It's time for me to go check what's collapse-ining today. 
Posted on 07/08/2024 5:01:15 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
It's time for me to go check what's collapse-ining today.
Tell your girlfriend Kazan there’s no such thing as a “Palestine.”
What’s a “Palestine”?
Sounds like fragging to me, like what the Ukrainian government did after the US-backed coup in 2014 to Crimea. You know, bombing and shelling their own country.
What’s a “Palestine”? Is that something you learned in your ESL class?
Jo-jo, you’re Dr. wife is looking for you!!
Time for a diaper change!
Your.....
I've noticed that.
Note that he's also changed his focus from Ukraine blowing up some Russian tugboat that completely insignificant to the war to claiming the Russians are targeting children in hospitals.
His goal is still the same -- distract from what is actually happening on the frontlines, where Ukraine is, as usual, being destroyed.
Tell MI-6 to give The Putin his Taylor Swift passion doll back.
What’s a “Palestine”? Never heard of it.
Officially, Palestine is a land unlawfully occupied by Israel. Offcially, Ukraine recognizes the state of Palestine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
As of May 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.
The most recent nations to recognize the State of Palestine are Ireland, Norway and Spain, and most recently Slovenia.
Ukrainian recognition dates to 19 November 1988. Recognition extended as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, of which Ukraine is the legal successor. The modern republic continues all "rights and duties pursuant to international agreements of Union SSR which do not contradict the Constitution of Ukraine and interests of the Republic".
Also:
On 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations. The new status equated Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine". Voting "no" were Israel, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States.[...]
The UN has, after the resolution was passed, permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations", seen by many as a reflection of the UN's de facto position of recognizing the State of Palestine's sovereignty under international law, and Palestine started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports. The Palestinian authorities also instructed its diplomats to officially represent the "State of Palestine", as opposed to the "Palestine National Authority". Additionally, on 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents", recognizing the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.
But with or without the United Nations, nearly three-fourths of the world's nations recognize Palestine as a nation, and less than 5% opposed. Moreover, nations representing the vast majority of the world's population recognize the state of Palestine. These nations include China (1.4B), India (1.4B), Pakistan (235M), Indonesia (275M), Brazil (214M).
Canada, 38M
Czech Republic, 10.6M
Israel, 9.4M
Marshall Islands, 54K
Federated States of Micronesia, 105K
Nauru, 18K
Panama, 4.4M
Palau, 12K
United States 333.3M
The world population is 7.9B. The total population of the opposed states is 404.47M, or 5% of the world's population.
“Officially, Palestine is a land unlawfully occupied by Israel”
lol. I guess the USA is a land unlawfully occupied by European migrants?
the REALITY on the ground in the middle east is that there is no such country called Palestine — It is nothing more then a wet dream by anti-semitic, filthball lawyers like woodpusher.
and guess what — There NEVER will be an arab nation called Palestine — but keep posting links telling me how many countries “recognize” it.
the REALITY on the ground in the middle east is that there is no such country called Palestine — It is nothing more then a wet dream by anti-semitic, filthball lawyers like woodpusher.
Of course, the REALITY on the ground in Ukraine is that DPR, LPR and Crimea exist and Ukraine considers them occupied territory. And Russia is taking more territory every day. So the reality on the ground says it is theirs.
Of course, 143 nations and the United Nations are anti-semitic, filthballs. Just ask a filthball like Jaysin in Israel.
Of course, the filthballs in Israel only have the support of 5%, by nation, of the world population, the vast majority of that being the United States.
The historical records are clear, you just do not like them.
In 1914, Herbert Samuel (1st Viscount Samuel, First High Commissioner of Mandatory Palestine) provided his memorandum called The Future of Palestine to his Cabinet colleagues. The memorandum stated: "I am assured that the solution of the problem of Palestine which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire". Samuel spoke about it with Nathan Rothschild in February 1915, just before that Rothschild's death.
1915-1916 The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence
The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.
Britain enlisted the aid of the Arabs to defeat the Ottoman Empire, but cut a secret deal with France that did not include them. It was actually Arabs who were solicited to fight, and did fight, for the independence of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, upon a promise of a large region after the war.
The Ottoman Empire, an Islamic caliphate, had ruled the Palestinian area since 1517.
1916 SYKES-PICOT (Britain-France) SECRET AGREEMENT
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp
Plotting to carve up the Ottoman Empire in 1916.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement: 1916It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments:
That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.
That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigres and Euphrates in area (a) for area (b). His Majesty's government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third power without the previous consent of the French government.
That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.
That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b).
For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two powers.
There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.
It shall be agreed that the French government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of his majesty's government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French government regarding the red area.
The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.
The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two powers.
It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.
I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, his majesty's government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your excellency's government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your excellency as soon as exchanged.I would also venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the allies.
