Ask Lisa

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Hello Hanna, AsheDina and Pennyjangle,

I never thought of myself as a pet person. 

However, since I've moved in with sister, I've become very attached to her very cute Maltese dog.  Her name is Chloe, and I LOVE picking her up and hugging her. 

Also, an old high school friend of mine had a male neutered cat who was very affectionate.  He would just sit in my lap and purr, which I loved. 

I am very definitely a cat person (especially Siamese, although I think it's much better to rescue a stray or get one from the pound than a purebred), but would not be against owning a dog if my future wife wanted to. I have owned two dogs--an extremely friendly Doberman who kept escaping from the yard (eventually leading to her getting hit by a car  ) and a very un-friendly, but ferociously loyal, German Shepherd who lost a struggle with lupus that lasted most of his ten-year life.  )

[futuramark]

Just like jews are cautious with christians...christians are also cautious wth jews.

Excuse me?!? "Christians are cautious with Jews"? Last time I checked, tens of millions of Christians were not burned at the stake or beaten or stabbed or raped by Jews because they wouldn't convert to Judaism.

Yes I don't blame you for being cautious with me since I am from a christian country. But millions of good christians died also in ww2 ..Im not talking about germans...the british , polish, east europeans fighting them etc. My country was devestated with nazi bombardments...just remember there are good christians also who are ashamed of all the things you mentioned, even though they did not do them themselves. I never hurt any jew personally so it's unfair I get blamed. We also suffered under the church and Hitler. that's my whole point. I'm not making excuses for what happened. I condemn it. 

[futuramark]

gotta run ...take care all... take care of that maltese dog lisa heh

tc
happy holidays all xxx
regards,
mark

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

But millions of good christians died also in ww2 ..Im not talking about germans...the british , polish, east europeans fighting them etc. My country was devestated with nazi bombardments...just remember there are good christians also who are ashamed of all the things you mentioned, even though they did not do them themselves. I never hurt any jew personally so it's unfair I get blamed. We also suffered under the church and Hitler. that's my whole point. I'm not making excuses for what happened. I condemn it. 

What does this have to do with Jews then? Why would you ever say that Christians should be wary of Jews?

[Muck DeFuslims]

                                                                     בס"ד

Since I've agreed to not discuss about Christianity, I wouldn't post the Torahnic view on Jesus. However, I disagree with Zelhar's and Mark's opinion both, the ONLY reason and justification for us to be here is G-D's Promise, in any other way - we're just bunch of occupiers and thieves.

Not true.

The religious or Torah justification for the Land of Israel eternally belonging to the Jews is definitely the most important factor, but it is NOT the only one.

There are plenty of historical, legal, military and moral justifications for the existence of Israel.

One need not be religious or believe in the Bible to support the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel (although it sure helps).

With or without Torah justification, there is no legitimacy to the claim that Jews are 'thieves' or 'occupiers', and we should always be very clear about this.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                                            בס"ד

                                                                     בס"ד

Since I've agreed to not discuss about Christianity, I wouldn't post the Torahnic view on Jesus. However, I disagree with Zelhar's and Mark's opinion both, the ONLY reason and justification for us to be here is G-D's Promise, in any other way - we're just bunch of occupiers and thieves.

Not true.

The religious or Torah justification for the Land of Israel eternally belonging to the Jews is definitely the most important factor, but it is NOT the only one.

There are plenty of historical, legal, military and moral justifications for the existence of Israel.

One need not be religious or believe in the Bible to support the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel (although it sure helps).

With or without Torah justification, there is no legitimacy to the claim that Jews are 'thieves' or 'occupiers', and we should always be very clear about this.

Yup? Then HOW do you "morally" (our limited view of moral and ethics) explain the way we've occupied the Land of Israel starting from the days of Yehoshua? The Ca'anites were here long before us.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Oh please. The Ca'anites. Don't make me laugh. Is it the Ca'anites that are calling Jews 'occupiers' and 'thieves' ? No. They're long gone. Unless you believe Arabs are Ca'anites.

Besides, by that type of standard virtually every nation on Earth is inhabited by 'occupiers' and 'thieves'.

