Posted on 01/17/2012 3:44:25 PM PST by Amerisrael
UK Foreign policy loons: David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Tony Blair.
Nick Clegg, the UK's second string dhimmi Prime Minister, belched out the UK's ignorance and foreign policy dhimmitude with the following vitriolic charge of 'vandalism' against Israel:
["Once you've placed physical facts on the ground that makes it impossible to deliver something that everyone has for years agreed is the ultimate destination... it is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years," Clegg said, referring to settlement construction.
Clegg was speaking alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was also holding talks in London with Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague – both of whom have previously expressed concern about settlements.
"The continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable," Clegg said]
England, along with most [liberal dhimmi] Europeans want to impose the establishment of an Islamist state in the heart of Israel's own land of Judea and Samaria.
All the members of the so-called Quartet, -the U.S., UN, EU, and Russia, are in willful ignorance of previously established international law:
["The “Road Map” vision, as well as continuous pressure from the “Quartet” (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of Eretz-Israel are contrary to international law that firmly call to “encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” It also requires the Mandatory 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.”]
See the San Remo Conference and the Mandate for a Jewish National Home .
["The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5
The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form."]
On the contrary it is the UK that has had a history of perpetrating political and foreign policy 'vandalism' against Jews and Israel:
[British policy on Israel slammed by top British historian.]
See also "Israeli settlements-Are they Legal?"
“I didn’t realize you were reading from 0bama’s geography notes.”
Of course. If you can’t trust The One, whom can you trust?/sarc
“Rule? Our problem comes from not finishing wars. Consequences of unwanted wars.”
OK. You win. America has always been a paradigm of imperial virtue. Always. Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, the Seminoles and all that? Whatever has that to do with anything.
Seriously, America did very well to adopt the Roman model and made its conquered territories into self-governing units with a part in the federal government, rather than a mere vassal who had to take what the central government gave it and like it. There you chose liberty over empire and flourished, and did better than the sunsetless empire. Treatment of Indians and post-Libre Cuba left a lot to be desired, though. You could have done a lot worse, but even so.
The Greeks did do a lot worse. So did the Soviets, and for the most part so did Rome. As for the Islamic empire...hoo boy.
No territory gained at the first two, never won against the third.
Seriously, America did very well to adopt the Roman model and made its conquered territories into self-governing units with a part in the federal government,
The states petitioned for entry into the Union, the perception that they are vassals results from not enforcing the Constitution, and allowing schools to give out the sort of education you apparently got.
Treatment of Indians and post-Libre Cuba left a lot to be desired, though.
The current Indians do quite well getting back 'whitey's' money, if they don't use it to improve their condition on the res, I guess that is 'whitey's' fault too. We gave Cuba back to Spain after that war. You are well recovered from being an American, and take advantage of the freedoms provided while you disparage her. Typical lib entitlement attitude.
1. You are fortunate to be 11,000 miles or more away from me when you call me a “lib”.
2. Apparently you suffer from the public school education whose affects you project onto me, if you think I was “disparaging” the United States. You might at least have learned how to read a short paragraph and interpret it with your head, rather than your spleen. And you might have at least known that Lin Yutang to whom I referred was a lifelong supporter of Chiang Kai Shek, not Mao Tze Tung.
3. “OK. You win. America has always been a paradigm of imperial virtue. Always. Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, the Seminoles and all that?
No territory gained at the first two, never won against the third.”
Check a map. No territory gained? Not even North and South Dakota? Aside from that, your distinction is nonsense. Britain gained no territory by mistreating its subjects, either, other than for a time from the Boers. In fact, it lost its empire. Athens was so badly spent fighting the Spartans and Megarans that when the Persians came back, having no Alkibiades to arrange their defenses, they were overrun, sacked and pillaged. No territory gained there, either. Rome declined and slowly fell after they foresook the Republican principles on which Rome was based. As for the USSR and the Ottomans, to whom empire was their only concern, with no consideration for liberty whatever, they’re gone now.
“The states petitioned for entry into the Union, the perception that they are vassals results from not enforcing the Constitution, and allowing schools to give out the sort of education you apparently got.”
They were not made into vassals because Thomas Jefferson, when contemplating how best to rule over the vast Louisiana Purchase he made, adopted a policy of giving the American residents of territories the opportunity to apply for statehood. That was a good thing. He could have instead viewed them as vassals, right after the might of the federal government conquered them from the Indians and opened them up to settlement. That is what I plainly said, your inability to comprehend notwithstanding.
Sorry don't quail before your ilk even if you're next door.
Check a map. No territory gained? Not even North and South Dakota?
N/S Dakota? Is it possible for you to make a dumber statement? Which Indians owned that land? Empires are built on land possessions. The US hasn't run an empire despite the ravings of a lunatic left.
Conquered from the Indians and opened up to settlement? As an American hater, you don't know history but pick and choose actions without regard for the chronology because it fits your purpose. A revisionist lefty at that. 1804 Louisiana Purchase according to america hating history 101, no one settled there until the Indians were conquered 80+ years later.
Thomas Jefferson, when contemplating how best to rule
Ah yes, I forgot about King Thomas the First. No kings sis, but I know that doesn't fit your rant. Thankfully you are gone and now only imbibe of the freedoms of America via the Internet.
“Conquered from the Indians and opened up to settlement? As an American hater, you don’t know history but pick and choose actions without regard for the chronology because it fits your purpose. A revisionist lefty at that. 1804 Louisiana Purchase according to america hating history 101, no one settled there until the Indians were conquered 80+ years later”
As someone who is overly eager to brand someone he doesn’t even know an “America hater,” “lefty,” and “revisionist,” you have a room temperature IQ. True, the Louisiana Purchase was made in 1804, but Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries determined the policy, anticipating conquering the Indians, the purpose of the purchase. He didn’t buy half a continent solely in order to keep Napoleon solvent. Their policy with regards to the western territories was a good one, btw. Much better than Israel’s present one with regards to Judah and Samariah.
