ForumGarden

It was re-labelled "militants" after the PC brigade threw a temper tantrum Jimbo. When that photo started out it was less savoury.

http://www.coedhumor.com/images/posters/600/Jamal.jpg

I wonder what US comedy film set it was taken on? Perhaps I'm missing the bit of brain that laughs when it's expected to laugh, I don't know. Why was it taken? What real-world situation is it supposed to represent? Why's it comic?

American comedies rarely have any sense of reality.

hoppy;823694 wrote: Harken back to 1948. Who started the shooting? Who refuses to stop? Ask the Brits why they did their best to make sure the Israeli's were unarmed when the Brits pulled out, knowing full well what the surrounding hoards would do. Thank God the Brits disarment plan for Israel failed so miserably.


Back to 1948, why, the fighting was already going by then - started by the likes of Ariel Sharon and David Ben Gurion. The Brits, as you so quaintly call us, were trying to disarm the Israeli terrorists who busy blowing up hotels as I recall.



hoppy;823704 wrote: See? You are totally ignoring the Israeli's who "fall like flies" because the Palestinians violate every cease fire and like to target kids and civilians on busses.

Get real. You know you are wrong on this.


Shall we quote numbers here and see who is "falling like flies"? As to who violates cease fires and enters the others territory, it does appear to be fairly one sided.

Shall we see what Amnesty International have to say in their summary of activity in the region? They're a reasonably secure source of data with no axe to grind so they should allow us to "get real" :-

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Region ... erritories

Increased violence between Israelis and Palestinians resulted in a threefold increase in killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces. The number of Israelis killed by Palestinian armed groups diminished by half. More than 650 Palestinians, including some 120 children, and 27 Israelis were killed. Israeli forces carried out air and artillery bombardments in the Gaza Strip, and Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a 700-km fence/wall on Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories. Military blockades and increased restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians and the confiscation by Israel of Palestinian customs duties caused a significant deterioration in living conditions for Palestinian inhabitants in the Occupied Territories, with poverty, food aid dependency, health problems and unemployment reaching crisis levels. Israeli soldiers and settlers committed serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, against Palestinians, mostly with impunity. Thousands of Palestinians were arrested by Israeli forces throughout the Occupied Territories on suspicion of security offences and hundreds were held in administrative detention. Israeli conscientious objectors continued to be imprisoned for refusing to serve in the army. In a 34-day war against Hizbullah in Lebanon in July-August, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes. Israeli bombardments killed nearly 1,200 people, and destroyed or damaged tens of thousands of homes and other civilian infrastructure. Israeli forces also littered south Lebanon with around a million unexploded cluster bombs which continued to kill and maim civilians after the conflict.

hoppy;823738 wrote: The weak always hate the strong. And, we won't invade Saudi for their oil. Supposedly we invaded Iraq for the oil. So, Whose getting it? Another fallacy by the USA haters.I'll wager little, if any, made it to the USA.


And the profits from that oil? Ah, there's a different matter :wah:

Jester;823890 wrote: Let me rephrase: Might does not necessarily make right, but it can be right.


The attitude expressed was "moral is whatever I want to do because I'm strong enough to do it and no-one is strong enough to stop me". That attitude is never right.

Jester;823907 wrote: Well see now, there we go, if Iran has no nukes or nuke program what do they have to fear of a battle group parked off their shores? :-3


Give recent history of countries with no weapons or weapons programs they've got everything to fear.

hoppy;823914 wrote: Put myself in the place of a Palestinian? If all I had was rocks to chuck as some suggest, I would behave myself, work, raise my kids and goats like I did before all this.


Remember, you cannot work - your fields are the other side of a wall or a road or a checkpoint that you're not allowed to cross. You cannot raise your kids because your house has been demolished 'cos you're an Arab and therefore cannot get a permit for it to exist. You cannot live as you did before because the Settlers have claimed all of the water sources and refuse you access.

In your own words - get real.

Did Jester call Spot a nut?

