Should Boris be booted?

by Syl Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:46 am

First topic message reminder :

Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.
He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-peer-remove-whip-from-boris-over-burka-remarks-11464276

by Original Quill Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:29 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:Israel was not created due to discrimination of the Jews.

The modern Israel in Levant would never have happened without European permission and support.

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:32 pm

Cry baby wrote:
Didge wrote:Nor did any Europeans create Israel

The modern Israel in Levant would never have happened without European permission and support.

It did happen without all but one Euopean nations support

Only the czechs, helped build Messerschmitt 109 fighters for them from one of their factories

The Arabs invaded from all side and israel kicked their butts. In fact the Jordanian army was led and trained by British officers. Armed with British tanks and weapons

Showing they did not need support or permission

Again the UN decision did not create israel

The Jews recreated Israel

by Original Quill Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:33 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:So if there is antipathy from Muslims, then its the Muslims that are the problem here and not the Jews.

Yep, that's the perfect attitude for WWIII: “Blame them, we’re innocent!”

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:36 pm

Cry baby Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So if there is antipathy from Muslims, then its the Muslims that are the problem here and not the Jews.

Yep, that's the perfect attitude for WWIII: “Blame them, we’re innocent!”

Well your argument is basically claiming the nazis were victims for invading Poland

The Arab/Muslims are to blame here and have always been the problem with the conflict with Israel

As they simple cannot and will not accept the right of Jews to self determination

That means they are the continued problem here

by Original Quill Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:40 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:Again the UN decision did not create israel

The Jews recreated Israel

That's why I have been so careful to speak of European permission and support, not European creation.

Yes, the Jews started Israel long before WWII. But it was because of the same discrimination that occurred during WWII. And that European permission and support, without the impetus of the Holocaust, would not have been there.

Again, all I'm saying is that Europe would have been a lot better off if they had given the Jews part of Europe, not Palestine.

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Dishonorable Didge wrote:Again the UN decision did not create israel

The Jews recreated Israel

That's why I have been so careful to speak of European permission and support, not European creation.

Yes, the Jews started Israel long before WWII. But it was because of the same discrimination that occurred during WWII. And that European permission and support, without the impetus of the Holocaust, would not have been there.

Again, all I'm saying is that Europe would have been a lot better off if they had given the Jews part of Europe, not Palestine.

Well as seen the above is a load of tosh and revisionist babble

It has nothing to do with the discrimination of jews

Jews had longing to return to Zion for centuries

The Europeans had nothing to do with the creation of israel

The Jews recreated Israel'

What is wrose here is you think its somehow wrong for the Jews to have a nation in their ancestral homeland, the very birth place of them as a people

You take the view to side with those Muslim Arabs, who are the colonialists here, who simple refuse to live side by side in peace

Hence they are the problem here

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:44 pm

by Original Quill Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:50 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:Well your argument is basically claiming the nazis were victims for invading Poland

That sounds rather convoluted and bizarre.

The cardinal sin of WWII was the ovens, TBS. But the argument I'm talking about is basically claiming that Europe should have given something of their own as compensation to the Jews, not of somebody else.

The grant of Palestinian lands to the Jews, gained Europe the wrath of 1.6-billion of the world's people. Eeennnkkkk...not a good move. So much better if Europe had given the Jews of some real estate they actually owned.

Italy would have been perfect.

by Original Quill Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:52 pm

Dishonest Didge wrote:The Europeans had nothing to do with the creation of israel

The Jews recreated Israel'

That's why I have been so careful to speak of European permission and support, not European creation.

Yes, the Jews started Israel long before WWII. But it was because of the same discrimination that occurred during WWII. And that European permission and support, without the impetus of the Holocaust, would not have been there.

Again, all I'm saying is that Europe would have been a lot better off if they had given the Jews part of Europe, not Palestine.

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:54 pm

Cry baby Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The Europeans had nothing to do with the creation of israel

The Jews recreated Israel'

That's why I have been so careful to speak of European permission and support, not European creation.

Yes, the Jews started Israel long before WWII. But it was because of the same discrimination that occurred during WWII. And that European permission and support, without the impetus of the Holocaust, would not have been there.

Again, all I'm saying is that Europe would have been a lot better off if they had given the Jews part of Europe, not Palestine.

Well as seen the above is a load of tosh and revisionist babble

It has nothing to do with the discrimination of jews

Jews had longing to return to Zion for centuries

The Europeans had nothing to do with the creation of israel

The Jews recreated Israel'

What is wrose here is you think its somehow wrong for the Jews to have a nation in their ancestral homeland, the very birth place of them as a people

You take the view to side with those Muslim Arabs, who are the colonialists here, who simple refuse to live side by side in peace

Hence they are the problem here

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:56 pm

Cry baby Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Well your argument is basically claiming the nazis were victims for invading Poland

That sounds rather convoluted and bizarre.

The cardinal sin of WWII was the ovens, TBS. But the argument I'm talking about is basically claiming that Europe should have given something of their own as compensation to the Jews, not of somebody else.

The grant of Palestinian lands to the Jews, gained Europe the wrath of 1.6-billion of the world's people. Eeennnkkkk...not a good move. So much better if Europe had given the Jews of some real estate they actually owned.

