Posted on 06/24/2012 2:49:45 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) “got it wrong” in its reporting of the massacre of the Fogel family by Arab terrorists in the Jewish community of Itamar, the broadcaster's outgoing director-general admitted at a parliamentary committee hearing.
The BBC’s Mark Thompson acquiesced on June 19 while being questioned by Conservative member of parliament Louise Mensch, the London Jewish Chronicle reported.
In complaining about the insufficient coverage of the event on BBC radio and television programs, the newspaper reported that Mensch said, “I only found out, after the event, from an American blog, called ‘Dead Jews is no news,’ and the more I went into it, the more shocked I was.”
“There was a feeling that the BBC just didn’t care and that if a settler had opened the home of a Palestinian family, slit the throat of their children, that the BBC would have covered that,” Mensch asserted.
Thompson responded by claiming that the story occurred during a “very busy news period,” including the fighting in Libya and the tsunami in Japan and that “news editors were under a lot of pressure.”
“Having said that, it was certainly an atrocity which should have been covered across our news bulletins that day,” he added.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Churchill was very pro-Jew, but many in his own party were not....part of the reason Churchill was "in the wilderness" in the mid-30s regarding Hitler.
‘LOL. That’s explains your silliness.’
Pointing out that America did not ‘save’ Britain in ww2 (or ww1) and that such notions are simply bad history is silly?.
‘That’s actually funny. The UK was on the ropes, and but for US industry and men would have lost.’
Crap.
Firstly, whilst Britain without America (and Canada) could not have landed in Normandy or Italy/Sicily, neither could Germany and the Axis defeat the British.
The Battle of Britain had been a failure, the British had mauled the Italians at sea, in the air and on land, and the Germans had failed even by 1941 and American entry to ww2, to have won the Battle of the Atlantic (which was btw a mostly British-Canadian battle, and the initial USN tactics in 1942 by Adm King almost lost the allies the battle....)
Secondly, are you aware that 79% of all ships and 50% of all planes on D-Day were British?. That American troops on D-Day were landed by the Royal Navy?. As were most American troops in Algeria in 1942 and Sicily and Italy in 1943.
So the Americans, who supposedly ‘saved’ us, could never have defeated Hitler if they hadnt had the damn Limeys to land them there in the first place.
And I havent even mentioned PLUTO, the Bailey Bridge or the Mulberry Harbours, again all British.
Lastly, even IF Britain had been ‘saved’, your reply shows the usual astonishing American arrogance and ignorance about the allies that Britain had in WW2.
Far from relying on America, we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, and the whole of the British Empire. White, black, brown and asian. From Canada to Australia, Hong Kong to the Caribbean. From Malta and Cyprus to the Falklands.
You didnt forget that we still in 1940 had an empire that spanned the globe, and had hundreds of millions within it, did you?. Over FIVE MILLION of whom fought with the British in WW2.
Our biggest supplier of arms and material in WW2?. America?. Nope. CANADA. Who also gave the UK six BILLION dollars in ‘Mutual Aid’.
And most of our imports came from the Empire. Rubber from Malaya, lamb from NZ etc.
America HELPED Britain.
BUT it didnt ‘save’ it.
I would make the case that Poles may have saved Britain even more than the US, since their pilots played a crucial role in the Battle of Britain.
I think the Brits hate that a tiny rag tag ill armed group of Jews chased out a large British military force in pre-State Israel. The Israelis humiliated the Brits.
The BBC has a revolving employment door with Al Jazeera.
Some of that is going on. It is human nature to despise your former colonials that booted you out. The British lost India too but have no resentment against them. I think because India is too big to hate while the Jewish numbers were small in 1948 but succeeded. And are still small. There are 14 million Jews worldwide and Mormon numbers are about the same
Spare me the romantic tosh.
The Irgun and the Stern gangs were terrorists. End of.