I was wondering what sort of nut ... are we talking walnut or brazil nut here .... there is an important difference between the two you know. I'm thinking almond, yes! yes! definitely an almond :D

spot;824179 wrote: American comedies rarely have any sense of reality.
You haven't watched a George W. Bush speech lately, have you?:D

Jester;823933 wrote: Apparently we do tolerate aparthied if it is truly aparthied, sounds like immigration issues to me. Its a Jewish state, if your not Jewish go live somewhere else. How come you get to determine for another country what thier laws are and you wont let other countries impose thier ideologies or laws on the same/other countries.


Seriously Jester, how can it be an immigration issue. When Israel declared UDI there were a couple of million Palestinians living within the land they claimed. In time since, those lands have expanded and more Palestinians have been incorporated. These people are Israeli citizens, not immigrants - it is a mixed state which, in its initial charter, granted equal rights to all its people.

It looks like all Spot is doing is asking that they honour their constitution which state that "Israel is to be a state based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace, a state in which all the inhabitants will enjoy equality of social and political rights, along with freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture."



Quote taken from the Jewish Virtual Library text of the declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel :-

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ecind.html

hoppy;823914 wrote: Put myself in the place of a Palestinian? If all I had was rocks to chuck as some suggest, I would behave myself, work, raise my kids and goats like I did before all this.


What would you do if you were told this is no longer your land and were kicked off it and your means of supporting your family was taken away-at what point would you start to resist. Let's say your neighbour threw a rock at the people kicking him off his land and the person at whom the rock was thrown turned round and opened fire with a machine gun and accidentally killed your family. would an apology be enough for you or would you think an injustice had been done? Since you cannot match the weapons and going to court is not an option what would you do? If you're completely helpless how do you fight back?

posted by hoppy much earlier

Harken back to 1948. Who started the shooting? Who refuses to stop? Ask the Brits why they did their best to make sure the Israeli's were unarmed when the Brits pulled out, knowing full well what the surrounding hoards would do. Thank God the Brits disarment plan for Israel failed so miserably.


That's because they were a set of murdering terrorists that kept blowing up british soldiers and their families-if some of their own got killed as well that was too bad. Tell me in 1948 were the irgun a terrorist organisation or noble freedom fighters?

posted by jester

Let me rephrase: Might does not necessarily make right, but it can be right.




Or to be more cynical-might does not make right but if you have enough it doesn't matter what anybody thinks (then again what goes around comes around, does the morality or otherwise of an act have repercussions? realpolitik as a foreign policy always bites back imo just ask the nation that coined the term.

spot;823998 wrote: Because once the mandates were handed over, once South Africa was ejected from the Commonwealth, the UK had no influence at all on the development of either country. It was hoppy who brought Israel into this thread despite my showing him the right current one where these matters were being discussed.

Are you telling me that of all the countries on the planet, one and only one is morally justified in your eyes in retaining apartheid laws discriminating in favour of a single section of its citizens? Go and pick up the OP of the thread I directed hoppy to and take it apart for me.


As to your first paragraph, I take the points, but I think you analysis of South African history is a little white-washed from a British perspective.

In terms of the second paragraph, I think that the general treatment of Palestinians by Israel is pretty apalling, there is no point in anyone trying to deny that, and I don't see any solution other than a retreat to the 1967 border on Israel's behalf, the creation of fully free and independent Palestine, and also a recognition that the principal of the "right of return" for Palestinians is a dead letter, those Palestinians that wish to remain in Israel can do so however. The wall stays, and Jerusalem is divided like Berlin was, the Jews in the West, the Arabs in the East, the centre can be an international zone. That is not an easy solution for either side, but its the only realistic one that I can see. I do remember you saying in another post that you didn't mind how people governments kill or oppress to maintain order within their own territories, so I am presuming that your problem with Israel is simply its occupation of the west bank at this stage.

Bryn Mawr, Galbally, gmc: You're saying what I want to say better than I'd probably say it. Cheers and applause.

hmm. I don't half get left out of things sometimes. I'm extremely correct, too.

Galbally, why do you not want a single state on that territory? You realize you're perpetuating the apartheid laws in perpetuity?

spot;824400 wrote: hmm. I don't half get left out of things sometimes. I'm extremely correct, too.

Galbally, why do you not want a single state on that territory? You realize you're perpetuating the apartheid laws in perpetuity?


You're like Frank Carson you are - it's the way you tell 'em :p :wah:

spot;824400 wrote: hmm. I don't half get left out of things sometimes. I'm extremely correct, too.