Italy would have been perfect.

Was it, to the Chinese in WW2

Well what the Europeans would have liked to give the Jews is irrelevant. What matters is what the Jews wanted themself

A return to zion and to have self determination

No grant was given to palestinian land, as no such land existed. Palestine, is the Roman name to the land and done so to try and remove any Jewish connection to the land.

In fact many jews brought land title deeds from Arabs who had gain such land deeds from the Ottomans

by Original Quill Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:58 pm

Dishonest Didge wrote:You take the view to side with those Muslim Arabs, who are the colonialists here, who simple refuse to live side by side in peace

Hence they are the problem here

You are taking the view of the antagonist. I'm simply offering a neutral, almost mathematically deduced argument.

Play the warrior if you wish, but your grandchildren will likely die on the fields of battle.

Pray...remember this moment.

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:00 pm

Qrump wrote:
Didge wrote:You take the view to side with those Muslim Arabs, who are the colonialists here, who simple refuse to live side by side in peace

Hence they are the problem here

You are taking the view of the antagonist. I'm simply offering a neutral, almost mathematically deduced argument.

Play the warrior if you wish, but your grandchildren will likely die on the fields of battle.

Pray...remember this moment.

Are you being neutral by actually ignoring the self determination of the Jews

That means you have taken a side, the Arab side

So its you taking the side of the aggressor and Colonialist Arabs

by Guest Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:13 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZjKtKigfo

by HoratioTarr Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:33 am

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of BJ...but why should he apologise? I'm sick to death of the Great Outraged and Offended. Funny how nobody kicked up a huge pearl clutching stink when Lee Rigby had his throat cut. Where was the affront to humanity then? No, we have people getting all riled up because Tesco featured a Muslim family in their Christmas commercial but not a peep when Lee almost had his head sawed off.

We have free thought and speech in this country. It's what allows everyone to say their piece and wave their banners. It's what allows every single Muslim woman on this island to have a choice . We allow that. It works both ways, I'm afraid.
There was rightly tremendous shock and outrage when Lee Rigby was butchered, and I dont see how his case can compare in the slightest with Boris putting his fat foot in it regarding the burka.

Exactly.

by 'Wolfie Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:16 am

Didge wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZjKtKigfo

"Loyal to New Zealand"...

But still wants Israel as a convenient bolt-hole, just in case those dastardly commie Kiwi sheep rise up one day and take back their ancestral homelands..

Here's a song to inspire all freedom fighters :

https://youtu.be/wtv3MN639fw

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:08 am

Original Quill wrote:
Dishonorable Didge wrote:Israel was not created due to discrimination of the Jews.

The modern Israel in Levant would never have happened without European permission and support.

Had Germany won WW2, European Jews might well have been settled on the large French colony island of Madagascar off the coast of East Africa.

The Nazi government proposed this in 1940.

The ultimate governance of the island would, of course, have been under Nazi domination.

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:14 pm

wolf wrote:But still wants Israel as a convenient bolt-hole...

Should Boris be booted? - Page 6 3489511464

Bolt hole! I luv wolf's use of metaphors and adjectives. So graphic...

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:20 pm

Hmm so Jews having a safe haven, being the fact they have been persecuted for the last 2,500 years in countless nations. Is something to laugh about.

Interesting and not surprised such views come from the left.

I noticed he could not discount a single point she made

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:22 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The modern Israel in Levant would never have happened without European permission and support.

Had Germany won WW2, European Jews might well have been settled on the large French colony island of Madagascar off the coast of East Africa.

The Nazi government proposed this in 1940.

The ultimate governance of the island would, of course, have been under Nazi domination.

Interesting, Fred. But Germany had different motives than a penitent and apologetic Europe. Had Germany won, they would have felt vindicated. They would have been going in a completely opposite direction.

I'm speaking off the repentant motives of the rest of Europe. They let their internal dǽmons go wild for a spell, and Nazism and Italian Fascism was the result. Then, when they saw what they had done, their motive in 1946 was to make up for it.

It's my impression that, while the Jews already had in mind a utopia--and it was vaguely related to the Levant, because myth and rootstock aligned there--had Europe not poured fuel on the ill-considered plan, Israel would not be on the lands of Palestine today...and we wouldn't be at war with 1.6-billion souls. I have utmost sympathy for the Jews. And I applaud the motive of Europe to make up for their past sins toward them. But, the Jews that went to Palestine to take and build Israel, were Europeans not Semites.

Down to basics, it was an invasion by Europe, stealing the lands of Palestinians. It would be as if I, a Californian, were fantasizing about my long lost Celtic origins, and subsequently invaded western Scotland so as to fulfill my myth. From the perspective of the rest of Europe, it was assuaging victims by creating new victims. The tragedy of it is that we are at war with 1.6-billion souls, quite unnecessarily, because of this blunder.

Had Europe used a little foresight and planning, it all might have been avoided. If Europe owed a debt, it should have paid that debt out of its own account. Instead, it drew upon foreign bank accounts, and foreign resources. It was colonialism and selfishness in the extreme, giving away the lands of other, presumably lesser creatures.

