The U.K.

[Ibrahim]

Romanian dentist

This is an outstanding ring name for a gypsy boxer.

[manolo]

Romanian dentist

This is an outstanding ring name for a gypsy boxer.

Ibrahim,

She is beautiful, and her name is Ioana. My dental anxieties are gone.

When she strokes my arm......

Alex.

[Ibrahim]

My dentist is a fat white guy named Chad.

[monster_gardener]

My dentist is a fat white guy named Chad.

Thank You very MUCH for your post, iBS

Things might get interesting if Chad reads this blog.............

[Simple Minded]

My dentist is a fat white guy named Chad.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that......" We all get confused sometimes and go thru experimental phases sometimes......

[manolo]

We all get confused sometimes and go thru experimental phases sometimes......

SM,

I don't know much about fish but I know what I like.

Alex.

[Endovelico]

Gibraltar tensions soar as UK threatens legal action over border checks and Navy sets sail for Med
Nigel Morris - Monday, 12 August 2013

Britain has threatened Spain with legal action over the "politically motivated" imposition of extra checks on the frontier with Gibraltar.

Diplomatic tensions between the two countries continued to grow after Downing Street disclosed it was considering taking the "unprecedented step" on the grounds that the Spanish action breached European Union law.

Sources in London believe the Madrid government is stoking up the issue as a distraction from its political travails, which include accusations of corruption and the continuing pain of austerity measures.

Last week Number 10 claimed David Cameron had secured a promise from his Spanish counterpart, Mariano Rajoy, to scale down the border controls, but the Spaniards immediately contradicted Britain's version of events.

With little sign of an early resolution to the stand-off, there were reports at the weekend of drivers facing a wait of up two hours to pass into the UK overseas territory.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "Clearly the Prime Minister is disappointed by the failure of Spain to remove the additional border checks this weekend. We are now considering what legal action is open to us.

"This would be an unprecedented step so we want to consider it carefully before a making a decision to pursue."

He said: "We feel these delays are politically motivated and totally disproportionate".

Ministers were discussing whether to pursue the issue as a "matter of urgency" with the EU, the spokesman added.

Giles Paxman, Britain's ambassador in Madrid, reiterated the possibility of legal action yesterday during a meeting with Spanish officials.

But Ignacio Ibanez, director general for foreign affairs at Spain's foreign ministry, shrugged off the threat.

"We are not worried because we are convinced about what we are doing and we know that the right is on our side," he told the BBC.

The move comes amid an escalating row over the construction of an artificial reef by the Gibraltarian authorities which Spain claims will destroy fishing in the area.

Madrid responded by beefing up border controls, leading to lengthy queues, and suggesting that a 50 euro (£43) fee could be imposed on every vehicle entering or leaving the territory through the fenced border with Spain.

Reports in the Spanish media have suggested the row could escalate to the United Nations, with Madrid floating the idea of Spain and Argentina presenting a "united front" over Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.

Argentina is currently a non-permanent member of the UN's Security Council and could use its position to add Gibraltar to its agenda. Its president, Cristina Kirchner, has already renewed demands for talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.

Meanwhile, thousands of Royal Navy personnel set sail yesterday for a long-scheduled training exercise in the Mediterranean. The Ministry of Defence stressed the timing was coincidental, but Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, said the deployment should send a clear signal to the Spanish.

"Maybe it's just a fluke that HMS Illustrious is about to bristle into view on the southern coast of Spain, complete with thousands of Royal Marines and other elite commando units," Mr Johnson said.

"But I hope not. I hope that one way or another we will shortly prise Spanish hands off the throat of our colony, because what is now taking place is infamous."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 7581.html#

The UK has the unfortunate habit of making it impossible to find adequate solutions to problems of this nature.