Sorry, you're wrong. Jews are NOT 'occupiers' or 'thieves' by any legitimate standards, even without Torah justification. Unless of course, you buy into the Arab/Muslim narrative which is a big lie.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                           בס"ד

Oh please. The Ca'anites. Don't make me laugh. Is it the Ca'anites that are calling Jews 'occupiers' and 'thieves' ? No. They're long gone. Unless you believe Arabs are Ca'anites.

Besides, by that type of standard virtually every nation on Earth is inhabited by 'occupiers' and 'thieves'.

Sorry, you're wrong. Jews are NOT 'occupiers' or 'thieves' by any legitimate standards, even without Torah justification. Unless of course, you buy into the Arab/Muslim narrative which is a big lie.

Who said the other nations have any moral justification anyway?? The historical so-called argument is for Le Pen and Heider, not for the Jews.
No, they aren't. But my point is this: the Ca'anites were here long before ourselves. We were in Egypt and Iraq long before Yehoshua. We've reached many places during the Galut, why couldn't have our country in Uganda, Birobidzhan, an island near NY, whatever, WHY Israel? This place is the best place to risk yourself. 

PS: No, I don't believe the Arab/Soviet/German/Muslim, but that doesn't change fact that most of our ancestors weren't living in Israel for heck of a long time. Same goes with the Arabs, but still that doesn't give us a historical "right".

[Muck DeFuslims]

OK, have it your way.

The Torah justification for Israel is the sole legitimate justification.

The Jewish People don't have any historic, legal, military or moral claims to the land currently known as Israel.

And therefore, anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible would be correct to think of Jews as being occupiers and thieves.

That's because the Ca'anites want (and are entitled to have) their nation back.

Whatever.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                                            בס"ד

OK, have it your way.

The Torah justification for Israel is the sole legitimate justification.

The Jewish People don't have any historic, legal, military or moral claims to the land currently known as Israel.

And therefore, anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible would be correct to think of Jews as being occupiers and thieves.

That's because the Ca'anites want (and are entitled to have) their nation back.

Whatever.

Don't be a demagouge. What kind of historical, legal (WT..?), military or moral claims do the Jews have to Israel that cannot be fulflled anywhere else?

Anyone who doesn't believe in the Tanach doesn't believe in the existence of the Jewish people, only a mutation of them.
That's because we, without G-D's promise, have the same "right" on this land just like the Arabs do, they've occupied it too and got back to this land about a 100 years ago.

[Muck DeFuslims]

                                                                            בס"ד

OK, have it your way.

The Torah justification for Israel is the sole legitimate justification.

The Jewish People don't have any historic, legal, military or moral claims to the land currently known as Israel.

And therefore, anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible would be correct to think of Jews as being occupiers and thieves.

That's because the Ca'anites want (and are entitled to have) their nation back.

Whatever.

Don't be a demagouge. What kind of historical, legal (WT..?), military or moral claims do the Jews have to Israel that cannot be fulflled anywhere else?

Anyone who doesn't believe in the Tanach doesn't believe in the existence of the Jewish people, only a mutation of them.
That's because we, without G-D's promise, have the same "right" on this land just like the Arabs do, they've occupied it too and got back to this land about a 100 years ago.

What kind of historical, legal, military and moral claims do Jews have to Israel that can't be fulfilled anywhere else ?

Duh. JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE.

I can't believe you even need to ask.

Not to change the subject, how many user names/accounts do you have on this forum ? Is it more than one ? Or do you change your handle every day ?

Lisa, please accept my apologies for 'derailing' your thread. I think you do a great job around here.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                              בס"ד

                                                                            בס"ד

OK, have it your way.

The Torah justification for Israel is the sole legitimate justification.

The Jewish People don't have any historic, legal, military or moral claims to the land currently known as Israel.

And therefore, anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible would be correct to think of Jews as being occupiers and thieves.

That's because the Ca'anites want (and are entitled to have) their nation back.

Whatever.

Don't be a demagouge. What kind of historical, legal (WT..?), military or moral claims do the Jews have to Israel that cannot be fulflled anywhere else?