That’s why I say Italy would have been a fair and equitable swap. Unlike the Palestinians, the Italians deserved to lose their territory. It would have been repayment from a local bank. And most importantly, it would not have permanently alienated 1.6-billion people.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Had Germany won WW2, European Jews might well have been settled on the large French colony island of Madagascar off the coast of East Africa.

The Nazi government proposed this in 1940.

The ultimate governance of the island would, of course, have been under Nazi domination.

But, the Jews that went to Palestine to take and build Israel were Europeans, not Semites.

.

Genetics would very much disagree with you

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.5220113

What is also blatantly poor here, is the number of jews already living there and how half the Jewish population of Israel is made up of Middle Eastern aka Semtic Jews ethnically cleansed by Arab states

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:36 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But, the Jews that went to Palestine to take and build Israel were Europeans, not Semites.

.

Genetics would very much disagree with you

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.5220113

What is also blatantly poor here, is the number of jews already living there and how half the Jewish population of Israel is made up of Middle Eastern aka Semtic Jews ethnically cleansed by Arab states

How many? Very, very few. I'll bet if I looked hard enough I could find an Eskimo in Palestine too. That doesn't make the entire territory Inuit.

You can't generalize from specifics.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:38 pm

Myth #4: Europe created Israel to apologize for the Holocaust
There are actually two misconceptions behind the idea that Europe created Israel to apologize for the Holocaust. The first is that Europe created Israel, and thus that Israel is an extension of European colonialism. The second is that Israel's creation was a response to the Holocaust. Both have elements of truth but are, on balance, not correct descriptions of Israel's founding.

First, Israel was not a creation of European colonialism: Israel's creation was in large part the work of Jews who moved to present-day Israel, despite European efforts to stop them, and who dragged the world into accepting them as a state. It is true that in 1917, Britain issued its famous Balfour Declaration promising the Jews a homeland in British-controlled Palestine as long as this did not undercut the rights of non-Jews there. But in the 1930s, as Jewish immigration and Jewish-Arab tension increased, the British tried to sharply limit Jewish immigration into the area, forcing many Jews into refugee camps in Cyprus and elsewhere. Jews smuggled in large numbers of illegal immigrants in the 1940s; Jewish militias that formed to fight Arabs also conducted violent operations against the British, whom they saw as an enemy.

This was not, in other words, a European-Jewish joint project at all. The United Nations did come around to creating a Jewish state with its 1947 plan for partitioning Palestine, but that was in large part a reaction to the chaos and communal violence in British Palestine, which the UN hoped to solve by dividing the territory. And of the 33 countries that voted for the resolution, only 12 were European; 13 yes votes came from Latin and Caribbean countries. (Thirteen countries voted against it.) To be fair, it is definitely true that the UN ignored Arab and Palestinian objections to the plan, in a way that left them disenfranchised and feeling, with reason, that their land had been taken from them without their consent. But the point is that it was not a European or Western conspiracy.

Second, Israel's creation was not just a response to the Holocaust: While it is true that Holocaust galvanized global public opinion in support of Jews, and accelerated Jewish immigration to Israel, it is also true that all the factors that led to the creation of Israel were already well in place before the Holocaust happened. There were centuries of European anti-Semitism, a strongly felt Zionist movement among Jews, many thousands of Jewish immigrants in Palestine, and an international campaign to generate diplomatic support. In some ways, the Holocaust depressed Jewish immigration, because Nazi governments largely forbade it and because it left Europe with so many fewer Jews to emigrate. The question of how big a role the Holocaust played in leading up to Israel's creation is debated among scholars, but the point is that it was by no means, despite the widespread misconception, the only significant impetus for Israel's creation.

https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine-misconceptions/europe-created-israel-to-apologize-for-the-holocaust

Just to help clear up Quill's revisionist bullshit

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Genetics would very much disagree with you

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.5220113

What is also blatantly poor here, is the number of jews already living there and how half the Jewish population of Israel is made up of Middle Eastern aka Semtic Jews ethnically cleansed by Arab states

How many? Very, very few. I'll bet if I looked hard enough I could find an Eskimo in Palestine too. That doesn't make the entire territory Inuit.

You can't generalize from specifics.

You never read the link 75% of Jews descend from the Middle East

Now how many Palestinian Arabs, descend from Judea, Gaza etc?

Notice the word Arab here

You just proved again you tried to deny Jewish identity and its done from a distorted and quite appalling lie by you

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:49 pm

Palestinian leaders are manipulating the history of geographic Palestine/Land of Israel. They have manufactured a curious claim, expressed recently by Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, that they are descended from Canaanites and are therefore the indigenous people of the area, present before the emergence of the Jewish people around the year 1500 BCE.

Saeb Erekat’s family is Bedouin. According to Bedouin genealogy, the family is part of the Huweitat clan which originated in the Hejaz area of Saudi Arabia, arrived in Palestine from the south of Jordan, and settled in the village of Abu Dis in the early twentieth century.

Several leading scholars of Middle Eastern studies and Islamic history have confirmed that the Palestinians do not have ancient roots in the area and are trying to invent origins for themselves that predate the Jewish people’s presence.

They explain that most of the Palestinians arrived as part of the waves of immigration that began in the nineteenth century at the time of the emergence of Zionism, attracted by employment opportunities and economic benefits.