Galbally, why do you not want a single state on that territory? You realize you're perpetuating the apartheid laws in perpetuity?


I am sure it was an oversight spot.

In terms of the Holy Land, I don't want anything personally, though a slightly less fractious world in general would be nice, its my judgement that a single state solution is completely unworkable, there is too much hatred between Arabs and Jews, perhaps in the future such a solution would become viable after generations of peace, but at the moment I think thats a fantasy. Its not pleasant to have to separate people and build walls, I grant you that, but I don't see any other way realistically.

spot;824400 wrote: hmm. I don't half get left out of things sometimes. I'm extremely correct, too.


embarrassment. Although I thought I'd been keeping up with this thread, I missed a large chunk of page 10. I'd argue a bit with Galbally over British responsibility in eg Pakistan etc but the debate has moved on.

In your case I'm a bit perturbed by comments like being completely comfortable in Iran. I genuinely doubt you would be. chuckle. This isn't meant as an insult in any way, but you do come across as very....well, Welsh! By which I mean that it seems to me that sometimes you get carried away (visualisation of spot astride a very powerful idea, veering all over the mental road ) by your argument and take it to extremes I'm not comfortable with, though agreeing with your basic point.

Still friends?:o

Clodhopper;824417 wrote: embarrassment. Although I thought I'd been keeping up with this thread, I missed a large chunk of page 10. I'd argue a bit with Galbally over British responsibility in eg Pakistan etc but the debate has moved on.

In your case I'm a bit perturbed by comments like being completely comfortable in Iran. I genuinely doubt you would be. chuckle. This isn't meant as an insult in any way, but you do come across as very....well, Welsh! By which I mean that it seems to me that sometimes you get carried away (visualisation of spot astride a very powerful idea, veering all over the mental road ) by your argument and take it to extremes I'm not comfortable with, though agreeing with your basic point.

Still friends?:o




Oy! And what's wrong with the Welsh might I ask? Humpf!

Galbally;824410 wrote: In terms of the Holy Land, I don't want anything personally, though a slightly less fractious world in general would be nice, its my judgement that a single state solution is completely unworkable, there is too much hatred between Arabs and Jews, perhaps in the future such a solution would become viable after generations of peace, but at the moment I think thats a fantasy. Its not pleasant to have to separate people and build walls, I grant you that, but I don't see any other way realistically.


If you insist.

First off then, set the walls between the new countries, not all set back into one country and not on the other.

Secondly, nobody's armed force is allowed to cross into the other's territory, neither's allowed to blockade the other.

Leave the West Bank settlements intact, it's sheer bloody-mindedness to tear them down before going home. That was a vile act the Israelis did when they pulled their settlers out of Gaza.

Partition the water resources equally. Every time I go there it's green where the Jews live and brown dust where the Arabs live, it's shockingly one-sided.

And a final point - no day-passes across the border for workers. People can work in their own countries once each country has a chance to build infrastructure that the other doesn't destroy within months.

How do those points sound? Fair?

Clodhopper;824417 wrote: and take it to extremes I'm not comfortable with, though agreeing with your basic point.My puzzlement stems from my regarding my position as middle of the road centrist compromise. I occupy the centre ground, it's the only place that all sides can end up capable of accepting. As for going to Iran or the US I'm not talking in terms of living in either, just of feeling safe on a visit. Of course I'd feel safer in Iran, it's practically crime-free by comparison with the USA. I'm quite certain that the average man on the street is more polite there too.

Bryn Mawr;824418 wrote: Oy! And what's wrong with the Welsh might I ask? Humpf!


Um, look at the nine words before the bit you highlighted?

spot;824419 wrote: If you insist.

First off then, set the walls between the new countries, not all set back into one country and not on the other.

Secondly, nobody's armed force is allowed to cross into the other's territory, neither's allowed to blockade the other.

Leave the West Bank settlements intact, it's sheer bloody-mindedness to tear them down before going home. That was a vile act the Israelis did when they pulled their settlers out of Gaza.

Partition the water resources equally. Every time I go there it's green where the Jews live and brown dust where the Arabs live, it's shockingly one-sided.