They bombed and shot innocent men, women and children, including Jews. They blew up the King David Hotel, killing and maiming many of their fellow Jews. They tortured two unarmed British off duty soldiers (Sgts Martin and Paice), then boobytrapped their bodies. They murdered any Jew they suspected of opposing them and being sympathetic to the British administration.
For ffs, they even murdered Count Bernadotte in 1948, a true hero who has spent WW2 SAVING thousands of Jewish lives!.
Abraham Stern was such a diseased Zionist fanatic, in 1941, he met with Nazi representatives to discuss an alliance where the Stern Gang would keep attacking the British in Palestine, in reply the Nazis would agree to deport all European Jews to Israel and allow the Zionists to set up Israel. All Jews would be out of Europe, which is what the Nazis wanted.
Think I am kidding?. The meeting happened.
The British could have wiped them out, and been brutal in doing so, but after 1945 and the concentration camps, the whole world was watching Palestine and Britain could not and would not incur the wrath of America and the world.
We had to try and fight two terrorist groups with one hand tied behind our back.
The very men who has fought and bled across Europe to liberate Belsen, defeat the Nazis and save what was left of European Jewish civilisation.....what was their thanks?.
To be bombed, shot and murdered by Jewish extremists.
Spare me the romantic tosh.
The Irgun and the Stern gangs were terrorists. End of.
They bombed and shot innocent men, women and children, including Jews. They blew up the King David Hotel, killing and maiming many of their fellow Jews. They tortured two unarmed British off duty soldiers (Sgts Martin and Paice), then boobytrapped their bodies. They murdered any Jew they suspected of opposing them and being sympathetic to the British administration.
For ffs, they even murdered Count Bernadotte in 1948, a true hero who has spent WW2 SAVING thousands of Jewish lives!.
Abraham Stern was such a diseased Zionist fanatic, in 1941, he met with Nazi representatives to discuss an alliance where the Stern Gang would keep attacking the British in Palestine, in reply the Nazis would agree to deport all European Jews to Israel and allow the Zionists to set up Israel. All Jews would be out of Europe, which is what the Nazis wanted.
Think I am kidding?. The meeting happened.
The British could have wiped them out, and been brutal in doing so, but after 1945 and the concentration camps, the whole world was watching Palestine and Britain could not and would not incur the wrath of America and the world.
We had to try and fight two terrorist groups with one hand tied behind our back.
The very men who has fought and bled across Europe to liberate Belsen, defeat the Nazis and save what was left of European Jewish civilisation.....what was their thanks?.
To be bombed, shot and murdered by Jewish extremists.
Firstly, the Palestine 1944-48 ‘conflict’ has been almost totally forgotten in Britain. It isnt taught in schools and TV and the media almost never mentions it, even if Israel and the Palestine issue is in our daily media. Most Brits are completely unware that there was a conflict there. Ask 99% of Brits about the Irgun and Stern gangs and youd get a blank look. So the idea we have any residual dislike because of 1944-48 is a nonsense.
Secondly, we were hardly colonial masters. Britain only ‘ruled’ it from 1918 to 1948.
The “Scotsman” clearly has a bad case of butthurt.
I realized the relative sizes of the fighting forces when I visited the Etzel Museum many years ago. Great place. Plus the Brits never fail to call the Jews terrorists , and bring up the King David Hotel neglecting to mention it was military headquarters.
You are correct that the Brits could have wiped the Jews out after WW2 but chose not to. The reasons they did not are not the ones you mentioned. Unlike you most Brits were decent people who wanted nothing to do with genocide. They knew that they bore a moral responsibility for allowing millions of Jews to be murdered by not allowing them to emigrate from the European continent to Israel/Palestine during the Holocaust.
“The very men who has fought and bled across Europe to liberate Belsen, defeat the Nazis and save what was left of European Jewish civilisation.....what was their thanks?.”