The historical presence of the Jewish people in the “Holy Land” is well-documented, not only in the scriptures of all three monotheistic religions, and visible in extensive archeological remains, but also in historic writings by early Greek, Roman, pagan, and other visitors to the area. The fact that Christianity emanated from Judaism is further proof of the presence of a thriving Jewish community in the area.

http://jcpa.org/article/changing-historical-narrative-saeb-erekats-new-spin/

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:54 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:The first is that Europe created Israel, and thus that Israel is an extension of European colonialism. The second is that Israel's creation was a response to the Holocaust. Both have elements of truth but are, on balance, not correct descriptions of Israel's founding.

I don’t believe that Israel’s creation was a response to the Holocaust. After all, the origin of Israel pre-dated the Holocaust. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't the main ingredient of the recipe for Israel's success.

Israel, as a dream, was given life by European guilt. Israel, like Jonestown, was a myth…something of a cult. It wasn’t really European colonialism that stimulated Israel, but the experience of European colonialism was in the background, and the normalcy of colonialism made it easy for Europeans to accept taking the lands of Palestinians.

The Holocaust was the real engine for the creation and full development of Israel.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:58 pm

Bullshitl Quill wrote:
Truthful Didge wrote:The first is that Europe created Israel, and thus that Israel is an extension of European colonialism. The second is that Israel's creation was a response to the Holocaust. Both have elements of truth but are, on balance, not correct descriptions of Israel's founding.

I don’t believe that Israel’s creation was a response to the Holocaust. After all, the origin of Israel pre-dated the Holocaust. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't the main ingredient of the recipe for Israel's success.

Israel, as a dream, was given life by European guilt. Israel, like Jonestown, was a myth…something of a cult. It wasn’t really European colonialism that stimulated Israel, but the experience of European colonialism was in the background, and the normalcy of colonialism made it easy for Europeans to accept taking the lands of Palestinians.

The Holocaust was the real engine for the creation and full development of Israel.

As seen your views are complete and utterly made up
It was the Jews that created israel and declared independence
No matter how many times you continue to lie on this
Neither was the Holocaust the real engine for the creation of israel

I even used a well know left wing source on this and still you are in denial

That is why its pointless debating someone so dishonest on history as you are

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:08 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:You never read the link 75% of Jews descend from the Middle East

I've not seen that substantiated. But, more importantly, it depends on what you mean by "descend". I am 1/64th Massasoit Indian on my mother's side, but I don't claim to be Native American. Yet that is what the polemicists who write these articles do. It strays from the point.

I think it's better to focus on where the Jews who built Israel came from. They were, by education and culture, Europeans, not Semites.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:11 pm

Revisionist Quill wrote:
Honorable Didge wrote:You never read the link 75% of Jews descend from the Middle East

I've not seen that substantiated. But, more importantly, it depends on what you mean by "descend". I am 1/64th Massasoit Indian on my mother's side, but I don't claim to be Native American. Yet that is what the polemicists who write these articles do. It strays from the point.

I think it's better to focus on where the Jews who built Israel came from. They were, by education and culture, Europeans, not Semites.

You can claim what you want to be these days, espcially on gender it seems, so what has that got to do with genetics that prove Jews by 75% descend from the Middl East

By contrast the Palestinian arabs, do not descend from the area

That means they are not indegeneous to the area

The Jews are

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:13 pm

The Jews, of course, will always claim (with some justification in my opinion) their right to their present country on the grounds that it was God-given and - if you don't believe in God, historically earned - in accordance with the events recorded in the Old Testament.

I can now hear Lurker and others shrieking in horrified disbelief, but setting aside some of the myth and fable there is much historical fact in the catalogue of Books of the Old Testament.

There has also been considerable scientific research in recent years which tends to lend some credence to such events as the plagues of Egypt, the burning bush and deliverance of the Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red Sea, etc.

I'm neither a theologian nor an historian (apart from a modest knowledge of the English Civil War), so I have no intention of getting myself involved in a pointless and never-ending debate with certain tenacious posters...and at this point I will shut my gob!

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:15 pm

Dishonorable Didge wrote:As seen your views are complete and utterly made up

To the contrarary, I didn’t make up the Holocaust. I didn’t make up the names of the early leaders of Israel. To the last, they were Europeans…even Golda Meir, who was from the Ukraine.

by eddie Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:16 pm

How does one “own” a land simply because one happens to be born on it?

Never understood that.

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:16 pm

Dishonest Didge wrote:It was the Jews that created israel and declared independence
No matter how many times you continue to lie on this

No doubt. They were European Jews.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:18 pm

eddie wrote:How does one “own” a land simply because one happens to be born on it?

Never understood that.

Nobody is saying that, but their ancestors at the time did own land, that was taken from them

The Jews genesis was in the land of israel. Its where their language, identity, religion culture all formed.

The Arabs was in the Arabian Peninsular and what is more, there is already countless Arab countries

The Jews have one

by eddie Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:25 pm

Syl wrote:Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.
He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-peer-remove-whip-from-boris-over-burka-remarks-11464276

Anyway, back to the OP Should Boris be booted? - Page 6 1942856362

Should Boris be booted? - Page 6 4be2f610

by Original Quill Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:38 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:The Jews, of course, will always claim (with some justification in my opinion) their right to their present country on the grounds that it was God-given and - if you don't believe in God, historically earned - in accordance with the events recorded in the Old Testament.

