90 1 min 9 yrs

(h/t ATW commentator Petr Tarazov)

(Reuters) — Yitzhak Shamir, the hawkish Israeli leader who balked at the idea of trading occupied land for peace with the Palestinians, died on Saturday after a long illness. He was 96.

He was twice prime minister in the 1980s and early 1990s. Rather than seek accommodation with the Palestinians, Shamir championed new Jewish settlements.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

90 thoughts on “YITZHAK SHAMIR DEAD

  1. Rather than seek accommodation with the Palestinians, Shamir championed new Jewish settlements.

    A Rightworld hero. His only fault is that he didn’t nuke them.

  2. While some people will be remembering Yitzhak Shamir tonight, it might do to mention someone else:

    Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (in Swedish: Greve af Wisborg; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman noted for his negotiation of the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps during World War II, including 450 Danish Jews from Theresienstadt released on 14 April 1945. In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, though the offer was ultimately rejected.

    After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. The decision to assassinate him had been taken by Natan Yellin-Mor, Yisrael Eldad and Yitzhak Shamir, who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel.

    The question of Zionism and Israel aside, it’ll always be a stain on the country that some of those who deserved to hang were elected to public office.

  3. Pete

    “it’ll always be a stain on the country that some of those who deserved to hang were elected to public office.”

    Not an isolated case!

    I know next to nothing about Isreal/ME but it appears the way he lived was more tragic than his death.

  4. Pete,
    Not disagreeing, but,
    “it’ll always be a stain on the country that some of those who deserved to hang were elected to public office.”

    It won’t be the first or last time the poacher has turned gamekeeper. Ruthlessness has enabled many a thug and murderer make it to the top of the political tree.

  5. Ruthlessness has enabled many a thug and murderer make it to the top of the political tree.

    Indeed. There are a few in (ahem) eastern Europe and thereabouts. No names, no pack-drill.

  6. to hell with Bernadotte, he did a good deed during the war and earned a justifiable place in history for it. As for his aid to the Arab Nations in organizing their unification against Israel in 1948 he got what he deserved a bullet in the head.

    YITZHAK SHAMIR was a hero and a great man he led his people well and served them greatly as a true Lion in the Mossad a true Nazi hunter.

    The world has lost a great sword of justice, God Speed Yitzak rest well,

  7. “Your support for terrorism is disturbing.”

    Oh, for God’s sake, Petr. You are now sitting in front of your computer “disturbed” because of what some ineffectual eegit half way round the world thinks.

    Well, at least Shamir will now be able to meet up with Adolf and thank him for the Holocaust.
    Hitler may of course be confused at how one of his fellow monsters of that era managed to survive so long, but Shamir will be able to remind him of who he is – the guy who wrote to the Nazis offering an alliance against Britain in 1941, at a time when the vast majority of Jews in Palestine were supporting the Allied effort, and indeed after the Holocaust had commenced.

    They should burn this wretch’s body and throw his ashes into the Isar.

  8. Yes, Noel, and Mahons is sitting there amazed!

    There’s more than one eejit about, it seems.

  9. Petr,
    Your particular brand of idealistic communism does not appear to require the presence of proportion or commonsense.
    I apologise for calling you a prat the other day. I should have said,
    “You are behaving like a Prat.”
    Thus holding out the possibility of personal change and redemption.

  10. The Troll, on June 30th, 2012 at 11:57 pm Said:
    to hell with Bernadotte, he did a good deed during the war and earned a justifiable place in history for it. As for his aid to the Arab Nations in organizing their unification against Israel in 1948 he got what he deserved a bullet in the head.
    YITZHAK SHAMIR was a hero and a great man he led his people well and served them greatly as a true Lion in the Mossad a true Nazi hunter.
    The world has lost a great sword of justice, God Speed Yitzak rest well,

    Once again Troll shows his support for terrorism. How is anyone meant to take your posts about being opposed to terrorism seriously when you post the above Cr#p. YITZHAK SHAMIR was a terrorist murderer who rose to the office of prime minister in a terrorist state.