It is great that the Brits fought the Nazis. But they did not do it to save what was left of European Jews. They did it to save their country after Hitler was a threat to them. Before that they were OK giving him a free hand to do whatever he wanted in Eastern Europe, including with the Jews. You have conveniently omitted Neville Chamberlain's craven capitulation to the Nazis when he gifted Czechoslovakia to them and then declared that he had bought “peace in our time?”
After WW1 Britain was given a MANDATE (that means something they had to do) by the League of Nations to create a Jewish Homeland in “Palestine.” The territory of that Mandate included what is now Israel and Jordan, a pretty big piece of real estate.
Nefariously, Britain chopped off the lion's share of that territory and gave it to a Saudi prince, Abdullah, creating the Judenrein nation of Trans Jordan.
The so called “Jewish extremists” realized that the Jewish people could not rely on the Brits for their survival and did what they had to do for the restoration of of Jewish sovereignty.
You know what they say: “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”
“All Jews would be out of Europe, which is what the Nazis wanted.”
The Nazis did not want that. They wanted all Jews in the entire world killed. You know that very well which underlines the duplicity of your post.
Methinks it fitting that you spare us your romantic tosh.
We never fail to call them that because they were. I actually respect someone who says ‘yeah, they were, so what’, than the people who try and argue ‘no, they were freedom fighters’.
Why is it so hard for people to admit Jewish people can be terrorists?. I dosent ‘mark’ Jews anymore than the IRA marks Catholic Irish, ETA marks Basques or Timothy McVeigh marks Americans.
So the hotel was a legitimate target?. Imagine if I came on and argued that the USS Cole wasa perfectly legitimate target. Or the two embassies in 1998, after all they had CIA staff working out of them.
If what the Irgun and Stern gangs did was a-ok, then frankly all terrorism is, so quit whining about 9-11.
OK?.
(YEAH, YOU SEE HOW CRAP THAT ARGUMENT IS?)
‘You are correct that the Brits could have wiped the Jews out after WW2 but chose not to. The reasons they did not are not the ones you mentioned. Unlike you most Brits were decent people who wanted nothing to do with genocide. They knew that they bore a moral responsibility for allowing millions of Jews to be murdered by not allowing them to emigrate from the European continent to Israel/Palestine during the Holocaust.’
Firstly, I am a decent person. I am pro-Israel and a great admirer of Jews. The only Jews I cant stand are the men and women of those two 1940’s groups and those who would try and justify their murderous activities.
Secondly, if Britain is morally culpable, **** knows how culpable that makes America.
‘It is great that the Brits fought the Nazis. But they did not do it to save what was left of European Jews. They did it to save their country after Hitler was a threat to them. Before that they were OK giving him a free hand to do whatever he wanted in Eastern Europe, including with the Jews. You have conveniently omitted Neville Chamberlain’s craven capitulation to the Nazis when he gifted Czechoslovakia to them and then declared that he had bought “peace in our time?”’
Nowhere did I say we fought ww2 purely to save Jews. My point was more to point out the sad irony of British soldiers fighting the Nazis for six years, at one point alone, and even liberate Belsen, only to have (some) Jews despise them.
‘After WW1 Britain was given a MANDATE (that means something they had to do) by the League of Nations to create a Jewish Homeland in “Palestine.” The territory of that Mandate included what is now Israel and Jordan, a pretty big piece of real estate.
Nefariously, Britain chopped off the lion’s share of that territory and gave it to a Saudi prince, Abdullah, creating the Judenrein nation of Trans Jordan.
The so called “Jewish extremists” realized that the Jewish people could not rely on the Brits for their survival and did what they had to do for the restoration of of Jewish sovereignty.’
They were extremists, they were terrorists. Dont try the noxious idea of putting inverted commas around them to signify that they werent.
And remember that many Jews OPPOSED what they did, inside Palestine and outside. Ben Gurion being the most famous. There were decent and honourable Jewish people and groups who wanted what the two terrorist groups wanted, BUT knew that violence and terror was morally wrong, morally unjustifiable. They worked WITH the British to hunt down the Irgun and Stern groups.