I can now hear Lurker and others shrieking in horrified disbelief, but setting aside some of the myth and fable there is much historical fact in the catalogue of Books of the Old Testament.

There has also been considerable scientific research in recent years which tends to lend some credence to such events as the plagues of Egypt, the burning bush and deliverance of the Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red Sea, etc.

I'm neither a theologian nor an historian (apart from a modest knowledge of the English Civil War), so I have no intention of getting myself involved in a pointless and never-ending debate with certain tenacious posters...and at this point I will shut my gob!

Not at all. I appreciate your involvement in this discussion, Fred. I started it with a post to you, after all. Always a pleasure.

We can argue back and forth the bible, or history, but it is all beside the point. What we are really taking about is what was in the minds and motives of people when events happened:

One, Europeans felt guilt over the Holocaust, with good reason. Two, European Jews had built a settlement and a cult on the eastern shores of the Med. Three, because of European guilt, European nations gave permission and resources to these Jews, in order to turn the cult into a nation. Four, because of a past mind-set of colonialism, Europeans were quite comfortable with making victims of the Palestinians, whose land was taken. Five, because of these sins, and the lack of foresight about an ever-shrinking world, we are on the threshold of war with 1.6-billion people

Now, we are can let this war continue until our grandchildren are all dead. Or we start analyzing our situation, and the equities involved (ie, stop hating Muslims like we once hated the Native Americans) and come to some intelligent solution.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:41 pm

Didge wrote:Myth #4: Europe created Israel to apologize for the Holocaust
There are actually two misconceptions behind the idea that Europe created Israel to apologize for the Holocaust. The first is that Europe created Israel, and thus that Israel is an extension of European colonialism. The second is that Israel's creation was a response to the Holocaust. Both have elements of truth but are, on balance, not correct descriptions of Israel's founding.

First, Israel was not a creation of European colonialism: Israel's creation was in large part the work of Jews who moved to present-day Israel, despite European efforts to stop them, and who dragged the world into accepting them as a state. It is true that in 1917, Britain issued its famous Balfour Declaration promising the Jews a homeland in British-controlled Palestine as long as this did not undercut the rights of non-Jews there. But in the 1930s, as Jewish immigration and Jewish-Arab tension increased, the British tried to sharply limit Jewish immigration into the area, forcing many Jews into refugee camps in Cyprus and elsewhere. Jews smuggled in large numbers of illegal immigrants in the 1940s; Jewish militias that formed to fight Arabs also conducted violent operations against the British, whom they saw as an enemy.

This was not, in other words, a European-Jewish joint project at all. The United Nations did come around to creating a Jewish state with its 1947 plan for partitioning Palestine, but that was in large part a reaction to the chaos and communal violence in British Palestine, which the UN hoped to solve by dividing the territory. And of the 33 countries that voted for the resolution, only 12 were European; 13 yes votes came from Latin and Caribbean countries. (Thirteen countries voted against it.) To be fair, it is definitely true that the UN ignored Arab and Palestinian objections to the plan, in a way that left them disenfranchised and feeling, with reason, that their land had been taken from them without their consent. But the point is that it was not a European or Western conspiracy.

Second, Israel's creation was not just a response to the Holocaust: While it is true that Holocaust galvanized global public opinion in support of Jews, and accelerated Jewish immigration to Israel, it is also true that all the factors that led to the creation of Israel were already well in place before the Holocaust happened. There were centuries of European anti-Semitism, a strongly felt Zionist movement among Jews, many thousands of Jewish immigrants in Palestine, and an international campaign to generate diplomatic support. In some ways, the Holocaust depressed Jewish immigration, because Nazi governments largely forbade it and because it left Europe with so many fewer Jews to emigrate. The question of how big a role the Holocaust played in leading up to Israel's creation is debated among scholars, but the point is that it was by no means, despite the widespread misconception, the only significant impetus for Israel's creation.

https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine-misconceptions/europe-created-israel-to-apologize-for-the-holocaust

Just to help clear up Quill's revisionist bullshit

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:47 pm

Daniel Barenboim is a Zionism denier. Zionism denial is the claim he raised in his opinion piece (“Germany is repaying its post-Holocaust debts to Israel – but not to the Palestinians,” June Cool

saying that Israel exists because of the Holocaust.

Zionism denial is the story of how the State of Israel “was given” to the Jewish people by the guilt-ridden world after the Holocaust. Zionism denial is also the claim that the Palestinians are also the victims of Germany and Europe, for without the Holocaust, their catastrophe would have been avoided.

The upshot of Zionism denial is ignoring the history of the Zionist movement before World War II. The denier completely ignores the fact that save for the decisive aspect of independence, the State of Israel in the making would have existed in fact on the eve of World War II. Zionism denial means ignoring that the State of Israel arose on the force of the vision, desire and uncommon deeds of far-sighted Jews, who laid the foundations of its independence.