Anyone who doesn't believe in the Tanach doesn't believe in the existence of the Jewish people, only a mutation of them.
That's because we, without G-D's promise, have the same "right" on this land just like the Arabs do, they've occupied it too and got back to this land about a 100 years ago.

What kind of historical, legal, military and moral claims do Jews have to Israel that can't be fulfilled anywhere else ?

Duh. JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE.

I can't believe you even need to ask.

Not to change the subject, how many user names/accounts do you have on this forum ? Is it more than one ? Or do you change your handle every day ?

Lisa, please accept my apologies for 'derailing' your thread. I think you do a great job around here.

I don't need to. Just answer my question.

I have 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 accounts, happy? what kinda dumb question is that?

[Muck DeFuslims]

                                                              בס"ד

                                                                            בס"ד

OK, have it your way.

The Torah justification for Israel is the sole legitimate justification.

The Jewish People don't have any historic, legal, military or moral claims to the land currently known as Israel.

And therefore, anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible would be correct to think of Jews as being occupiers and thieves.

That's because the Ca'anites want (and are entitled to have) their nation back.

Whatever.

Don't be a demagouge. What kind of historical, legal (WT..?), military or moral claims do the Jews have to Israel that cannot be fulflled anywhere else?

Anyone who doesn't believe in the Tanach doesn't believe in the existence of the Jewish people, only a mutation of them.
That's because we, without G-D's promise, have the same "right" on this land just like the Arabs do, they've occupied it too and got back to this land about a 100 years ago.

What kind of historical, legal, military and moral claims do Jews have to Israel that can't be fulfilled anywhere else ?

Duh. JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE.

I can't believe you even need to ask.

Not to change the subject, how many user names/accounts do you have on this forum ? Is it more than one ? Or do you change your handle every day ?

Lisa, please accept my apologies for 'derailing' your thread. I think you do a great job around here.

I don't need to. Just answer my question.

I have 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 accounts, happy? what kinda dumb question is that?

You really can't be this dense.

Let's see. David and Solomon were Kings and built Temples in uhmmmm, Kenya.

Balfour, Peele and the White papers were applicable to land in uhmmmm, Bolivia.

In 1948 there was military conflict in uhmmmmm, Patterson, New Jersey.

The Jewish People trace their origins back to uhmmmmm, Mount Everest.

Hope that penetrates a little and helps clarify matters (although I'm beginning to doubt it).

And by the way, you having 10000000000000000000 accounts doesn't make me happy. In fact, it kind of irritates me, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one that feels that way.

I think one account per person is enough, and the use of 'sock puppets', alter egos and continually changing your forum name is confusing and bad etiquette. 

But if the moderators don't have a problem with you having multiple accounts or changing your name every day, and if it makes you happy, go for it. But I think there should be some rules regarding this.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

 

You really can't be this dense.

See last paragraph.

Let's see. David and Solomon were Kings and built Temples in uhmmmm, Kenya.

The Arabs were Caliphs and the Turks were Sultans in uhmmmmmmmmmmmm, Canada.

Balfour,

Who gave the British the right on this land? the Balfour declaration was only a declaration of good will and nothing further than that.

Peele

Which stated that most of our G-D given land and state should be a part of an Arab state (the Negev, Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and the Southern coast strip).

White papers

See previous paragraphs, also, don't forget McDonald's one.

In 1948 there was military conflict in uhmmmmm, Patterson, New Jersey.

Throught all history, the Arabs, the British, the Germans, the Turks, the Persians, and who not, were fighting over or land (from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates). Arabs are still living in most of our land, and they get more and more (I don't care if it's using warfare, demographics, economics or whatever).

The Jewish People trace their origins back to uhmmmmm, Mount Everest.

Many Jews don't any spiritual/ideological connection to Israel. And their very tracing doesn't change anything, the Arabs feel the same to "Palestine" or whatever. Also, the Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Jordanian and Saudi Arabs, and the Turks, feel the same towards the lands they're standing on, OUR lands. So what?

And by the way, you having 10000000000000000000 accounts doesn't make me happy. In fact, it kind of irritates me, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one that feels that way.

I think one account per person is enough, and the use of 'sock puppets', alter egos and continually changing your forum name is confusing and bad etiquette. 