By room temperature, I mean Celsius, not Fahrenheit. This conversation was with Scotsman, not yourself, and we were discussing the bombing of the King David Hotel and British Colonial behavior and the Irgun, not America, which was only brought into the discussion as a comparison with Britain, as was ancient Greece, Rome, the USSR and the Ottomans, all empires, as is the United States. It happens to be a very good empire, slightly better than the British when it comes to choosing between liberty and empire as Lin Yutang formulated it, much much better than the USSR and the Ottomans, and is a good empire especially because it drew on the best example of Republican Rome, and in spite of the fact that you live there.
Your entire tirade, aside from being moronic, is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is already over. When you are capable of coherent thought, and mature enough to apologize for your unfounded insults and accusations, you’ll be worthy of further notice. Now go ramble on about what an “America hater,” “Obama lover,” or whatever else it is you suppose I am.
But for the record, I’ve been freeping for 12 plus years, lived in Kiryat Arba, Israel for the past 2.5 years, have voted Republican since 1988, and favor annexing Judah and Samaria, not giving it away to the sand Nazis. If you don’t believe me, just check my posts. Goodbye.
Fortunately, it doesn't take IQ to read what one says and to see that one hates America.
but Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries determined the policy, anticipating conquering the Indians, the purpose of the purchase.
But that isn't what you said, not surprisingly. The Indians didn't 'own' the land
This conversation was with Scotsman, not yourself,
Open forum aside, you have a faulty view of American history, sell your wares someplace else.
But for the record, I’ve been freeping for 12 plus years, lived in Kiryat Arba, Israel for the past 2.5 years, have voted Republican since 1988,
Then you would think you'd know better, apparently not.
have voted Republican since 1988
Former Dem? Carter voter? Or just one of those smart kids from the 70s?
“Fortunately, it doesn’t take IQ to read what one says and to see that one hates America.”
Fortunately for you, you don’t have one. See whatever you choose to. Ha! couldn’t resist.
A lib, trying hard, while using the language of the left to make up for an earlier life spent in its service.
Xone: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:xone/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Mois: http://www.freerepublic.com/~eleutheria5/
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:eleutheria5/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Xone has no profile to speak of. His only comments are either about basketball, ballistics, or slander. I say he is a troll. I submit it to the moderators.
says the 5 word profiler
I submit it to the moderators.
OMG!!!!!!!
Troll. <5wrds.
(sic)is an informational comment. 5 wds lib. An American would know that a lib would’nt preferring the bandwidth for the comment be free or paid for by taxpayers.
Elements of British society certainly were (and are) anti-semetic. But then there were other elements that were (and are) quite definitely pro-Israeli.
And how, pray tell, do you come to that conclusion? Oh yes, that would be because they did not completely side with the Israelis on every point and in every single way possible.
And this would be different from anywhere else in the world is what way? There are student groups in the US that unashamedly support Jewish genocide.
In any case, since when did the pathetic verbal meanderings of any nation's mass media (long since fully controlled by 'progressives') in any way reflect what the average person in that nation thought or believed? On ANY issue, not just the Israeli/palestinian question?
Yep. Its on the internet, in the world banking system, in Hollywood, on madison avenue, and most obviously in a network of military bases spread all over the globe. Its not an old-style geographic empire. Its an empire of the mind, and more importantly, the wallet. And all the more powerful for that.
I come to that conclusion based on the fact that in 1921, Haj Amin ElHusseini, a member of the Christian Muslim Association, was encouraged by members of the Cairo-Khartoum cabal that financed that organization to incite a riot in Jerusalem and British troops guarded the gates of the Old City to prevent Zeev Jabotinsky from coming to the aid of the Jews being victimized there. By the fact that this 21-year-old pisher, rather than being jailed for that heinous act was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by Governor Sir Herbert Samuels over the head of the popularly elected candidate, against whom he finished a poor fourth. By the fact that in 1929, that same Mufti incited further riots throughout Jerusalem and in Hebron. By the fact that as his punishment, he was promoted to Grand Mufti by the British Mandate, given a pay raise and asked to keep it quiet. By the fact that in 1933, he led a full-scale uprising against the British and killed 2,000 Jews over three years, having allied himself with Hitler. The British finally woke up and outlawed him, and after squashing the uprising refused to allow the Jews of Hebron to return to their homes. By the fact that in 1939, just as the persecution of Jews in Europe was heating up, Winston Churchill signed the White Paper into law, severely restricting Jewish immigration to the Mandate, and the British government put additional pressure on neutral governments to keep Jews out for fear that they might end up in the Mandate rather than Auschwitz. Let’s just skip the war years and go to 1946, when the British Mandate announced that due to the rebels’ many attacks, they would stop all Jewish immigration and freeze all Jewish settlement in the Mandate. In response to this, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel, destroying all the British intelligence files and a lot of the administration files, and the British appealed to the UN to find a new means of administering the Mandate.
During the war years, and in the course of trying to squash the Jewish rebellion, the British tortured and killed prisoners, including teenagers caught putting up posters, transported prisoners to the heart Khartoum and other points in the heart of Africa, and repelled leaking ships filled with refugees, returning them to Hitler’s tender mercies.
Does that give you an answer to your question materially different than “Oh yes, that would be because they did not completely side with the Israelis on every point and in every single way possible.”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.