Israel was not “given” to the Jews, because, among other things, the last thing on the agenda of the European nations at the end of the world war was guilty feelings toward the Jews. In certain European countries, these feelings began to crop up after a generation, and there have been no reports of guilty feelings in other countries until today. Just as India and Pakistan and other nations did not need the murder of a third of their people to receive a country at that time, the Jewish people would have obtained its own state at the end of World War II, not because of the Holocaust but rather because of another result of the war, the dismantling of the British empire.

Zionism denial is not only ignoring the pre-war history of Zionism but also a theft of the Zionist consciousness from the Jewish people – the recognition that Jews can, by force of vision, desire and work return to history as an active agent and shape a future in which they are not the victims of others. Zionism denial means that the State of Israel becomes a “gift” that was given to the Jews because of what was done to the Jews by others – not for what the Jews did by and for themselves.

Worse than that, Zionism denial seeks to return the Jews to their “rightful” place in European history, as tolerated people whose fate is set by those who give and take as they please. Zionism denial turns Israel – alone among all countries in the world – into a conditional state, which is permitted to exist as long as those who received it, by grace and not by right, will find favor in the eyes who “gave” them the country.

Zionism denial also robs the Arabs, and the Palestinians among them, of their status as people of an ancient and independent culture, who take positions that have consequences. From the Arabs’ perspective, the meaning of accepting the principle of partition was to rise above centuries of cultural construction by which the Jews were followers of an inferior religion, which is permitted to exist by the grace of the majority, and by a long custom during which it was only possible to live with the Jews as long as they knew their place as people who are not and cannot be equal to Muslims and Arabs.

It is true that given that there were more Arabs than Jews in the Land of Israel, the Arabs did not have an incentive to compromise and to split this land with the Zionist movement. But the fact that from this perspective they had reasons to reject the partition plan does not absolve them of responsibility for the outcome. Had they succeeded in rising above their history and not relying on their numerical superiority, they would have accepted the partition plan and not objected to it with force. The establishment of Israel would not have become their disaster.

There is a claim by which the partition map, in which there was a significant Arab minority within the Jewish state, proves that the Zionist leadership planned on “cleansing” the territory of Arabs regardless of their assent to partition. This claim ignores that at the same time hundreds of thousands of Jews sat in DP camps in Europe and Cyprus, awaiting the establishment of the Jewish state and the opening of the gates of immigration. There was no need for cleansing, based on the partition map. What was needed was opening the door to Jews – a door that if not for the Arab struggle against Zionism before World War II, would not have closed in the first place.

The right of the Jewish people to have a country in its own homeland is a universal right, which is reserved for every people – the right to stand on its own authority and to control its fate. As long as the world is divided into some 200 countries, on the basis of the principle of self-determination for peoples and nations, the Jewish people have a right to this. The Palestinian Arabs also have a right to self-determination in part of the country between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. However, their right does not supersede the Jews’ right, just as the Jews’ right in the country does not supersede that of the Arabs.

When the Arabs recognize that the Jewish people have an equal right to self-determination in part of its homeland in the Land of Israel, they will certainly understand that they have to give up their demand for return to all parts of the State of Israel. Then they will be able to establish their country in part of Palestine, and legislate the Palestinian right of return just as the Jews did, thanks to their vision, labor and determination.

Einat Wilf is a former Labor MK.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-no-maestro-the-holocaust-did-not-create-israel-1.5483967

by eddie Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:52 pm

Syl wrote:Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.
He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-peer-remove-whip-from-boris-over-burka-remarks-11464276

Please can we remember to stick to the thread topic?

Thank you.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:56 pm

eddie wrote:
Syl wrote:Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.
He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-peer-remove-whip-from-boris-over-burka-remarks-11464276

Please can we remember to stick to the thread topic?

Thank you.

Then split the threads

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:02 pm

The anti-liberal response to Boris Johnson’s remarks on the wearing of a burka risk promulgating a fragmented society devoid of hope of ever becoming truly integrated, says Andrea Hossó.

The “Boris and the burka” scandal might even have brought us some light relief from the Brexit induced civil war like atmosphere we have been enduring for two years now. Unfortunately, the incident has taken on proportions which defy belief.

Boris Johnson expressed a liberal opinion; much as he understands the reasoning behind the Danish decision to impose a ban on the niqab and the burka, he disagrees with the measure and does not recommend it for the UK. He wrote: “I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam. If you go for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the flames of grievance.”

This shows a liberal approach as far as the essence of the matter is concerned. True, he also made clear his dislike of the above-mentioned garments using some colourful similes that burka wearers and their communities may very well find unpleasant and hurtful. The language he used was blunt but it was just that: the packaging of his very liberal message. That his choice of words, however unsubtle, could whip the whole affair into a political storm prompting calls for his head shows how unhealthily overheated and dogmatic political discussion has become.

It is a pity because all the fuss diverts attention from the real issue, which is, of course, not whether Mr. Johnson likes the burka or not; he is entitled not to. Neither is it his contempt for Muslim women because he showed none; he merely commented on how burka-wearing women appear to him. Impolite comments on others’ dressing style cannot be construed as racism or prejudice. The real issue here is what all multicultural societies grapple with: what are the limits, if any, of the freedom of individual communities and is there a need to curb some ethnic and/or religious preferences in order to have a basic common ground that could serve as the minimum basis for an integrated country?

http://commentcentral.co.uk/boris-and-the-burka/

More to read on the link

by eddie Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:11 pm

I don’t have a problem with what he said actually, he wasn’t racist he was just considered rude - and that’s objectionable anyway.