But if the moderators don't have a problem with you having multiple accounts or changing your name every day, and if it makes you happy, go for it. But I think there should be some rules regarding this.

That was a joke. How can someone be so unbelieveably dumb?

[Muck DeFuslims]

OK, you're right, the Jewish People don't have any histrorical, legal, miltary or moral ties or rights to Israel. Whatever you say.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you about that.

But there is another matter that we need to clear up. Right here and right now.

You may have been joking about having 1000000000000 accounts. But the fact is either you have multiple accounts or you have changed your name numerous times in a very short period of time. This might be a big joke to you, but it isn't to me and I don't think it should be to the administrators of this forum either.

Now I know you're one of Chaim's favorites and you seem to think that gives you carte blanche around here. I don't know, maybe it does. But I don't appreciate being called 'unbelievably dumb' by a 16 year old who evades the issue being raised about the juvenile antic of continually changing his screen name.

I've been here a long time, and try to engage in respectful debate and conversation. But that's just not possible with certain people. Judging by the confrontational, disruptive and combative nature of many of your posts, you might be one of them. I guess time will tell.

With that, I'm done with you for now. Have the last word.

Lisa, again, I apologize for stepping on your toes and derailing your thread. I enjoyed learning about you and your views and always enjoy your posts.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                               בס"ד

OK, you're right, the Jewish People don't have any histrorical, legal, miltary or moral ties or rights to Israel. Whatever you say.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you about that.

But there is another matter that we need to clear up. Right here and right now.

You may have been joking about having 1000000000000 accounts. But the fact is either you have multiple accounts or you have changed your name numerous times in a very short period of time. This might be a big joke to you, but it isn't to me and I don't think it should be to the administrators of this forum either.

Now I know you're one of Chaim's favorites and you seem to think that gives you carte blanche around here. I don't know, maybe it does. But I don't appreciate being called 'unbelievably dumb' by a 16 year old who evades the issue being raised about the juvenile antic of continually changing his screen name.

I've been here a long time, and try to engage in respectful debate and conversation. But that's just not possible with certain people. Judging by the confrontational, disruptive and combative nature of many of your posts, you might be one of them. I guess time will tell.

With that, I'm done with you for now. Have the last word.

Lisa, again, I apologize for stepping on your toes and derailing your thread. I enjoyed learning about you and your views and always enjoy your posts.

There's no law like this in the forum. I'm not the only who does it. Don't like it? tell it to Chaim or any other admin/mod. I don't like being called "dense" either. Whatever.

[pennyjangle]

Oh Pennyjangle, your puppy is precious!  Is that really all mucus on his face? 

No, that was his first snow.

[mord]

Yes Lisa that is why I asked becuase Churchill was anti semite also...maybe he was influenced by the anti semite literature all thru the years in britain. He was even more aggressive when it came to muslims..so who knows maybe he was a war monger and loved to find scapegoats. Surely he was better than the cowardly Chamberlain. I also find it interesting that the british places the jews right next to the muslims and that was a grave mistake in my opinion. I'm not saying Israel should never have happened but maybe it was not the right place, it could have been intentional to clash jews and muslims against each other. Who knows. The root of the problem is Jerusalem. Both religions wat that land muslims and jews and willing to fight for it. At least christians have given up on the land.
Thanks for your answer just wanted to get your perspective.

Churchill an Anti Semite? no

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3376884,00.html

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                                בס"ד

Yes Lisa that is why I asked becuase Churchill was anti semite also...maybe he was influenced by the anti semite literature all thru the years in britain. He was even more aggressive when it came to muslims..so who knows maybe he was a war monger and loved to find scapegoats. Surely he was better than the cowardly Chamberlain. I also find it interesting that the british places the jews right next to the muslims and that was a grave mistake in my opinion. I'm not saying Israel should never have happened but maybe it was not the right place, it could have been intentional to clash jews and muslims against each other. Who knows. The root of the problem is Jerusalem. Both religions wat that land muslims and jews and willing to fight for it. At least christians have given up on the land.
Thanks for your answer just wanted to get your perspective.