And a final point - no day-passes across the border for workers. People can work in their own countries once each country has a chance to build infrastructure that the other doesn't destroy within months.

How do those points sound? Fair?




I think they sound reasonable on the surface of it, 1967 borders, strictly, a viable palestinian homeland, not a series of Cantons, or a dustbowl, the water resources are fundamental for life An internationally recognized and properly policed border, that cannot be crossed by the IDF at will, or visa versa by Palestinian troops, or Hamas suicide bombers, or hezbollah fighters, or rockets, or apache helicopters, or the Egyptian or Syrian army units either, etc etc. Upon a general offensive by any side, then I would suggest the right to self defence would kick in. I would presume the day worker thing would take time, as people need jobs, until the palestinian state was a functioning economy. The Palestinians need to be given back their own nationhood, security from the IDF, and human dignity, that is fundamental to any peace, Israel requires security as a nation in a hostile region, they are the two over-riding interests of both peoples.

There's not the slightest reason for the Jews and Arabs to continue to be hostile if a settlement can be made to work. They got on like brothers for millennia, it's just the last seventy years have messed things up for them.

Clodhopper;824425 wrote: Um, look at the nine words before the bit you highlighted?


I did - I just chose to ignore them :p :wah: :-6

Bryn Mawr;824454 wrote: I did - I just chose to ignore them :p :wah: :-6


chuckle. I was concerned I'd get my head bitten off - as you well knew, you swine!:wah::wah:

spot;824438 wrote: There's not the slightest reason for the Jews and Arabs to continue to be hostile if a settlement can be made to work. They got on like brothers for millennia, it's just the last seventy years have messed things up for them.


Given time then this is true but people will not drop three generations of hatred in a day just because a settlement that they're not sure whether they can trust has been signed.

Galbally;824410 wrote: I am sure it was an oversight spot.

In terms of the Holy Land, I don't want anything personally, though a slightly less fractious world in general would be nice, its my judgement that a single state solution is completely unworkable, there is too much hatred between Arabs and Jews, perhaps in the future such a solution would become viable after generations of peace, but at the moment I think thats a fantasy. Its not pleasant to have to separate people and build walls, I grant you that, but I don't see any other way realistically.


Once upon a time you would have said the same about catholics and protestants in northern ireland. Not to mention the rest of the UK, both sides saw the other as intransigent. Religion makes fools of us all.

posted by bryn mawr

Oy! And what's wrong with the Welsh might I ask? Humpf!




Don't worry about cloddy it's that english inferiority complex coming to the fore again.

If people want to kill eachother, they will, peace wall or no peace wall, seperate neigbouring state or not. Look at the sectarianism in N.Ireland. They need an Adams and a McGuinness out of Hamas, and a Trimble from Israel and the US to do a John Major/Tony Blair. Currently they all seem to be Paisleys...:-1

Oversimplification, I know, but while the extremists on both sides want to keep killing, the killing will continue.

Clodhopper;824496 wrote: and the US to do a John Major/Tony BlairThat's a deliberate joke, right? The US bankroll the IDF by several billion dollars a year, every year. Nobody in his right mind would consider the US an honest unbiased impartial third party in any such discussion. Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Japan, India, any of those or anyone like them but the US? That's a joke in bad taste.

Don't worry about cloddy it's that english inferiority complex coming to the fore again.


Hah! Just look at the rugby! Er, oh. (Clodhopper retires, muttering and fuming, to his pit)

If you're not careful, I shall quote the Song of Patriotic prejudice at you.:sneaky:

Gosh, I did that once, the people across the pond were stunned into silence for days. They're brought up on not name-calling. Anything else - shoot, stab, bomb, assassinate - but never name-call.

spot;824510 wrote: That's a deliberate joke, right? The US bankroll the IDF by several billion dollars a year, every year. Nobody in his right mind would consider the US an honest unbiased impartial third party in any such discussion. Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Japan, India, any of those or anyone like them but the US? That's a joke in bad taste.


shrug - they are in a similar (not identical) position to the British govt in this dispute: able to exert pressure on the Israelis, as successive British govts did on Paisley - you don't imagine he gave any ground without a (political) fight, do you?

spot;824438 wrote: There's not the slightest reason for the Jews and Arabs to continue to be hostile if a settlement can be made to work. They got on like brothers for millennia, it's just the last seventy years have messed things up for them.