  11. Why am I wrong in the praise of a man that spent his life in the service of defending his people?

    Pete took the opportunity of the mans death to praise a man that was part of the team that helped organize the arab states against Israel when Britain refused to be the responsible arbiter and maintain the peace instead they packed up and left. The brits took on a responsibility and didn’t live up to it.

    After the announcement of the partition plan the Arabs got violent. In 47 the Brits could have forced a settlement instead they did nothing as it escalated and then the British withdrew.

    Men like Shamir having just seen first hand the near annihilation of their race did what had to be done.

    No this man was Hero.

    You call me stupid and an idiot…. your the fools. We are never defended by saints, we are always defended by hard men. Be grateful we have them.

  12. Subby

    Israel is not a terrorist state, but your believing it to be is no surprise.

  13. The Troll, on July 1st, 2012 at 4:44 pm Said:
    Subby
    Israel is not a terrorist state, but your believing it to be is no surprise.

    This from a man who thinks Shamir was not a terrorist and supports the murder of the UN representative

  14. Oh goody lets have a roll call

    All those that believe Israel to be terrorist state please by all means chime in.

    I’m sure I could just write the list of your names without any effort, and it would be the usual suspects.

    But please if you can muster the fortitude to put up your name/handle list for all to see. Proclaim where you stand now before the shooting starts

  15. How about we have a roll call of those who support terrorism.
    Ill start the list
    1.Troll
    er cant think of anyone else on this board

  16. Troll –

    Drop the “your the fools” stuff.

    I did not praise Folke Bernadotte. I simply pointed out that Yitzhak Shamir was a killer who ought to have been hanged instead of elected to high office.

    Britain did rather alot to try and build a peace in the 30s and 40s in that part of the world, impossible job though it was. Many good people lost their lives to Jewish terrorists like Shamir.

    Bernadotte’s peace plan was published three days after his murder and was accepted by Britain and the United States. If he was rallying Arabs against Jews (of course he wasn’t) then your government thought it was a good thing.

    A few years ago Shimon Peres, speaking as the Israeli Foreign Minister, apologised for Bernadotte’s murder, admitting that he had been a victim of terrorism. If he can do that then so can you.

    Finally, Yitzhak Shamir, like many Jews, freely and willingly joined Avraham Stern’s vicious terrorist outfit. This is the what they signed up to:

    During World War II, Stern’s Lehi movement sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British. During World War II, Stern’s Lehi declared in 1941 that it would establish a Jewish state based upon “nationalist and totalitarian principles”.

    “Men like Shamir having just seen first hand the near annihilation of their race did what had to be done.”

    Men like Shamir were wicked, vicious killers before anyone knew of any Holocaust. They were killing in the name of totalitarian ideals and they often killed Jews for it. Shamir was so dedicated and fanatical that he was chosen as a co-leader after Stern’s death.

  17. Pete
    you were praising him, and on a thread about another mans death, the fools comment was not directed directly at you but hey if you feel it was I withdraw it.

    You brought into the conversation one event in a mans life of fighting for his peoples existence. I view the mans life in it’s entirety. And I judge him to be hero.

    The British behavior during 47 was negligence at the least. The suffered crimes against them as well, but they at that time were a World power and could have done a lot more than they did.

    You people crack me up the man was loved enough by his own people to be elected leader twice. My positions on Israel are well documented. Do any of you really think that I would not give this man high praise?

    There is a large faction on this site that is pro Islamic Terrorist, they see nothing wrong with missiles being randomly shot into crowds of civilians and at civilian targets on a daily basis, and when the Israelis respond in defense they call Israel the terrorists.

    No Shamir was hero, a leader, and a man who defended his people.

  18. Troll –

    You’re referring to my reference to Bernadotte’s murder at 8.42pm. Quite clearly I did not praise him. Yes, I brought Bernadotte’s murder into it. That Yitzhak Shamir was a terrorist killer was a rather significant fact of his life. If you think otherwise then don’t mention Obama, Holder and Agent Brian Terry in the same post again.