Churchill an Anti Semite? no

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3376884,00.html

So you really think that the 1940's White Paper and so-called anti-Zionism and what the British did to the Jews aren't anti-Semitic?

[mord]

                                                                בס"ד

Yes Lisa that is why I asked becuase Churchill was anti semite also...maybe he was influenced by the anti semite literature all thru the years in britain. He was even more aggressive when it came to muslims..so who knows maybe he was a war monger and loved to find scapegoats. Surely he was better than the cowardly Chamberlain. I also find it interesting that the british places the jews right next to the muslims and that was a grave mistake in my opinion. I'm not saying Israel should never have happened but maybe it was not the right place, it could have been intentional to clash jews and muslims against each other. Who knows. The root of the problem is Jerusalem. Both religions wat that land muslims and jews and willing to fight for it. At least christians have given up on the land.
Thanks for your answer just wanted to get your perspective.

Churchill an Anti Semite? no

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3376884,00.html

So you really think that the 1940's White Paper and so-called anti-Zionism and what the British did to the Jews aren't anti-Semitic?

Read this short article           

http://hnn.us/articles/39017.html

[Lisa]

Muck, I don't think you've derailed my thread.  In fact, I enjoy your posts tremendously.  I would love it if you would post more often.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

                                                                       בס"ד

                                                                בס"ד

Yes Lisa that is why I asked becuase Churchill was anti semite also...maybe he was influenced by the anti semite literature all thru the years in britain. He was even more aggressive when it came to muslims..so who knows maybe he was a war monger and loved to find scapegoats. Surely he was better than the cowardly Chamberlain. I also find it interesting that the british places the jews right next to the muslims and that was a grave mistake in my opinion. I'm not saying Israel should never have happened but maybe it was not the right place, it could have been intentional to clash jews and muslims against each other. Who knows. The root of the problem is Jerusalem. Both religions wat that land muslims and jews and willing to fight for it. At least christians have given up on the land.
Thanks for your answer just wanted to get your perspective.

Churchill an Anti Semite? no

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3376884,00.html

So you really think that the 1940's White Paper and so-called anti-Zionism and what the British did to the Jews aren't anti-Semitic?

Read this short article           

http://hnn.us/articles/39017.html

1. The excision of Transjordan in 1922 from the territory in which the development of the Jewish National Home was to proceed was one of a number of decisions that was made during Churchill's visit to the region as Colonial Secretary, which included the creation of Iraq. Transjordan was then, as now, a largely arid tract of territory with no Jewish settlements. As such it was established as emirate for Abdullah, son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca and a British ally, by way of payment for services rendered during the First World War.
 
It was said by his deeply pro-Zionist political adviser, Richard Meinertzhagen, that Churchill saw the force of his argument that this decision deprived Zionism of room for development, but by then the decision had been made and could not be undone. Undoubtedly to Zionism's loss, the decision was not aimed at harming the movement, support for which was in fact reaffirmed as being unchangeable British policy in the 1922 White Paper. Nonetheless, it is a justified point that Churchill's decision caused a major part of Palestine to be lost to Zionism.

That's a complete twist of history and a total ignore of the the McMahon-Hussein agreement.

2. It is perfectly true that upon becoming Prime Minister in May 1940, Churchill did not overturn the 1939 White Paper, whose terms he had so eloquently denounced at the time in the Commons. The White Paper was retained because such was then the weakness of the British position that disowning it at that point was thought likely to precipitate a calamitous Arab revolt. This was probably a mistaken calculation, but in the circumstances of May 1940, it prevailed.
 
However, the question remains as to why Churchill did not discard it later and it was one I put to the Churchill biographer, Martin Gilbert, when I interviewed him in 1987. He responded that, from the outset, Churchill fought a Cabinet almost uniformly hostile to permitting Jewish refugees into Palestine. When Churchill was effectively overruled on this point by the Cabinet in March 1942, he and his Colonial Secretary, Lord Cranborne, bypassed its decision by devising a new policy that, contrary to the White Paper, permitted all Jews who might arrive in Palestine to stay there. The arrival of so few Jews and the failure to fill even the existing 15,000 annual quota was attributed by Gilbert to the virtual impossibility that by then existed for Jews to escape from Europe, which, he noted, the Mufti of Jerusalem, a  Nazi collaborator, worked hard to achieve.
 
