were not legally able to do so, you should know that the same people gave similar mandates to France to create Lebanon. They also created Syria and Iraq.

No one is questioning the League of Nations legal standing to do that. The Allies after WW1, the USA, the League of Nations and the UN all agreed to these terms. Votes were taken multiple times.

The legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Jewish state all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.

Later, they took the land that was the British Mandate and broke off 70% for the creation of a Arab Palestinian State. That is now called Jordan where 60% of the population is Arab Palestinian but the country is ruled by a dictator who is propped up by the Bedouin minority. Again the Jews, hoping against the odds for peace, agreed to it, and I know that what was done cannot be undone. Yes that was the first “land for peace” deal that went bad.

Not happy with that 70%, the Arab leaders declared openly the plan to kill the Jews and take with force the land they didn’t already get. They knew that the world would not care about the legal standing of Jews. They knew that many in the world would stand by while they committed genocide. No country took the threats seriously (or they simply turned a blind eye to them).

In 1947 they tried to follow though with the plan to “drive the Jews into the sea”. They failed.

War on Music wants to reward the people who engaged in terrible ethnic cleansing as part of the attempt to steal the land (the remaining 30%).
Jews were driven from their homes in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in 1948 by Jordanians. Synagogues and cemeteries were desecrated.

You can view Life Magazine’s Pictures of Jerusalem 1948 The world saw those pictures and were not moved. Jordan had no legal right to do this. No country had Israel’s back. The new nation was alone.

War on Music (and the United Nations) rewards the war criminals and the people who benefited from their illegal actions.

14 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 10:08:55am

re: #13 Buck

Of course people call into question Britain’s right to split former colonies up into nations. Britain had no right to those places in the first place. The US had no right to seize land from the American Indians, either. This doesn’t matter. What matters is the current, actual situation.

The Palestinians screwed themselves and Israel massively by refusing to take the two-state solution when it was first proposed. That matters, that they were the ones who walked away from a very fair deal. That doesn’t mean that legalistically referring to the British mandate makes any goddamn sense. Who gives a shit what the assholic colonial power thought was the right way to go about things?

15 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 10:21:54am

re: #14 Obdicut

Of course people call into question Britain’s right to split former colonies up into nations. Britain had no right to those places in the first place. The US had no right to seize land from the American Indians, either. This doesn’t matter. What matters is the current, actual situation.

That is a complete rewriting of history, and completely false.

First there are no former colonies there. That is simply a false way to describe that land. It was NEVER a colony of Britain.

The Ottoman Empire lost all its Middle East territories during World War One. The Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920 abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa. It was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

The Ottoman Empire’s former possessions were NEVER British colonies.

The decisions about these formerly Ottoman Empire territories was determined at a conference in San Remo, Italy on April 24-25, 1920 attended by Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and as an observer, the United States.

They absolutely had the right to determine what would be done with the land, and they did so at the San Remo Conference. It was done legally and properly. Britain was NEVER given title to the land, but was given a trust, a Mandate to return the land to the Jews.

16 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 10:29:43am

It is a fact that the territory on both sides of the Jordan river was legally designated for the Jewish homeland by the 1920 San Remo Conference, mandated to Britain, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmed in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine in 1925 and confirmed in 1945 by article 80 of the UN.

Yet, approximately 80% of this territory was excised from the territory in May 1923 when, in violation of the mandate and the San Remo resolution, Britain gave autonomy to Transjordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn.

The San Remo resolution has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it.

The legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.

The only way to say that Israel is illegal, but Syria, Lebanon, Iraq are legal is antisemitism.

So with regards to the Settlements, when Israel entered the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967 it did not occupy territory to which any other party had title. While Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created legally at San Remo.


To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.

17 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 11:12:31am

It really matter a lot that the true history be known.

When you talk about stolen land, or colonial “assholic” you are repeating the history that makes Israel look illegitimate. That is the Arab leaders history, not the truth.

When you compare what happened in Israel with seizing “land from the American Indians”, you are changing the history of Israel.
If you insist on that story, then you need to know that the Jews are the indigenous people of that land, not the Arabs. It was never the Jews seizing land, just the opposite.

Repeating the lie about stolen land, colonial powers or even 1967 borders does not help Israel, because they are a falsehood repeated by the people who want to do harm.

18 Red Falcons of America  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 11:47:55am

Of course, Buck Kahane is forgetting an important document in the Transjordan memorandum, passed by the Council of the League of Nations on September 16, 1922. Article 25 of the British Mandate for Palestine stated that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, Britain could ‘postpone or withhold’ the articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish National Home. Thus Buck Kahanes claim that Britain gaving autonomy to Transjordan (now known as Jordan) was a violation of the mandate and the San Remo resolution and illegal is false, as the transjordan memorandum in essese cancles out the trusteeship for a Jewish national homeland “lying to the east of a line drawn from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk: thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian frontier.”

Second, the whole idea that Britain was not a colonial entity in the Middle East is laughable. The mandate was a colonial government; even the Zionists in Palestine called it that while they assassinated British officials. The question is why would Britain control Ottoman territoriality? The obvious awnser is that the Ottoman empire was conquered during WW1.

19 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 12:19:39pm

re: #18 Red Falcons of America

Article 25 of the British Mandate for Palestine stated that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, Britain could ‘postpone or withhold’ the articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish National Home.

