Posted on 04/01/2007 4:02:03 PM PDT by Nachum
And you are completely confident that this is true?
See post #29. Sure looks like their MO.
Not exactly. The Balfour Declaration was a British cabinet document, not part of the mandate from the League of Nations.
While it stated that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people (carefully avoiding the use of the word "state"), and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object," it simultaneously said that this was with regard to "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
Only a very strained view of the document, which again was an internal British government not an international treaty, can read it as intending to hand over all of what is now Jordan and Israel to the Jews for a nation state.
My bad. It appears that the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the Mandate from the League.
My apologies.
Well, I am looking at the Hamas Covenant and the comparison doesn't seem to work for me. Hamas comes a lot closer to Nazi-ism than to a terrorist-paramilitary group- or revolutionaries (depending on your point of view); (Hamas Covenant 1988)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction
If you go to the covenant, it reads like some Wahabbist playbook being used by Al Quaeda. Are you suggesting that the Irgun was like Al Quaeda? Wouldn't that be an extreme generalization?
Wrong
The mandate was incorporated under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in June 1922
The post 1923 IRA was a terrorist groupo. They started a civil war in Ireland and lost. They then started a campaign to conquer the Protestant north.
Theyt allied themselves with the Nazis and then Communists and now Islamists. They are no longer even Irish nationalists. They beat up actual Irish nationalists who speak up against immigration.
The modern IRA is a communist group.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Mayors of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek 1965-1993, followed by none other than now Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, 1993-2003.
Agreed. See post 44.
I suspect every Arab on the block received a free case of ammo, after that.
Really dumb!
Anyone who sticks it to the British empire is OK in my book, as long as they weren't doing it on behalf of the Nazis or Russians.
The Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence were violent at times but not deadly -- at least until Lexington and Concord, where they met the British force as an open and organized militia force. That discipline of rebellion seems unmatched in history. Nor does history record -- afaik -- many other instances of the technique of tarring and feathering, which the Sons did use against the British agents.
Not necessarily. My understanding is that the Brits stopped hanging Irgunists.
BTW, the Irgun not only hanged the sergeants, they booby-trapped the bodies. If that isn't a terrorist act, I don't know what would be.
Iran isn't working for the Nazis or Russians today.
Their kidnapping of the 15 sailors and marines is okay with you then?
2. Just because the Persians have legitimate beefs with the Brits DOES NOT justify a disgusting action such as that taken against the 15 sailors and marines. I would like to see a retalitory strike by the UK, but I have a feeling that this will be negotiated to death like LBJ did with the Pueblo.
The UK has an embassy in Tehran with lots of diplomats in residence.
If they strike militarily, anybody want to place bets on how long it will take them to turn those diplomats into hostages?
It's nice to know you don't have anything against terrorist methods when used against people or countries you disike. (Of course, terrorist attacks are by definition carried out against people, usually civilians, not countries.)
Another way of saying: You don't have anything against terrorism as such, just attacks on your friends.
According to your homepage, you're a New Yorker. I find this an odd attitude for someone from your city, the number two target for terrorists in the world.
Agreed.
However, Washington used what can appropriately be called terror tactics in his war on the Iroquois. They called him "Town-burner."
From my POV, we can either wage Guerra sin cuarto, which is what the Spaniards waged for much of their 700 (!) year war against the Moors, but, with our technology, would take a lot less than that, or we can work to CONTAIN terrorist supporting states through proxy wars (see Ethiopia/Somalia) and by using the BIG stick and small carrot approach to diplomacy.
I really don't see the first happening due to the intellectual/humanistic currents that dominate the industrialized world. The second seems to me a more realistic approach. Pax Americana has not, cannot, and will not work, in any case.
Getting back to the issue at hand, the only way the Brits will be able to get the 15 sailors and Marines alive is by cutting a deal, ie agreeing to back off on sanctions and staying clear of Iranian territorial waters. Blair will then come out and say that sanctions (albeit ones with no teeth) will still go forward, although everyone concerned will no that the UK caved because, well, they value the lives of their citizens.
Kollek's body should be dug up and desecrated in the worst possible way.
I strongly believe there is a moral distinction between terrorism and war.
Maintaining this distinction obviously operates in the interests of the more powerful side in any dispute.
However, once you abandon this distinction, you have no criteria to use to distinguish between legitimate and criminal acts of war. On what basis then, besides its likely effect on you personally, could you object to a nuclear or chemical attack on NYC by Iraqi insurgents?
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.