If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Not sure it's an arguement I'd engage in. The inventors of the blood libel which persists to this very day, Judaism being illegal from the late 13th to mid 19th century. It could be argued that their treatment of Jews was better than most of western Europe at the time, but it's kind of like argueing about who was the most enlightened slaveholder. More modern times, the Brits accepted the burden of resettling the Jewish Homeland with Jews. A charge they consciously failed, dividing the Jewish homeland and not only refusing to accomodate large scale Jewish immigration but eventually barring it. Resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of Jews who were trapped on the continent. And the author wins the arguement, there were other countries far more complicit in the slaughter of Jews. Not a pleasant arguement, we persecuted them less through most of the history of Jews in western Europe, even if true. Unmentioned on the thread, the King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Mandate Authority, as well as of the British Military in what is now Israel and Jordan. A perfectly legitimate target.
Why can’t you place things in context? The 1939 White Paper limiting Jewish immigration came as Britain desperately — and all alone, I hasten to add — tried to counter Hitler.
Surely Americans, and Freepers in particular, can understand that when you are facing the destruction of your society — as the US did in the War on Terror — everything else must take second place. If the British hadn’t succeeded in standing up to Hitler, it is quite possible that the extermination of the Jews in Europe would have been fully completed.
And as for the King David Hotel, it killed more Jewish and Arab civilians than it did British soldiers (who you seem to see as a legitimate ally despite the fact that the British and American militaries were the closest of allies)
Sorry, last sentence should say “legitimate target” not legitimate “ally”
Sorry, last sentence should say “legitimate target” not legitimate “ally”
“Not sure it’s an arguement I’d engage in. The inventors of the blood libel which persists to this very day, Judaism being illegal from the late 13th to mid 19th century. It could be argued that their treatment of Jews was better than most of western Europe at the time, but it’s kind of like argueing about who was the most enlightened slaveholder. More modern times, the Brits accepted the burden of resettling the Jewish Homeland with Jews. A charge they consciously failed, dividing the Jewish homeland and not only refusing to accomodate large scale Jewish immigration but eventually barring it. Resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of Jews who were trapped on the continent. And the author wins the arguement, there were other countries far more complicit in the slaughter of Jews. Not a pleasant arguement, we persecuted them less through most of the history of Jews in western Europe, even if true. Unmentioned on the thread, the King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Mandate Authority, as well as of the British Military in what is now Israel and Jordan. A perfectly legitimate target.”
An excellent post, as always.