Keep it civil or we'll send in UN peacekeepers
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Stew Ingredient
- Posts: 11246
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:38 pm
Whats interesting to me is the way the Muslims in the West basically have colonised parts of urban Europe and effectively declared UDI, ethnically cleansing the host nations culture. Criticism of this social and cultural colonisation is seen as deeply unacceptable by the critics of Israel and yet these people are not bringing wealth or property but hatred, intolerance and misery. Granted while some are motivated by religious fundamentalism the overriding driver for most of these settlers is the hope of a better life. Perhaps the biggest difference between Muslim occupied land in the West and Israeli occupied land in 'Palestine' is that at least the Israeli government looks after its own which is more than can said for labour filth like Jim Corbyn.
- Stew Ingredient
- Posts: 3241
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:48 am
I got as far as the 'mandate' and gave up.
1. It did not reference the original Jewish hold of the land, which is only ever omitted to take away from or reduce Jewish claims. Instead it suggests 'many people' had the land and 'all three religions' held sway there. Only focusing on the Arab hold for 1000 years. That is a deliberate distortion
2. The more blatant distortion was in the claim Britain was awarded the mandate at which point 'Zionist Jews' seized the opportunity. This is historical revisionist bullshit. The ONLY REASON the British were awarded the Mandate and indeed written into its very core, is Zionism.
If you build a story on such weak historical claptrap, you are not doing so to be fair, you are doing so to spread propaganda. Some tries to make itself seem more balanced other attempts don't bother trying, but either way if you start out with lies, you will never arrive at the truth.