His Majesty's government further consider that the Japanese government should be informed of the arrangements now concluded.
The Balfour Declaration was simply a private letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild—not a politician but the world's foremost banker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The BALFOUR DECLARATION of 1917
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917.Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Arthur James Balfour
Seriously, a British lord stating "His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," creates a right to possession of land that does not belong to the British? The British lord had no authority to give the land to anybody. Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire when the Balfour Declaration was written. And the British had already promised the land to the Arabs to stage the Arab uprising against the Turks. And then there was the Sykes-Picot; agreeent where the Frnch were promised a slice.
The Mandate for Palestine was issued in 1922, and it was not issued on the authority of a British lord, and did not assign all of Palestine to the Jewish people to form a state.
In 1948, Israel declared the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and eleven minutes later the United States formally recognized the State of Israel and established diplomatic relations. Before any war, Israel was a recognized nation state. Not only that, they had a fully equipped army. As the mandate or administrator ceased to exist, Israel became a free territory and did not declare its independence from anybody; it declared the Establishment of the State of Israel. If Israel fought a war for independence, who did Israel become independent from?
Britain went bankrupt during World War I. They reached out to Lord Rothschild for help. And near the end of the war, Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild which has been inflated into the Balfour Declaration. The only declaration was, "His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...." Apparently, when His Majesty's Government view with favor, that is a contractual binding and enforceable guarantee for land that has never belonged to the British empire.
On December 11, 1947 it was announced that the British Mandate would end at midnight starting May 15, 1948. Eleven minutes after Israel declared itself to be the State of Israel, President Truman officially recognized Israel.
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/recognition-israel
U.S. President Harry Truman was the first world leader to officially recognize Israel as a legitimate Jewish state on May 14, 1948, only eleven minutes after its creation.
Harry Truman acted on May 14 Washington time which was May 15 Israel time.
As for Israel being unlawfully occupied, your attention is invited to the undeniable fact that it is Israel which is officially unlawfully occupying Palestinian territory.
https://news.un.org/en/tags/occupied-palestinian-territory
Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission20 October 2022
Human Rights
Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli government’s de facto annexation policies, a UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry said in its first report, published on Thursday.
International law, as conveyed by the United Nations, is clear.
June 1922 The Partition of the Palestine Mandate
https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf
The Palestine Royal (Peel) Commission Report Cmd. 5479 (pg 38)
(3) The field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaraion, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field under Article 25. This was done, as has been seen, in obedience to the McMahon Pledge, which was antecedent to the Balfour Declaration.
1915-1916 The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence
The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.
It was Arabs who fought to liberate Palestine from the Turkish Ottoman Empire and were promised the land.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2021666887/
League of Nations
Mandate for Palestine
And Memorandum by the British Government Relating to its Application to Trans-Jordan, Approved by the Council of the League of Nations on September 16th, 1922.
Title Page plus six pages each English and French.
MANDATE FOR PALESTINEWhereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstructing their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22, (paragraph 8) it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Article 1
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
Article 2
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as wll secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of raqce and religion
Article 3
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
[...]
Article 25
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
The cited Article 15, 16 and 18:
Article 15The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
Article 16
The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
Article 18
The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2021666887/
TitleMandate for Palestine and Memorandum by the British Government Relating to its Application to Transjordan.
Summary
After World War I, the Covenant of the League of Nations established a system by which the League was empowered to confer upon certain of the victorious powers mandates to administer territories formerly ruled by Germany or the Ottoman Empire. Mandated territories were to be governed on behalf of the League, until such time as they could become independent. On September 16, 1922, the Council of the League approved a mandate to Great Britain for Palestine, previously part of the Ottoman Empire. The mandate provided for the eventual creation of a Jewish state, as specified in Article 2: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." Successive articles dealt with Jewish immigration, public administration, access to holy places and religious buildings, public health, commerce, and other matters. Appended to the mandate was a memorandum by the British government, also approved by the Council of the League, stating its understanding that the provisions of the mandate relating to the establishment of a Jewish national home and the promotion of Jewish immigration were not to apply to that portion of the mandated territory known as Transjordan, i.e., territory east of the Jordan River. The texts are in French and English, on facing pages. The mandate is in the archives of the League, which were transferred to the United Nations in 1946 and are housed at the UN office in Geneva. The archives were inscribed on the UNESCO Memory of the World register in 2010.
Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied a large swath of Palestinian territory. Israel was not attacked in 1967 but was the aggressor. They termed their action a pre-emptive strike, which under international law only means they certified they attacked first. Any lands occupied are not legally theirs.
The illegally occupied territory which was the area of the recent attacks cannot be cited for a claim of self-defense. Israel is not claiming to self-defense regarding the Gaza strip but what is an area that does not legally belong to them.