    “My positions on Israel are well documented. Do any of you really think that I would not give this man high praise?”

    Of course not, and here I can see you’re being completely candid. What Shamir and other Jewish terrorists did is irrelevent to you, not of the slightest consequence. You support Israel today, so the historical record ought to be washed clean of anything which is inconvenient.

    I gave up that game a long time ago. Try it, it’s liberating.

  19. You brought into the conversation one event in a mans life of fighting for his peoples existence. I view the mans life in it’s entirety. And I judge him to be hero.

    Troll any other murderers you admire? Charles Manson perhaps, or maybe William Calley is more to your liking

  20. What Troll is really trying to say is that he is not opposed to terrorism, just certain circumstances where terrorism takes place. He does not have an unbending moral opposition to the use of murder as a political weapon.

  21. I wash nothing away, I place it in perspective. Israel’s beginning contained many atrocities. Atrocities should never be washed away or forgotten.

    I don’t claim that all of actions were good or just, I say that I understand them, and I give them a pass.

    Those actions as a matter of policy ceased 60yrs ago. No matter what half this lot says Israel does not commit acts of terror today. They don’t randomly lob missiles into their neighbors, they don’t dress their children in plastique and send them into crowds to explode.

    If Israel continued the actions they took at the beginning to secure themselves I would NOT support them.

    I do however give a pass to committing heinous acts after 7 years of seeing your people lined up and gassed in ovens, their skin being made into lamp shades, their fat into soap and the gold in their teeth harvested melted down and sent to swiss banks.

    So yeah given the same situation after the same circumstances if I were there I would have been one of the worst, and it would be me you would all be calling scum, hmm come to think of it even without that history that’s how some you regard me. Im honored.

  22. yeah Colm I give free pass to any and all to use it AFTER they watched millions of their bretheren cooked.

    Meet that bar and I’ll accept the behavior, so far only one group has met that bar.

  23. Troll –

    “I do however give a pass to committing heinous acts after 7 years of seeing your people lined up and gassed in ovens … ”

    Stern, Shamir and the rest were terrorist killers before the Holocaust. As I mentioned in my 5.08pm:

    During World War II, Stern’s Lehi movement sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British. During World War II, Stern’s Lehi declared in 1941 that it would establish a Jewish state based upon “nationalist and totalitarian principles”.

    As well as a terrorist, Avraham Stern was a wierdo and a revolutionary, yet that was the man many of them freely followed.

    In fact many of these characters were Eastern European socialists and totalitarians. There must be some magic in judaism. Troll wouldn’t cross the road to put out an Eastern European socialist if he was on fire. Yet give him a willy snip, slap a yarmulke on his head and – turrahhh! – he’s transformed into a man beyond reproach!

    Obama’s mildly social democratic compared to some of them, but Republicans will tell you he’s a Marxist. I pray he one day converts to judaism and moves to Israel. The GOP would declare him righteous among the neocons.

  24. Yeah Colm I give free pass to any and all to use it AFTER they watched millions of their bretheren cooked

    Hypothetical question Troll.

    There were over two million Gypsies went into those ovens as well. Would you have supported the Gypsy race, (and they are a race), using politically motivated violence to dispossess people, for example in Alaska, and then the UN granting that piece of land as a state?

  25. I do however give a pass to committing heinous acts after 7 years of seeing your people lined up and gassed in ovens, their skin being made into lamp shades, their fat into soap and the gold in their teeth harvested melted down and sent to swiss banks.

    Except for the fact that the Jewish terrorists were involved in terrorism and murder before the second world war started and well before the holocaust, they even tried to contact the Nazis to offer to fight with them. Here is a novel idea for you Troll, pick up one of those strange paper things with lots of pages and get someone to read it to you and perhaps you will not come across as a non educated idiot spouting random C##p about stuff you obviously know nothing about.

