"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
La N wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"La N" wrote:

:
:"Vince" wrote in message
...
:
: So in 1917 Britain had nothing to give
:

And yet oddly they wound up with it.

Funny how that works, don't you think?

[No, you don't, which is your problem.]

:
:Thank you. I'm going to read up more on this when I have the time.
:

Just don't ask Vinnie's advice. He'll almost inevitably mess it up.


It's the same as a car thief stealing on demand

you sell what you don't own, so you go out and steal it


But, Vince, why? oh, why?

- nilita, trying to remember days when kids played fair ...

Sucking up to the Zionist vote and lying to everyone in sight toplay both
ends against the middle

"In his November, 2002 interview with the New Statesman magazine, the UK
Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw blamed Britain's imperial past for many of
the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]

"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being
given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given
to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us, but not an
honourable one," he said.


"At that time the British were busy making promises. Henry McMahon had
exchanged letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sherif of Mecca in 1915, in which
he had promised the Arabs control of the Arab lands, exclusive of the
Mediterranean coast. The extent of the coastal exclusion is not clear.
Hussein protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation
from the Arab state or states, but did not, it seems, bring up the matter
of the Jerusalem area, which included a good part of Palestine. This
suggests either that the area of Jerusalem and Palestine was not part of
the inclusion and was promised to the Arabs, as shown in some maps, and is
believed by pro-Arab historians, or that Palestine was included, but that
Hussein did not protest. The latter version is supported by Dr. Chaim
Weizmann in his autobiography Trial and Error. This interpretation was
also convenient for the British , and was supported explicitly by the
British government in the 1922 White Paper."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...iffering_views



Well, scrolling up a few posts to TMO's article, he's implying in several
thousand words that worse things have been done than this in the world!
This is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

And, btw, speaking as a lawyer, in your humble opinion, is OJ going to get
acquitted again?

- nil