When the White Paper's absolute ban on Jewish immigration was due to come into effect in May 1944, Churchill refused to sign it into law. Gilbert's 1993 address, "Churchill and the Holocaust: The Possible and the Impossible," concisely elaborates this and other matters which, viewed in combination, provides a different picture to that of unfulfilled friendship and sympathy.
 
To name some further significant facts: as First Lord of the Admiralty (1939-40) Churchill ended the practice of Royal Navy vessels intercepting refugee ships bound for Palestine when he discovered the  Foreign Office and Colonial Office had initiated this policy without his knowledge. When the British Commander in the Middle East, General Archibald Wavell, sought to have deported  from Palestine a group of Jewish refugees who had entered the country aboard the Patria, Churchill intervened to prevent it. He also pressured a BBC that was then reluctant to report on the Nazi targeting of Jews for murder, to do so.
 
In January 1944, Churchill's Cabinet approved in principle a new partition plan for Palestine, which was due for adoption in the very week in November 1944 that the British Minister of State in the Middle East and Churchill's friend, Lord Moyne, was assassinated by Lehi (Stern Gang) members. Churchill's support of Zionism thereafter became subdued but endured and he withstood demands at home for a military crackdown on the Jewish community in Palestine. The Cabinet however shelved partition.
 
The same year, in the face of persistent opposition from the British military establishment, Churchill pushed through the creation of a Jewish military force. Indeed, such was the perception of his concern for Jewish causes that, on two  occasions, callous members of his own inner staff withheld from him Jewish requests out of fear that he would respond positively to them. In short, Churchill, virtually singled-handedly, fought an indifferent and hostile bureaucracy to help the Jews and Zionism.

A.) The military force they organized was limited both in its size and its so-called freedom. The British forced the divisions they "permitted" to build to accept the so-called morals and ethics the Israelis have shown in Gaza and Lebanon, even worse ones, of restrainting the Arab terror.

B.) That's only an excuse of a PM being controlled by its own ministers, pathetic.

3. Gilbert has explained in Auschwitz and the Allies that the failure of the RAF to bomb Auschwitz et al. was the result of its commanders overriding Churchill's directives on sometimes spurious logistical grounds. The farhud in Baghdad was permitted to occur due largely to the defective judgement of the British ambassador, Sir Kinahan Cornwallis and Wavell, not Churchill, who at one stage even had to prod the latter to use the forces at his disposal to establish British authority in Iraq. Elie Kedourie has a typically authoritative account of these matters in the last two chapters of his Arabic Political Memoirs and Other Studies.
 
Therefore, we are not to conclude that Churchill was a poor friend of the Jews or that he had lost control of his own government. Rather, even the most formidable of democratic war leaders have to contend with contrarily-minded bureaucracies and must perforce delegate important decisions to diplomats and commanders in the field. So much of the tragedy (and glory) of history is the role played by individuals in the situations they find themselves.

1.) The Farhood happened way after il-Gaylani was gangbanged by the British.
2.) The Brits had good chances to do many times, including when the Soviets were right next to the Wisla river.

I've read it quite briefly cause am quite tired.

[mord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence   

The debate regarding Palestine derived from the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, but is included within the boundaries that were proposed by Hussein. Whatever McMahon had meant to say is irrelevant, because the actual terms used contained the pledges. Under customary treaty law, binding obligations are seldom supported by an Argument from silence.

The Arab position was that "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo..." could not refer to Palestine since that lay well to the south of the named places.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

So you really think that the 1940's White Paper and so-called anti-Zionism and what the British did to the Jews aren't anti-Semitic?

I have to agree with Ron on this one. The question is what did the British ever do that isn't anti-Semitic.

[Zelhar]

So you really think that the 1940's White Paper and so-called anti-Zionism and what the British did to the Jews aren't anti-Semitic?

I have to agree with Ron on this one. The question is what did the British ever do that isn't anti-Semitic.

I don't know if Churchill was a Jew hater, but he had repeatedly screwed the Jews.