  26. According to Ha’aretz, Shamir said of his time with the Stern Gang,

    “Shamir said “we didn’t take any action blindly or automatically or just for the sake of violence. Our aim was to intimidate rather than to punish … reprisals were never a cause for celebration. They were simply an existential need.” In 1940, Shamir left the Irgun, following Avraham Stern, and became a leader of the Lehi − which the British called the Stern Gang.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/former-israeli-prime-minister-yitzhak-shamir-dies-at-96-1.447882

    Begin and Shamir took violent measures to secure their political objectives. As a Christian I couldn’t condone those actions, but others (perhaps the Troll!) would argue that it had to be that way, that folk like me are the wusses, because I eschew that kind of violence, but still support the existence of the State of Israel.
    I don’t have an answer for that.
    The fact that Shamir was voted in twice as Prime Minister is a simple reflection of the people’s need for a strong leader in difficult times, as per Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Menachem Begin.

  27. It’s pretty bizarre to condone the murder of FOlke Bernadotte because it was just a few years after the holocaust when Bernardotte worked to save people from it while Shamir sought to become Hitler’s vassel.

  28. Look first off we were talking about the years after the war and the founding of Israel to today.

    If you want to talk about WWII we can easily go there We can look at the Military operations of the British we just had a post on here that I believe some called those pilots terrorists, the US dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians. There were a few actions in Montgomery’s commands that can be questioned.

    For that matter lets look at the Germans and the Russians,

    The events that those that are condemning Shamir here are his life after the war. If you want to debate the ethics, the strategies, and the moral implications of WWII I think it would be a great post, but it’s not this one.

  29. Look first off we were talking about the years after the war and the founding of Israel to today.

    So see my 6.24 and answer the question?

  30. In fairness Troll, I think many of us would like to see you address the question to which Paul refers!

  31. I don’t mind Troll holding whatever opinion he does, but he should not try to pretend to hold to a sanctimonious moral position that is fake. He said on here that he opposes what the IRA did in Northern Ireland because they were cowardly. They did not stand out in uniform and face their enemies openly. Instead they planted car bombs and set them off by remote control skulking in the shadows safely. Fair enough. Absolutely correct. But isn’t that also a perfect description of the USA’s policy on drones . Someone skulking in a safe house back in the US, controlling a satellite camera and setting off an airborne bomb at no risk to themsleves. What is the difference ?

  32. Yes I would support the Gypsy’s using the same tactics.

    Even if it was to gain a Piece of land here in the US.

  33. Colm,
    perhaps the difference is that drones are being used by a state: the United States. If you or I were American, wouldn’t we want a weapons system which exposed our soldiers to less danger?
    On the other hand, the terrorists of Northern Ireland couldn’t get the support through the ballot box, and waged a terror campaign in order to achieve their aims. That’s what I feel is the difference.

  34. Does that not detract from you constantly expressed American patriotism?

  35. Agi, there’s some here who would argue that the “terrorists of Northern Ireland” are the ones who are sitting in political power now although that’s not a view I would personally agree with.

  36. The Gypsy’s missed an opportunity, they could easily have taken the exact same stance and laid claim to part of Romania. They instead fled back into a nomadic tradition which they value more than real estate.

  37. Agit8ed

    So terrorism is OK if the majority of people in a State vote for it to be used on other people ?

  38. But you don’t think that your agreement that the Gypsies would have been justified in using the exact same tactics to settle in an American state detracts from your American patriotism?

  39. Paul I’ll take your 7:50 at me.

    No number one the Gypsies aren’t American, number 2 we did not throw them in the ovens. You used Alaska as the land reference to make a point. My point was to emphasize my belief of their right to act the same as the jews if that was what they had chosen to do.

  40. This is what you said Troll:

    Yes I would support the Gypsy’s using the same tactics.
    Even if it was to gain a Piece of land here in the US

    That seems to me that you are advocating the use of politically motivated violence against Americans in order for a race who were subjected to attempted genocide to find a new homeland.

    If that doesn’t detract from your constantly expressed American patriotism please explainto me how?

  41. Colm
    Your confusing war and terrorism.

    Your even confusing the acts of the Jews and the acts of the Irish. Lets ignore for the moment the large scale issue of the Holocaust.