So dont give me the BS that they HAD to do what they did. They could have gained their country peacefully. Through politics. Your argument that they HAD to resort to violence and murder is complete BS.
If you argue that they were justified in their violence, then what the IRA did/does or ETA did/does is also perfectly justifiable. And ergo most terrorism.
‘You know what they say: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”’
Yes, I do. And it is the biggest load of bull of modern times. And it is a pathetic moral and intellectual enditement of our times because it was never an actual serious quote. Yet a generation of people who prefer to spout meaningless ‘buzzphrases’ have latched on to it and spout it endlessly with no understanding of what it actually means.
You DO know where it comes from, dont you?. Dont you?.
It comes from the pen of a BRITISH novelist: Gerald Seymour. In his classic 1975 novel, Harry’s Game (later made into a classic British TV drama), the phrase is uttered by an IRA terrorist trying to justify what he is doing.
BTW, even IF it WERE a real and serious argument, its still the biggest load of tripe. An argument any intelligent person can destroy in a few seconds.
‘The Nazis did not want that. They wanted all Jews in the entire world killed. You know that very well which underlines the duplicity of your post.’
No, what the Nazis initially wanted was the expulsion of Jews, Judaism and Jewish culture from Germany and Europe. If you know your history, you will know that the Nazis looked many times at ways to throw all German/Austrian, and later European, Jews out of Europe. Either force the UK, US etc to take them, or to force the British to accept all Jews to Palestine. I assume you know of the famous ideas like deporting all Jews to Madagascar.
Later, with the horrible idea of the Final Solution, they decided murder would be the most effective way. BUT the Germans from 1933 to 1942 also many times considered deportation and mass expulsion of Jews to be an answer to the ‘Jewish problem’. The Final Solution was not an idea thought of in 1933, or 1935 or even 1939. It came as an ‘evolution’ in the line of vile Nazi ideas.
Good post Dr Kay.... Especially about the British not allowing Jews to leave Europe and go to Palestine during WW2. My guess is 200,000 Jews died due to this policy. But Jewish life was cheap back then and the Brits wanted to placate the crazy Muslims who had been rioting in Palestine during the late 1930’s
Stern and Irgun gangs were nothing and did nothing compared to the death sentence the British gave a few hundred thousand Jews
“bring up the King David Hotel neglecting to mention it was military headquarters.”
First, I am not going to excuse the bombing of the KDH. It was an act of war, no doubt about it.
Second, and however, the Brits always neglect to mention the Irgun called the Brits REPEATEDLY telling them there was a bomb -— the goal was to destroy the seret police records, not terror or to take human life.
For reasons unknown, the Brits simply refused to evacuate the building.
But Jewish life was cheap back then’
Yeah, it was certainly just as cheap to America. Who took less Jewish refugees than Britain and refused to take in large numbers, despite being having a much larger country and five times the population.
‘Refugees from Nazi Germany
In the years before and during World War II the United States Congress, the Roosevelt Administration, and public opinion expressed concern about the fate of Jews in Europe but consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration of Jewish refugees.
In a report issued by the State Department, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat noted that the United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe and did not significantly raise or even fill its restrictive quotas, accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland.
According to David Wyman, “The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews.”[42]
U.S. opposition to immigration in general in the late 1930s was motivated by the grave economic pressures, the high unemployment rate, and social frustration and disillusionment. The U.S. refusal to support specifically Jewish immigration, however, stemmed from something else, namely antisemitism, which had increased in the late 1930s and continued to rise in the 1940s. It was an important ingredient in America’s negative response to Jewish refugees.[43]’
Britain took in over 100,000 Jewish refugees.
America took in less than Switzerland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States#Refugees_from_Nazi_Germany
‘Stern and Irgun gangs were nothing and did nothing’
Uh-huh. Murder and torture is nothing. I will remember your compassion towards the British, Jewish and Arab victims of 1944-48, next time America gets hit.