I don’t have a problem with the Burkha, people should be able to wear what they want.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:12 pm

eddie wrote:I don’t have a problem with what he said actually, he wasn’t racist he was just considered rude - and that’s objectionable anyway.

I don’t have a problem with the Burkha, people should be able to wear what they want.

Nobody is saying they cannot, but it is a symbol of oppression and hate. It should rightly be condemned as such

by eddie Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:16 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:I don’t have a problem with what he said actually, he wasn’t racist he was just considered rude - and that’s objectionable anyway.

I don’t have a problem with the Burkha, people should be able to wear what they want.

Nobody is saying they cannot, but it is a symbol of oppression and hate. It should rightly be condemned as such

I don’t know what the actual percentage is, but lots (maybe most?), Muslim women choose to wear it.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:18 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Nobody is saying they cannot, but it is a symbol of oppression and hate. It should rightly be condemned as such

I don’t know what the actual percentage is, but lots (maybe most?), Muslim women choose to wear it.

Wrong, they choose to belief its a requirment to wear

Through a belief that if they do not wear they will suffer in their after life

Thus its a choice on what to believe, not what to wear

Its basically a uniform requirement of salafism and again what you are saying and doing is sticking two fingers up to countless Muslim women forced to wear.

Your claim that many want to has no bases at all

by eddie Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:35 pm

I am not advocating any person, male or female, being forced to do something. I’m simply telling you that many choose to wear the Burkha. They choose to.
That doesn’t sound as though they feel it’s a requirement, does it?

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:42 pm

eddie wrote:I am not advocating any person, male or female, being forced to do something. I’m simply telling you that many choose to wear the Burkha. They choose to.
That doesn’t sound as though they feel it’s a requirement, does it?

Which is sticking basically two fingers up to those who are being forced. By relegating their plight as secondary to the claimed right of women who claim they wish to where. Which as seen is false. Its a uniform for their belief system

The believe system is very clear and its also one of the most extreme forms of islam, that ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the taliban follow. So the belief system is coercing them to wear, through a belief they will suffer in the next life if they do not wear

How is that a choice to wear when fear is the factor that is driving them to wear this uniform?

What you neglect to realise is that they believe all Muslim women should wear this

The reality is that it is a symbol of oppression and should be condemned. If they chose to follow this extreme form of islam that is their choice. Though they should also abide by the laws of this nation on security aspects by showing their identity when required.

You this is what is wrong, and why you should be condemning this outfit, but still maintain the right of people to wear what they want.

If someone was wearing a KKK outfit, you would condemn the outfit, as its a symbol of hate.

by Guest Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:58 pm

Moroccan authorities have recently banned the manufacturing, marketing and sale of the burqa – an outer garment worn by some Muslim women to cover themselves in public. It completely conceals the face, with a mesh cloth shielding the eyes from view.

The decision is noteworthy in a country whose population is 99% Muslim. So what does the ban mean?

The Moroccan Ministry of Interior cited security concerns as the reason for the ban. It argued that wearing the burqa could help criminals and terrorists hide their identities. Indeed, several criminals have reportedly used the burqa or niqab – a veil that covers the face but not the eyes – to perpetrate crimes, including theft.

But beyond immediate security concerns, the real worry for the moderate Moroccan government is the spread of radical, Salafist Islam. Salafism has been linked to ISIS and terrorism in North Africa. Morocco’s concern with terrorism is exacerbated by the fact that it receives about 10 million visitors a year and partly depends on tourism revenues for its development. The government believes that banning the burqa will limit expression of radical Islam and will help contain it.

Women’s wear tells a story
A very small minority of women wear the burqa in Morocco – a country where modernity and tradition live together and whose king, Mohammed VI, fosters moderate Islam.

The djellaba – a hooded robe – is the historical, national garment of Moroccan women. It’s traditionally worn with a veil called a litham and worn together they cover the woman’s face and body, except her eyes. During the fight for independence, especially in the 1940s, the djellaba was a symbol of nationalism and a shield of identity.

Today, the djellaba is mostly worn without the litham.

But with the rise of political Islam in the mid-1980s came various new, foreign veiling practices – including the hijab, the niqab and the burqa. Under the influence of the Gulf nations, the hijab – a scarf that covers the hair – gradually infiltrated Moroccan society and came to be worn along with the djellaba or other western-type clothing.

Like the hijab, the niqab and the burqa are linked to the spread of Salafist Islam in North Africa. The niqab and burqa are worn especially in radical Islamist or Salafist circles in conservative regions in the north of Morocco. Hundreds of jihadists have travelled from this region to fight in Syria and Iraq .

Within this context, the burqa is perceived by many Moroccans as alien to their culture. Among intellectuals in general – except the ultra conservative Salafists – the wearing of the burqa is perceived as an unwelcome Wahhabi practice.

Opinions split
It’s notable that the ban hasn’t created a mass outcry. This can probably be attributed to the decision to ban the sale and production of burqas, rather than the burqa itself – at least for the time being. But the burqa ban has certainly split opinion in the country.