That does not say it could be given away. It was certainly postponed until more than 20 years had passed.

By mentioning Article 25 you know that it does not supersede Article 5:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

However like I said, what is done is done. The Palestinian State was already created, the Jews gave land for peace, and got none.

Now the Arab Palestinians want another Arab state, and a second Palestinian State. They want to eliminate (wipe off the map) the only Jewish state.

The question is why would Britain control Ottoman territoriality?

I answered that, and it was not Britain colonizing Palestine.

The Ottoman Empire ceded the land. Yes, it was after WW1, but this land was never colonized, not by any definition of that term. The British never had plans to migrate to it, or settle in it. There was never a plan to keep it. Britain was given a mandate over the land. Again, just as France was given a mandate over Lebanon and Syria.


It is a bit like when you buy a house. For a short time the house is given to the lawyer IN TRUST. It isn’t the lawyers house. They don’t own it, and they certainly can’t sell part of it.

They must help you to take possession, under the conditions of the trust or mandate. That is the responsibility they must do. Britain, because of pre WW2 antisemitism started to pull back from that responsibility. Limiting Jewish immigration “for their own good”.

Let me be even more clear, while the Jews were trying to escape genocide in Europe, and Britain was under a mandate to help recreate the Jewish homeland… they were turning back Jews and not allowing them to land in Palestine. That was illegal. It was immoral. The world simply turned a blind eye.

If Jews had to defend their rights, their legal rights by attacking British forces that were behaving illegally, then that was also within their rights.

They didn’t attack the British civilians in England. They didn’t bomb civilian buses. They defended their lives and the lives of other Jews. If the sight of Jews fighting back makes you uncomfortable, you will just have to get used to it.

YOU FAIL TO ADDRESS THE CENTRAL ISSUE.

There is nothing in international law or history or common sense that gives that land to anyone except the Jews.

The San Remo resolution has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it.

The legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo. The Allies after WW1, the USA, the League of Nations and the UN all agreed to these terms.

The only way to say that Israel is illegal, but Syria, Lebanon, Iraq are legal is antisemitism.

20 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 12:21:59pm

re: #18 Red Falcons of America

Article 25 of the British Mandate for Palestine stated that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River

And BTW, Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza are all WEST of the Jordan River. I mean that is why they call it the West Bank. It is on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

You can’t have it both ways.

21 rosiee  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 2:23:08pm

Hagel doesn’t really like the power the Jews have over America’s foreign policy, fine, he’s just the right kinda jerk you need in office when you have to go to war with Iran. Do you want someone friendly to Israel? Do you want charges of the Israeli lobby pushing america to war? Like Obama, a neutral, even antipathetic, person is someone you want in charge.

22 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 3:24:10pm

re: #15 Buck

First there are no former colonies there. That is simply a false way to describe that land. It was NEVER a colony of Britain.

Whatever the fuck you want to call it, Buck. The British, the league of nations never had a valid claim to the land, and if they had decided otherwise, if they hadn’t decided to make it a Jewish homeland, I really don’t think you’d have respected that decision one iota, would you?

None of this fucking matters. What matters is, as I said, that Israel gave a perfectly valid peace proposal to the Palestinians which the Palestinians walked away from and that’s why we are where we are today. They could have had a country a long time ago, but they were unwilling to make the deal.

That matters. The legalistic history of the various nations dividing up territory they had no right to doesn’t matter.

23 Buck  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 8:04:14pm

re: #22 Obdicut

The British, the league of nations never had a valid claim to the land,

Claim? Well that word is too general. They did have the legal right to transfer it from the ottoman Empire to the Jews. The Treaty that was signed did give the Allies the authority. That is a better word.

And it matters a lot. When people are saying the settlements are illegal, what is legal really does matter.

(I really don’t have time to try and slip these properly into my post so I will simply place them at the end and let you put them where you want)

Fuck, Fucking Fuck Fuck Fuck.

24 Flavia  Wed, Jan 9, 2013 8:33:59pm

re: #22 Obdicut

The legalistic history of the various nations dividing up territory they had no right to doesn’t matter.

a) The legality DOES matter because the Arabs are insisting Israel is illegal.
b) The British absolutely had the right to administer what she won in a defensive war. That point is also crucial.

25 Buck  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:10:48am
The legality DOES matter because the Arabs are insisting Israel is illegal.

Yes, but also because the whole world is insisting Israel is illegal. It isn’t just Arabs.

If it is illegal for Jews to build homes somewhere, simply because it is “Palestinian land”, then if followed to the logical conclusion (as some have done), Jews living anywhere in “Palestine” are illegal.

26 Buck  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 2:11:09pm

“The legalistic history” as you so simply put it, matters to me.

AND more importantly it seems to matter to everyone who has ever called the settlements illegal. It matters to Joe Klein. It matters to Media Matters and it matters to J-Street. It matters to War on Music and it matters to Shvaughn.

No reason to use the word illegal if the legality doesn’t matter.

Basically it matters to the people who want to be able to enforce “Jew Free Zones” in Jerusalem, Samaria and Judea (the place where the word Jew comes from).

It matters to all of us.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
6 days ago
Views: 161 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 326 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1