    The Jews declared war. they had the backing of the people. We know who they are. They may have committed acts of terror, but they didn’t put on ski masks and then deny they were involved.

    The Irish of the IRA deny that they even exist let alone admit their involvement. So where is the comparison. Explain it to me.

  42. “The Jews declared war. they had the backing of the people.”

    Even if true, immoral acts cannot be excused no matter how many back them. However, there was no monolithic Jewish block. Lehi/Stern was opposed the Haganah and Irgun, for example. The Holocaust is also irrelevent in the post-1945 period. Either Israel is justified in its existence or it is not. Whatever happened to European Jews cannot, alone, mitigate the existence of Israel.

    But I am interested in this Gypsies/Alaska business.

    It seems that Troll would support a bunch of Pikies turning up in America and intimidating, bombing, shooting, torturing and murdering Americans out of their homes in order to create a Pikey state.

    Where is Troll, and what have you done to him?

  43. That seems to me that you are advocating the use of politically motivated violence against Americans in order for a race who were subjected to attempted genocide to find a new homeland.

    If that doesn’t detract from your constantly expressed American patriotism please explainto me how?

    Paul it doesn’t your conveniently ignoring quite a few things and twisting others. Nice try but it don’t fly.

    First off the land that Israel sits on and a great deal more has been the homeland of the Jews for all of our recorded history. It’s not a “new” homeland.

    You want to place the Gypsy’s in the US to get me to say I support them killing Americans. Your spinning a yarn.

    When the Gypsy’s claim Pittsburgh as their historical homeland and all of recorded history backs them up, yeah I’ll help them make the bombs. Until then your just being silly.

  44. That’s your own own comment Troll. It stands alone at 7.48.

    If I have ignored or twisted any qualification prior to your 7.48 then please show me.

    Perhaps you haven’t thought this one through?

  45. The Holocaust is NEVER irrelevant. It is the linchpin, The world sat back and let a madman barbeque on of the oldest tribes of humanity to near Extinction.

    Their historical homeland is Israel after the world paused in it’s massive effort of everyone trying to kill everyone else. The Jews chose to go home in mass. The victors of a World War said go you can have this small piece of where your tribe originated as payment for crimes committed against you.

    Did it piss some people of the world off. YES, but the crime committed against them was great enough that the Victors of the war backed their claim.

    You can not separate Israel from the Holocaust. The holocaust is the mortgage for the land paid in full.

  46. Troll

    I wasn’t comparing the Irish with the Jews. I was comparing the Americam military (drones) with the IRA (car bombs) .

  47. “So terrorism is OK if the majority of people in a State vote for it to be used on other people ?”

    Colm,
    not sure what you’re getting at. By definition a democratic state is a structured community with a government, judiciary, police force and armed forces. Surely a democratic state only pursues a military action in accord with its stated policies and with the tacit approval/acceptance of the people.
    So even though I do not agree with our invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, they were not (to me) terrorist actions.
    The British army being in Northern Ireland was not an army of occupation, but an army following the orders of a properly constituted government (which debated the NI question over the years), and attempted to bring order to another part of the United Kingdom. Granted, the Republicans opposed it, but the ballot box was the way to achieve their ambitions -not a campaign of terror.
    I could not condone the murder of innocents or even soldiers, in order to achieve a political ambition in a democratic society.

  48. Agit8ed

    Read my 8.39pm (and my 7.34pm again) and you might see what I am getting at.

  49. Paul,
    “Agi, there’s some here who would argue that the “terrorists of Northern Ireland” are the ones who are sitting in political power now although that’s not a view I would personally agree with.”

    Then that’s where we disagree.