‘compared to the death sentence the British gave a few hundred thousand Jews’
America could saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. It refused.
America could have fought the Nazis for two years. It refused, and only did so grudgingly after the Nazis declared war on them.
If we horrible Limeys are morally bankrupt on this issue and caused Jewish deaths, I shudder to think what moral gutter America inhabits with what it failed to do.
‘Second, and however, the Brits always neglect to mention the Irgun called the Brits REPEATEDLY telling them there was a bomb -— the goal was to destroy the seret police records, not terror or to take human life.’
Pity they werent so loving of human life on other occasions...
As to the warning issue:
‘Warnings
Since the bombing, much controversy has ensued over the issues of when warnings were sent and how the British authorities responded. Irgun representatives have always stated that the warning was given well in advance of the explosion, so that adequate time was available to evacuate the hotel. Menachem Begin, for example, writes that the telephone message was delivered 25–27 minutes before the explosion.[14] It is often stated that the British authorities have always denied that a warning was sent. However, what the British Government said, five months after the bombing, once the subsequent inquest and all the inquiries had been completed, was not that no warning had been sent, but that no such warning had been received by anyone at the Secretariat “in an official position with any power to take action.”[15]
American author Thurston Clarke’s analysis of the bombing gave timings for calls and for the explosion which he says took place at 12:37. He said that as part of the Irgun plan, a sixteen year old recruit, Adina Hay (alias Tehia), was to make three warning calls before the attack. At 12:22 the first call was made, in both Hebrew and English, to a telephone operator on the hotel’s switchboard (the Secretariat and the military each had their own, separate, telephone exchanges). It was ignored.[3] At 12:27, the second warning call was made to the French Consulate adjacent to the hotel to the north-east. This second call was taken seriously and staff went through the building opening windows and closing curtains to lessen the impact of the blast. At 12:31 a third and final warning call to the Palestine Post newspaper was made. The telephone operator called the Palestine Police CID to report the message. She then called the hotel switchboard. The hotel operator reported the threat to one of the hotel managers. This warning resulted in the discovery of the milk churns in the basement, but by then it was too late.[3]
Some Israeli observers have stated that the British had received enough warning but they assumed that the Hotel was so heavily guarded that any attack would be futile. Begin claimed in his memoirs that the British had deliberately kept civilians in so that they could vilify the Jewish militant groups,[16] although no evidence has ever been produced to support this.’
‘Army and police reports
Various government papers relating to the bombing were released under the thirty year rule in 1978, including the results of the military and police investigations.[note 2] The reports contain statements and conclusions which are contradicted by other evidence, including that submitted to the inquest held after the bombing. Affidavits which reflected badly on the security of the hotel were removed from the army report before it was submitted to the High Commissioner and then the Cabinet in London.[3] The police report makes the likely claim that the warning sent to the French Consulate was received five minutes after the main explosion. This is contradicted by multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing staff opening the Consulate windows five minutes after that happened. The report also claims that the warning received by the Palestine Post was not received until after the explosion. That claim is confirmed by the testimony of two members of the Palestine Post staff, one of who said that she was put under pressure by the Palestine Police to withdraw what she had said.[3]’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
Also, so what if they warned?. That dosent change the fact they were terrorists who planted a bomb. Any more than the fact that the IRA or ETA used to also (sometimes) give warnings makes what the IRA or ETA did at all morally justifiable. Again, dont try this BS that the two gangs were loving and conscious of human life and tried not to kill people where possible.
Because it is utter, utter bull.
I have no disagreement with your post. FDR was no better than what Great Britain did but Jews here today still revere him. Because they tilt liberal and love Obama too for the most part even as he praises the Islamic Brotherhood takeover in Egypt
FDR was just as bad. You will get no argument from me. And just because Jewish life was so cheap back then.... This is why Jews created Israel. A place where Jews can be armed and fight off the anti-Semites. Muslim anti-Semites in this case
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.