That Israel did, or did not, cede Gaza in 2005 is legally diversionary irrelevance.
https://news.un.org/en/tags/occupied-palestinian-territory
Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission20 October 2022
Human Rights
Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli government’s de facto annexation policies, a UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry said in its first report, published on Thursday.
you can copy-paste-spam all you want it still doesn’t change the reality on the ground! so enjoy your wet fantasy dreams of a kike-free world.
I can also post links from NYS DOJ showing that DJT is a criminal — does that make it true?
BTW, isn’t the USA illegally occupying land that isn’t theirs?
I noticed you didn’t answer that.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-moore-keeping-biden-in-race-is-elder-abuse
Michael Moore: Keeping Biden In Race Is ‘Elder Abuse’Eboni Boykin-Patterson
Entertainment Reporter
Published Jul. 09, 2024 11:41AM EDT[excerpt]
“He was in epic distress [during the debate]. Every cognitive default in his mind seemed to be shutting down. If this had been somebody that you truly cared about, loved, embraced, what would you have done? Would you have seriously even let him go out on that stage?”
The Oscar-winning filmmaker has been vocally critical of Biden in the past—especially in regards to the Israel-Hamas War, though concerns about the President’s age have taken precedence in his latest comments. “I've told you over a number of months since last October of my utter disappointment, seeing President Biden embracing Benjamin Netanyahu: funding him, arming him, and not ordering him to stop using our weapons and our money [to] stop the slaughter, stop the ethnic cleansing.”
You want to kill. Kill, kill, kill. Heaped dead burning bodies. Veins running through your teeth. Take your place on the Group W bench.
On Oct. 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Gazans would pay a “huge price” for the actions of Hamas and that the Israel Defense Forces, or I.D.F., would turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centers “into rubble.” On Oct. 28, he added, citing Deuteronomy, “You must remember what Amalek did to you.” As many Israelis know, in revenge for the attack by Amalek, the Bible calls to “kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings.”
On Oct. 9, Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, said, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” a statement indicating dehumanization, which has genocidal echoes.
[...]
The same day, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland wrote in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.” He added, “Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal.”
A major legal point is that Israel has never annexed the West Bank territory. Since 1967, it has been occupied territory, even by Israel's reckoning.
Absent annexation, it remains occupied Palestinian territory, not a part of Israel.
Menachim Begin speech delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense College.
Begin’s Admission in 1982 That Israel Started Three of Its WarsWashington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1994, Page 73
Middle East History: It Happened in August
By Donald Neff[excerpts]
At the time of Begin's speech [1982], the Israeli siege of Muslim West Beirut was already five weeks old. Israeli U.S.-made aircraft were launching daily air strikes and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians throughout the country were being killed, wounded, starved, terrorized and uprooted from their homes, most of them by munitions made in America. On July 29, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Israel lift its siege. Only the United States abstained in the 14-0 vote. When Israel refused, the council voted again on Aug. 4 to censure Israel with a vote of 14-0, with the U.S. again abstaining. On Aug. 6, the United States exercised its veto to block a council resolution condemning Israel's occupation practices, the sixth time in 1982 the Reagan administration had used the veto to shield Israel from international criticism.
[...]
In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence of the state. Thus we went off to the Sinai campaign. At that time we conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and reached Sharm el Sheikh. Actually, we accepted and submitted to an American dictate, mainly regarding the Gaza Strip (which Ben-Gurion called 'the liberated portion of the homeland'). John Foster Dulles, the then-secretary of state, promised Ben-Gurion that an Egyptian army would not return to Gaza. The Egyptian army did enter Gaza .... After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland.
In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
a kike-free world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kike#Usage
Some sources say that the first use was on Ellis Island as a term for Jewish people, others that it was used primarily by Jewish-Americans to put down Jewish immigrants.In a travel report from 1937 for the German-Jewish publication Der Morgen, Joachim Prinz, writing of the situation of Jewish immigrants in the US, mentions the word as being used by Jews to refer contemptuously to other (Eastern) Jews:
Es ist nicht erhebend zu sehen, wie verworren die Vorstellungen sind, wie wenig die Einwanderer gelernt haben, wie glücklich sie teilweise sind, dem Judenschicksal entsprungen zu sein, und wie überheblich sie oft sind. Es macht traurig, daß sie in manchen Kreisen sehr unbeliebt sind, und man wundert sich über die Dummheit derer, die die Ostjuden (von denen sie ja doch gestützt werden!) verächtlich „Kikes" nennen ...
It is not uplifting to see how confused the perceptions are, how little the immigrants have learnt, how happy some of them are to have escaped [or: arisen from] the destiny [or: fate] of the Jews, and how haughty many of them are. It is saddening that they are very unpopular in many circles, and bewildering is the stupidity of those who contemptuously call the Eastern Jews (who support them after all!) "kikes" ...
I am glad some of the posts on here are written out. Because if they were audio files they would be muffled by the sheets.
I guess some folks are not even trying to hide it any more.
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.