The Salafist extremist Abu Naim issued a video on his Facebook page calling those who made this decision “infidels, apostates and renegades who are leading a war against God”.

Some Salafist Muslim groups like Annahda wa Al Fadila (Renaissance and Virtue) have strongly criticised the move. They warn that the burqa ban is a first step towards banning the niqab. This, they argue, would lead to a real split in Moroccan society, where more women wear the niqab.

Progressive women’s organisations argue that the ban is justified because the burqa oppresses women. Nouzha Skalli, a former Minister for Family and Social Development, welcomed the ban and described it as “an important step in the fight against religious extremism”. Saida Drissi, Chair of the Democratic Association of the Women of Morocco, pointed out that “when it’s about wearing a hijab, a burqa, Salafists all agree… but we never hear them [protest] when a girl can’t wear a miniskirt”.

Others reject the burqa as a neocolonial import from the Gulf states.

The Northern Moroccan National Observatory for Human Development considered the decision “arbitrary” and an “indirect violation of women’s freedom of expression”.

But for the Amazigh researcher and activist Ahmed Assid the ban of the manufacture and sale of the burqa is legitimate and desirable. He welcomed the move because this foreign garment has been used improperly to aid criminal and terrorist acts.

The new paradox and women’s rights
The burqa ban and the debate that it has fomented has drawn attention to the tension that exists in Morocco between official moderate Islam and conservative Islam, which is a growing minority.

This is the new paradox in Morocco. And it has significant implications for women’s rights. On the one hand, recent legal and institutional reforms have had a significant impact on democracy and the modernisation process in Moroccan society. These include the amended constitution of 2011, which guarantees gender equality and women’s political participation, and the reform of the Family Code in 2004.

On the other hand, the Salafists who defend the burqa and the niqab want to Islamise society further. They ultimately aim to establish the Islamic caliphate in Morocco, which allows beheadings, the captivity of women, sexual jihad, and anti-women fatwas.

Given this paradox, the burqa ban, which favours moderate Islam and secularism, is significant. Although it’s obviously motivated by security concerns, the ban is part of a broader fight against religious extremism and terrorism.

https://theconversation.com/why-moroccos-burqa-ban-is-more-than-just-a-security-measure-72120

The above is very interesting and adds to my point already that its a choice on a belief and that the Burqa is the Uniform of Salafism, because you simple do not find non-Salafist Muslim women chosing to wear this.

by The Devil, You Know Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:50 pm

booted for what exactly?
his article was about not banning the burka, he made a joke that was first printed in the Grauniad around 5 years ago and also repeated by stephen fry some years back. there was not a hint of outrage on either of those occasions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/burqa-bashing-mohammed-ahmed-mohamed-image

The outrage is being stoked by those who fear BoJo may become the next PM. The left are terrified of a popular leader and the May wing are terrified of being ousted.

As to people taking offence, that is their problem. There is nothing wrong in offending people at all. In fact a healthy society should be worried about offending people.

by The Devil, You Know Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Had Germany won WW2, European Jews might well have been settled on the large French colony island of Madagascar off the coast of East Africa.

The Nazi government proposed this in 1940.

The ultimate governance of the island would, of course, have been under Nazi domination.

Interesting, Fred. But Germany had different motives than a penitent and apologetic Europe. Had Germany won, they would have felt vindicated. They would have been going in a completely opposite direction.

I'm speaking off the repentant motives of the rest of Europe. They let their internal dǽmons go wild for a spell, and Nazism and Italian Fascism was the result. Then, when they saw what they had done, their motive in 1946 was to make up for it.

It's my impression that, while the Jews already had in mind a utopia--and it was vaguely related to the Levant, because myth and rootstock aligned there--had Europe not poured fuel on the ill-considered plan, Israel would not be on the lands of Palestine today...and we wouldn't be at war with 1.6-billion souls. I have utmost sympathy for the Jews. And I applaud the motive of Europe to make up for their past sins toward them. But, the Jews that went to Palestine to take and build Israel, were Europeans not Semites.

Down to basics, it was an invasion by Europe, stealing the lands of Palestinians. It would be as if I, a Californian, were fantasizing about my long lost Celtic origins, and subsequently invaded western Scotland so as to fulfill my myth. From the perspective of the rest of Europe, it was assuaging victims by creating new victims. The tragedy of it is that we are at war with 1.6-billion souls, quite unnecessarily, because of this blunder.

Had Europe used a little foresight and planning, it all might have been avoided. If Europe owed a debt, it should have paid that debt out of its own account. Instead, it drew upon foreign bank accounts, and foreign resources. It was colonialism and selfishness in the extreme, giving away the lands of other, presumably lesser creatures.

That’s why I say Italy would have been a fair and equitable swap. Unlike the Palestinians, the Italians deserved to lose their territory. It would have been repayment from a local bank. And most importantly, it would not have permanently alienated 1.6-billion people.

the jews have lived in the holy land for 3000 years at least. Jerusalem has been their capitol since it was first founded. We know the jews are sneaky building their temples under all those Muslim temples. , but they have lived in the region far longer than the concept of palestine has been around.

by Sponsored content