Sure, they did until the Jews realized just how much apparent hatred there was for them in this world (where there are 2 billion christians and 1.3 billion muslims, but only about 30 million jews) from all comers, and they drew the conclusion that their future survival was too precarious to be put in the hands of anyone else ever again. So they created their own state, that relied on no one other than other Jews for its defence, and responds to almost all threats of violence with payment in kind. I guess if we had survived (or were the children of survivors) of the merciless mass exterminations of millions of Jewish men, women, and children of an entire ethnic and religious group in Christian Europe in death camps 60 years ago located in countries we thought we were citizens of for a thousand years (until the population turned on us), and which no one in any country did anything meaningful to prevent and many cheered on, we might have a keener understanding of how they feel about Israel, which they consider their homeland, and their national security.

I would deeply sympathize had their politicians not committed the most awful series of blundering crimes against humanity. As it is I've completely lost all patience with them, just as I have with the White House. I was entirely in sympathy with both until they blew it themselves.

Galbally;824557 wrote: Sure, they did until the Jews decided that their future was too precarious to be put in the hands of anyone else ever again, and created their own state, that relied on no one other than other Jews for its defence, and I guess if we had survived (or were the children of survivors) of the merciless mass exterminations of millions of men, women, and children of almost an entire ethnic and religious group in Europe in death camps located in countries we thought we were citizens of for a thousand years until the population turned on us, and which no one in any country did anything meaningful to prevent, we might have a keener understanding of how they feel about Israel and their security.


If we were of a people who had suffered persecution to that extent over that number of years we might have a keener understanding of the suffering of others and a greater reluctance to inflict it.

Galbally;824557 wrote: Sure, they did until the Jews realized how much seemingly lunatic hatred there was for them in the world, and the that their future survival was too precarious to be put in the hands of anyone else ever again, and created their own state, that relied on no one other than other Jews for its defence. I guess if we had survived (or were the children of survivors) of the merciless mass exterminations of millions of Jewish men, women, and children of almost an entire ethnic and religious group in Christian Europe in death camps located in countries we thought we were citizens of for a thousand years until the population turned on us, and which no one in any country did anything meaningful to prevent and many cheered on, we might have a keener understanding of how they feel about Israel, which they consider their homeland, and their national security.


Israeli guy over the road from me explained how the Palestinians weren't really properly human and deserved what they were getting. With HIS history. The irony...

Bryn Mawr;824568 wrote: If we were of a people who had suffered persecution to that extent over that number of years we might have a keener understanding of the suffering of others and a greater reluctance to inflict it.


I'm Irish, we understand all too well what it means to suffer because you are weak, the lesson is, don't ever allow yourselves to be weak again, trust me on that. I am not condoning what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, I am just trying to get a handle on the Israeli mindset, in the same way someone was explaining why a palestinian boy would feel so angry as to strap a bomb on himself and kill strangers. You can't solve a conflict by just looking at it from one side, that does not work.

spot;824566 wrote: I would deeply sympathize had their politicians not committed the most awful series of blundering crimes against humanity. As it is I've completely lost all patience with them, just as I have with the White House. I was entirely in sympathy with both until they blew it themselves.


You are perfectly entitled to that opinion, I don't think its unreasonable at all, I am just trying to give the other side here.

Clodhopper;824572 wrote: Israeli guy over the road from me explained how the Palestinians weren't really properly human and deserved what they were getting. With HIS history. The irony...


Yes, you are right of course, being persecuted yourself, does not give you the right to inflict it on others.

Galbally;824582 wrote: I'm Irish, we understand all too well what it means to suffer because you are weak, the lesson is, don't ever allow yourselves to be weak again, trust me on that. I am not condoning what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, I am just trying to get a handle on the Israeli mindset, in the same way someone was explaining why a palestinian boy would feel so angry as to strap a bomb on himself and kill strangers. You can't solve a conflict by just looking at it from one side, that does not work.


Never having been in that position I am finding it very difficult to understand this inversion. I'm sure, when I've digested it, that this will help.

I really do try to see both sides of this but the current inequality does tend to get in the way.