  50. Then Colm the point made to you was the proper one. The drones are an official tool of the state

  51. Exactly my point Troll. You don’t oppose cowardly violence. Only the circumstances of it’s execution.

  52. Then that’s where we disagree

    Okay my friend. In order not to rehash old debates we’ll respectfully agree to disagree?

    no it was to Petes 8:24

    Okay, then please answer my 8.31

  53. Colm,
    Car bombs vs Drones..
    the point is that the actions of the IRA were at odds with the opportunities afforded them in a democratic society, to argue their case through debate and the ballot box.
    Now obviously where there was outright discrimination against Catholics for simply being Catholics, that can’t be condoned either..
    OMG.
    Let me out!
    (which is probably why so many Irish people of many political persuasions live happily on the mainland.

  54. I also disagree with your 8.57 Agi.

    A state that had a one party government for fifty years cannot be described as democratic.

    But we will agree to disagree without going into the minutia.

  55. Agit8ed –

    You’re talking about who is doing the killing (constituted states). Colm is talking about the tactic (car bombs or drones).

    If terror groups could afford drones and get them to deliver Hellfire missiles onto politicians then they would do so. Given their finances and the risk/reward ratio, a car bomb is a realistic tactic from a terrorist point of view.

    Either way, no-one wants to be the victim of either.

  56. I answered you in the comment right before that. Your trying to twist history and my words.

    When they claim Pittsburgh and show the historical record I’ll build the bombs,

    Your said if they claimed Alaska to drive the point of my conviction of their right to go in that direction I concurred that I would feel the same even it was American soil, but it’s not, they aren’t trying to claim anywhere, let alone anywhere in the US. your dancing on the head of a pin and your feet don’t fit.

    The gypsy’s chose to blend in the jews chose to claim the right of return. I support both choices.

  57. Troll –

    “The victors of a World War said go you can have this small piece of where your tribe originated as payment for crimes committed against you.”

    The people living there didn’t shove Jews into gas chambers; the victors had no right to carve out a piece of land for European Jews only. My point remains: Israel’s existence is justified, or not, on its own terms. The Holocaust is no such justification.

  58. All this chat about the Holocaust and ancestral land etc. is a load of cant.
    People like Troll support Israel because he sees it – he’s said so often enough – as America’s front line against Islam, no more and no less than that.

    If Israel had stuck to its socialist roots and joined the Soviet camp and – much worse – made peace with its Arab neighbours, it would be a terrorist state worthy of being nuked like all the others.

  59. So your claiming justification for your:

    Yes I would support the Gypsy’s using the same tactics.
    Even if it was to gain a Piece of land here in the US

    on historical, (Biblical?) ownership of the land as opposed to attempted genocide?

  60. Basically, Paul, what Troll is, er, saying is that if someone had massacred a few million Indians he would be in favour of them getting back all of North America and treating himself and his family like the Israelis treat the Palestinians, that they would be entitled to use terror to recover their ancestral land and that he would help them place terrorist bombs in New York.

  61. I said not everybody was happy about it, and I’m sory but yes the holocaust had a price and that piece of land is it.

    Like it, hate it, agree with it, disagree with it, makes no difference its done.

    one of two things is going to happen eventually they’ll stop trying to drive the jews into the sea, join the rest of the world in the 21st century or there will be war, and the way it will shake out it will be Israel and the US against everyone.

  62. ah as much as you annoy me Noel sometimes I do love ya.

    The American indian argument was the one I kept expecting to be thrown.

  63. Paul stop dancing, the Gypsy’s don’t want the US. Your point is moot, Noel passed you the ball run with it

  64. But the Holocaust murdered many more people than just those of the Jewish religion Troll. Why just single out one group of Holocast victims and discard the others?

  65. lol Noel. Brilliant comment.

    You have to admit, Troll, that is basically what you’ve been saying!

  66. Oh he nailed it to the wall, I’m shocked it took this long for someone to do it

  67. Paul I didn’t single out anyone. After the Holocaust only one group demanded reparations. Why ask me why the others didn’t?

  68. isn’t anyone going to follow it up, come on ask why it’s different with the indians…. you’ll love my answer

  69. “Hypothetical question Troll.

    There were over two million Gypsies went into those ovens as well. Would you have supported the Gypsy race, (and they are a race), using politically motivated violence to dispossess people, for example in Alaska, and then the UN granting that piece of land as a state?”

