The issue here is not only of Gaza but also includes West Bank where illegal settlements are constantly being built by israel and this frustration and hopelessness by Palestinians on their own land leads to such attacks. The Palestinians are not even free to move between the two places and I am sure there are likely to be relatives on both sides who haven't seen each other for a long time and as a people they feel disconnected from their each other due to israeli barriers and restrictions.
Was it, oh my history must be wrong then , i thought it was the british and the UN and this is what i mean about land being insignificant, no amount of land being returned will stop the hatred of Israel
Your history is wrong. Israel was bought about when Ben Gurion of the Jewish Agency declared the creation and indepenence of the Jewish State of Israel after a protracted terrorist campaign led by Irgun and Lehi against the British.
israel was gifted to the jews by the british in return for the jews using their influence to bring america in to WWII. btw Churchill had something interesting things to say about the jews.
Even for you, this is a ridiculous statement. Let me guess, the Jews consorted with the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour? Or was Emperor Hirohito a closet Jew? Sometimes I wonder whether some people are genuinely nuts or just unable to tell their elbow from other body parts. Lets hear how Churchill was an anti-semite as well. This should be interesting because if all you have is a comment on Bolshevism, you will need to do a bit more reading or others ( I am not saying me) might start to question your, uhmm, I don't know, your, err, your... would someone please help me out with the word. Noughtboy (previously known as Kwerk and then reverting back to Noughtboy)
I can't remember if Housey ever explained how he knows an Israeli attack on Iran has been 'in planning for years' (perhaps he has a day job with MI6?) but I'm guessing he didn't. At any rate, with only a few weeks left in the year, his bold prediction is running out of time.
This is not only wrong, but staggeringly ignorant. It was in the 19th Century that Britain promised to return the Jews' land (made official by the 1917 Balfour Declaration), and that was a hell of a long time before WWII. The re-establishment of the state of Israel was achieved via UN vote in 1947 (nothing to do with Britain or WWII) and the result was a majority decision in the Jews' favour. Put simply: the world voted on it and agreed that the Jews should get their land back after 2,000 years of invasion and occupation by foreign countries. LOL. Another anti-Semite muddles history.
Many people would say Japan was goaded in to the attack by the American oil sanctions. There's also plenty of evidence than America had prior warning of pearl harbor but allowed it to happen. They have a track record of doing that. In 1939 Gallup polls 96% of Americans opposed going to war with Germany and Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year, his picture on the front cover. Then came American Jewry's propaganda campaign against the Germans, and the attack on pearl harbor. But ask yourself why would FDR so desperately want to instigate a war on Germany when 96% of voters were against it?
He had some interesting things to say about muslims too! "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)
The mere fact he refers to Islam as 'Mohammedanism' shows his serious lack of knowledge of the subject at hand - what a numpty. - Clear where he gets this bias from then Someone also needs to get their facts right. The Balfour Treaty was designed to protect the palestinians from the Jewish Terrorists conspiring to take over their land. Unfortunately these same terrorists flipped it and used the Balfour Treaty as 'legitimacy' for their own greedy interests in establishing the 'State of Israel' out of force themselves. Neither the British, The UN or the US actually did anything to set up Israel - It was taken by force under the pretence the Balfour Treaty was its 'legitimate right' to exist. I find it laughable at best that the jews think they have a 2,000 year old right to the 'promised land' - So who had it before they did? - Surely they have more right no? - stupid notions of 'God promised it to us' really need to be stamped out.
And they would be simpletons who ignored 20 years of increasing tension and posturing, the effects of blatant aggression in Nanking both against the US Navy and the Chinese, the ambition of Japan to get the resources it required whilst maintaining its flanks, a consequence of renouncing the Washington Naval Treaty (as highlighted by the very person who then had to lead the attack on Pearl Harbour etc), etc
Hundreds marched through Glasgow to the BBC main office there, this weekend - not ONE mention in the mainstream media. http://m.local.stv.tv/glasgow/news/...vernment-to-denounce-israeli-actions-in-gaza/ I also note thousands marched through London to the Israeli embassy and again, quietly dismissed by the media.
Reading this article reminds me of something Abraham Lincoln said: "It is better to remain silent and let people think you are an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt." But I digress. Did you actually read the article you posted or just arbitrarily posted links? Should I quote selectively (but without bias) from the article that you post as proof that the Jews used their influence to bring the USA into WW2 or alternatively that the USA knew about the attack prior to it happening or both. "President Franklin D.Roosevelt was warned three days before the attack that the Japanese empire was eyeing up Hawaii with a view to "open conflict". Please focus your attention to the time scale. "Japan is ... paying particular attention to the West Coast, the Panama Canal and the Territory of Hawaii, stated the 26-page memo." Note the geographical focus of the attack. "But Mr Shirley said: "Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy." The historian who wrote the book bringing the memo to the public attention comes to a startling conclusion. "This memo is further evidence that they believed the Japanese were contemplating a military action of some sort, but they were kind of in denial because they didn't think anybody would be as audacious to move an army thousands of miles across the Pacific, stop to refuel, then move on to Hawaii to make a strike like this." Time to change feet? NB
It could just be that it is just not really that newsworthy? Why should such a minor protest get reported?
Well, the poppy burning doesn't happen all that often. Protests outside the Israeli embassy are more common. Poppy burning is also much likely to illicit a greater response, ergo it is more newsworthy. I can see why they would be treated differently by the press.
Poppy burning is directly against something directly linked to this country ie its armed forces. Protests at the Israeli embassy are not directly linked to this country. The BBC doesn't really focus its news maybe the way we would expect. You only have to look at the front of Al Jazeera to see its entirely dedicated to the geopolitical whereas the BBC seems to have a very different and inward looking remit. They kind of ignored a great deal over the last 30 years in their coverage: conflicts, famines, massacres. Well they overlook it until some celebrity gets involved. Doesn't make them necessarily biased just not that as good or comprehensive as we may like.