Galbally;824586 wrote: Yes, you are right of course, being persecuted yourself, does not give you the right to inflict it on others.


Unfortunately it doesn't seem to stop them.

The bit that was missing from my analogy was the question of who takes the role of the government of Eire? Iran? In that sense the situation is more like the Cold War, with two sides fighting by proxy.

I do wish people would realize that Iran is, at most, a regional power. What we get from this nemesis talk is the idea that Iran, having built a (gasp) NUKE! or ten, is going to lob one into either Washington DC or Tel Aviv. The Soviets were the bogeymen with alleged plans for World Domination and even they weren't believable in the role. Did they, despite all the Better Dead Than Red rubbish, lob a nuke? Despite having thousands and having delivery systems? No they didn't. The motivation for Iran doesn't fly either for exactly the same reasons.

What Iran's leaders have, by complete contrast with their detractors, is moral virtue.

Jester;824715 wrote: Personally I disagree with having two sets of laws, but quite honestly niether you or I are the worlds keepers.

If its jewish held territory then you have to do it the jewish way, isnt that about it? Or hey masybe you could over throw thier government and then you can chaneg thier immigration laws.


Maybe their government should try acting according to their declared constitution?

Seriously Jester, how can it be an immigration issue. When Israel declared UDI there were a couple of million Palestinians living within the land they claimed. In time since, those lands have expanded and more Palestinians have been incorporated. These people are Israeli citizens, not immigrants - it is a mixed state which, in its initial charter, granted equal rights to all its people.

It looks like all Spot is doing is asking that they honour their constitution which state that "Israel is to be a state based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace, a state in which all the inhabitants will enjoy equality of social and political rights, along with freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture."



Quote taken from the Jewish Virtual Library text of the declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel :-

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ry/decind.html



Ignoring the inconvenient and just repeating a fallacy does not make it any more true than it was before - this is nothing to do with immigration.

Bryn Mawr;824591 wrote: Never having been in that position I am finding it very difficult to understand this inversion. I'm sure, when I've digested it, that this will help.

I really do try to see both sides of this but the current inequality does tend to get in the way.


Our sense of that comes from our history and historical poverty, I don't think in the modern era people in Ireland wake up and feel persecuted, because they aren't, but they have a strong sense of where they have come from.

Clodhopper;824594 wrote: Unfortunately it doesn't seem to stop them.

The bit that was missing from my analogy was the question of who takes the role of the government of Eire? Iran? In that sense the situation is more like the Cold War, with two sides fighting by proxy.


I am not talking about governments, I am talking about people, Irish people consider the whole Island their homeland, (which of course it is) not just the 26 counties of the Republic, we were treated as aboriginies in our own country for centuries, who couldn't speak their language, practice their religion, send their children to school, or own land, and the majority had to flee or in famine times they died like flies, hence a country with a population of nearly 10 million in 1830 had only 4.5 million in 1900. Then the last rising and the war of independence, and the country was divided losing 6 counties of Ulster because of the huge numbers of Scottish Presbeterians who were settled there, and we had to accept that as well because we had not the means to do anything about it. Its all history now, even though the Island is still divided, but at least its now a peaceful situation, and everyone wants to conduct politics constitutionally, but its not a series of facts that you would ever forget. Its not completely the same as anyone else's situation, it just means that we certainly don't share the historical perspective of countries such as Britain or America, which only know success and power.

The Normans did much the same to us, you know. It was 300 years before English was heard again in any court or parliament and the only way any landed English family retained its property was by marrying a daughter to the conquerors, the male lines were totally disinherited.

spot;824837 wrote: The Normans did much the same to us, you know. It was 300 years before English was heard again in any court or parliament and the only way any landed English family retained its property was by marrying a daughter to the conquerors, the male lines were totally disinherited.


Sure, once you go back into the historical records every modern nation or grouping has suffered invasion, or subjugation, eyc. My point is that in the modern era (you know since about 1400 the English people (and thats a mixed group of people I realize so its different than us) only have experience of freedom and increasing wealth or power (in general), the 1939-45 war was when English people came closest to understanding what it must feel like to be truly dominated by foreign (as opposed to domestic) forces, or under threat of domination, and maybe that's why even now, the second world war looms so large in the English conciousness.