    My answer has to be NO!
    Otherwise terrorism is the way to statehood. The school bully wins, the feral gangs are victorious..

    I think what you are overlooking is that in the Balfour declaration of 1917 by the British government says,

    “Foreign Office
    November 2nd, 1917

    Dear Lord Rothschild,

    I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

    His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    Now the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1682961.stm) prefaces this document by saying,
    “The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the first significant declaration by a world power in favour of a Jewish “national home” in what was known as Palestine.

    Historians disagree as to what the then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, intended by his declaration. The letter has no mention of the word “state”, and insists that nothing should be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

    The letter was addressed to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the Jewish community in Britain.

    Key points:
    Who was the Lord Rothschild to whom the letter was addressed?
    The head of the Zionist Federation in Great Britain.

    Support for a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine from the government of the greatest empire in the world was in part a fulfillment of the efforts and scheming of Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), descendant of Sephardim (on his rich father’s side) who had published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in Vienna in l896. It outlined the factors which he believed had created a universal Jewish problem, and offered a program to regulate it through the exodus of unhappy and unwanted Jews to an autonomous territory of their own in a national-socialist setting.
    http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/middleeast/Balfour.html

    Herzl offered a focus for a Zionist movement founded in Odessa in 1881, which spread rapidly through the Jewish communities of Russia, and small branches which had sprung up in Germany, England and elsewhere. Though “Zion” referred to a geographical location, it functioned as a utopian conception in the myths of traditionalists, modernists and Zionists alike. It was the reverse of everything rejected in the actual Jewish situation in the “Dispersion,” whether oppression or assimilation.
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html

    Why was the declaration made?
    “The official reasons for British interest in securing a Jewish state are still controversial. Palestine, during that time was “a foothold in the Eastern Mediterranean.”8 Some potential reasons for British interest in the establishment of a Jewish state include “the desire to maintain an open channel through the Middle East to its extensive possessions in India and East Africa . . . the need to keep the Russians in the war and persuade the Americans to enter the war . . . wanting to reward Chaim Weizmann, a brilliant chemist and strong Zionist leader, for his help in the war effort.”(http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/middleeast/Balfour.html)

    How was Great Britain able to make this declaration?
    “”The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the first significant declaration by a world power in favour of a Jewish “national home” in what was known as Palestine.”

    Great Britain was the head of the British Empire, the superpower of its day. Great Britain was officially a homogenous white Christian society, and many of those in power at the time were Evangelical Christians who believed that the Jews of Europe had a historical connection with what was then Palestine.

    All that to say Paul, that there is a great difference between the situation of the Jews and say, the Gypsies who are indeed a people, but claim no land as their homeland. In fact no one really knows where they came from. Safe to say that a) they did not give the world a moral code such as was adopted by Christianity, were not representative in all the arts and sciences and industry, as the Jews were/are.
    Not to belittle what happened to them under the Nazis, but the deliberate attempt to wipe out a people who were well established/educated/productive and cultured in Germany, by a German based political philosophy,is almost inexplicable.
    As I mentioned to Noel here,

    ” Agit8ed, on June 26th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    WHERE were those Jewish survivors supposed to find safety to rebuild their shattered lives if not in the “Jewish Home in Palestine?
    Do you honestly believe that the nations of Europe, guilty of aiding and abetting Hitler in his mad, evil genocidal plans, were going to turn around to the Jews who had lost parents, children, aunts and uncles -besides businesses and belongings and say (like some social services department)
    “Er, sorry about that. Your mum and Dad being gassed I mean. Sorry that subsequently their corpses had their hair shaved off and their teeth fillings ripped out, and noit forgetting their bodies being rendered down so that soap could be made from their body fat..
    Lessons have been learnt. Those responsible will be sent on anger management courses, and will be monitored for the next six months.
    We can offer you a one bedroomed flat in Berlin city centre -close to all amenities!”

    Of course it was never going to happen! The consciences of many Europeans were eased by the relocation of this “embarrassment” to the Middle East.”

  70. Paul,

    “Hypothetical question Troll.

    There were over two million Gypsies went into those ovens as well. Would you have supported the Gypsy race, (and they are a race), using politically motivated violence to dispossess people, for example in Alaska, and then the UN granting that piece of land as a state?”

    My own answer has to be NO!
    Otherwise terrorism is the way to statehood. The school bully wins, the feral gangs are victorious..

    I think what you are overlooking is that in the Balfour declaration of 1917 by the British government says,

    “Foreign Office
    November 2nd, 1917

    Dear Lord Rothschild,

    I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

    His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    Now the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1682961.stm) prefaces this document by saying,
    “The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the first significant declaration by a world power in favour of a Jewish “national home” in what was known as Palestine.

    Historians disagree as to what the then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, intended by his declaration. The letter has no mention of the word “state”, and insists that nothing should be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

    The letter was addressed to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the Jewish community in Britain.

    Key points:
    Who was the Lord Rothschild to whom the letter was addressed?
    The head of the Zionist Federation in Great Britain.

    Support for a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine from the government of the greatest empire in the world was in part a fulfillment of the efforts and scheming of Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), descendant of Sephardim (on his rich father’s side) who had published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in Vienna in l896. It outlined the factors which he believed had created a universal Jewish problem, and offered a program to regulate it through the exodus of unhappy and unwanted Jews to an autonomous territory of their own in a national-socialist setting.
    http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/middleeast/Balfour.html

    Herzl offered a focus for a Zionist movement founded in Odessa in 1881, which spread rapidly through the Jewish communities of Russia, and small branches which had sprung up in Germany, England and elsewhere. Though “Zion” referred to a geographical location, it functioned as a utopian conception in the myths of traditionalists, modernists and Zionists alike. It was the reverse of everything rejected in the actual Jewish situation in the “Dispersion,” whether oppression or assimilation.
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html

    Why was the declaration made?
    “The official reasons for British interest in securing a Jewish state are still controversial. Palestine, during that time was “a foothold in the Eastern Mediterranean.”8 Some potential reasons for British interest in the establishment of a Jewish state include “the desire to maintain an open channel through the Middle East to its extensive possessions in India and East Africa . . . the need to keep the Russians in the war and persuade the Americans to enter the war . . . wanting to reward Chaim Weizmann, a brilliant chemist and strong Zionist leader, for his help in the war effort.”(http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/middleeast/Balfour.html)

    How was Great Britain able to make this declaration?
    “”The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the first significant declaration by a world power in favour of a Jewish “national home” in what was known as Palestine.”

    Great Britain was the head of the British Empire, the superpower of its day. Great Britain was officially a homogenous white Christian society, and many of those in power at the time were Evangelical Christians who believed that the Jews of Europe had a historical connection with what was then Palestine.

    All that to say Paul, that there is a great difference between the situation of the Jews and say, the Gypsies who are indeed a people, but claim no land as their homeland. In fact no one really knows where they came from. Safe to say that a) they did not give the world a moral code such as was adopted by Christianity, were not representative in all the arts and sciences and industry, as the Jews were/are.
    Not to belittle what happened to them under the Nazis, but the deliberate attempt to wipe out a people who were well established/educated/productive and cultured in Germany, by a German based political philosophy,is almost inexplicable.

  71. “You’re talking about who is doing the killing (constituted states). Colm is talking about the tactic (car bombs or drones). ”
    Pete,
    I think you’re wrong!
    (Cue Colm..)

    “They did not stand out in uniform and face their enemies openly. Instead they planted car bombs and set them off by remote control skulking in the shadows safely. Fair enough. Absolutely correct. But isn’t that also a perfect description of the USA’s policy on drones . Someone skulking in a safe house back in the US, controlling a satellite camera and setting off an airborne bomb at no risk to themsleves. What is the difference ?”

    I am arguing that there is no justification in a free society for a part of that society to resort to terror tactics using, car bombs, drones or turd bombs dropped by pigeons..
    What is used as weaponry is immaterial.

Comments are closed.