Gibraltar has become a tax haven and a smugglers paradise under British protection. And that's the only reason it wants to keep its colonial status with the UK. Spain is a democratic country which would guarantee all human and democratic rights to the inhabitants of Gibraltar, when Gibraltar rejoins the Spanish state, so there is no reason to fear that such a move would be detrimental to its people. Except for those who live on smuggling. Just as it happens with other Spanish regions, Gibraltar could become an autonomous region, with its language and institutions. I doubt people would notice any difference from the present situation, except the absence of the British flag. But Britain stubbornly refuses to consider such a move.

A similar situation occurs in Northern Ireland. It could be possible to negotiate an autonomy status for the Ulster, within the Irish Republic. And it could even be agreed a double nationality status for those people who would want to keep their personal link to the UK. But Britain retains an imperialistic streak which is only forgotten when the other party is too strong to be ignored. As happened with China over Hong Kong. If Gibraltar was on the coast of China we can be sure that it would have long been given up...

[Torchwood]

The level of Spanish hypocrisy over Gibraltar is breathtaking. The country claims that territorial integrity trumps the wishes of the inhabitants (a bizarre concept which would have justified colonialism, even if designed to eliminate the last vestiges of the latter). However, in Morocco, it seems, in the case of Spanish enclaves Ceuta and Melilla, the opposite principle applies! Logic and politics never mix, anywhere.

Endo has a point about Gibraltar being a dodgy tax haven, but then if Gibraltarians want to remain British, they had better accept paying British taxes.

This all seems to started with Gibraltar fencing off a reef to prevent overfishing by Spanish trawlers; now Spanish fishermen are notorious for vacuum cleaning the seas in the collective disaster that is the EU Common Fisheries Policy, but given that Gibraltar has a postage stamp of territorial waters with about 3 fish in them, it hardly seems worth the trouble. But then apparently Spain is being intransigent discussing the issue, and Rajoy's age old ploy of using an external dispute to distract from internal troubles does not seem to have much resonance. The Spanish press does not seem to be very supportive.

As for N. Ireland, there is no satisfactory self determination solution: the Protestants would be an unreconciled minority in the Republic, the Catholics are an unreconciled minority in a separate Northern Ireland. The current status is autonomy within the UK with power sharing by both communities; why is that worse than a similar and equivalent deal within the Republic, except anti-British prejudice?

Nice one in the comments column of the Guardian, highlighting the consistency of politicians:

Rajoy a few months ago seeking support from the UK when Cristina Kirchner [of Argentina] expropriated the former national oil company 'YPF' from Spain's Repsol. Rajoy and Kirchner exchanged diplomatic ammunition ....Now he's seeking from Kirchner.

And it's get better ....Cameron who was ranting about the EU is seeking help from ...the EU!

This probably is one of the silliest seasons on record.


Of course most of the other comments in this British but bleeding heart lefty anti-Cameron paper are anti-British, but whatever.

[Endovelico]

Let's suppose that three hundred years ago the French had occupied Southampton, had replaced all its population with people from Marseille and then claimed sovereignty over the town. Later on the British would insist on having Southampton back and the French would engineer a referendum in which the (French) population would declare they wanted to remain French citizens and retain their links with France. All very democratic, so that I'm sure the British government would simply accept the situation...

[Ibrahim]

The wishes of the local population is going to trump everything else (in Europe anyway). This is a conflict between two of history's biggest colonialist states, so they aren't keen on looking heavy-handed (in Europe anyway).



Amusing that this started as a dispute over Spanish over-fishing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

[Torchwood]

Let's suppose that three hundred years ago the French had occupied Southampton, had replaced all its population with people from Marseille and then claimed sovereignty over the town. Later on the British would insist on having Southampton back and the French would engineer a referendum in which the (French) population would declare they wanted to remain French citizens and retain their links with France. All very democratic, so that I'm sure the British government would simply accept the situation...

Good try, Endo, but a poor analogy. The British never expelled the population, most of whom came in after 1713 and are Spanish speaking. Southampton is a major port pop. 300,000, a Spanish equivalent would be Cadiz. In any case, the French would not be able to pronounce it... An equivalent to Gib (pop.30,000) would be a strategic but remote port in Cornwall such as Helston or Falmouth. I think that nowadays we would treat such a place as an amusing tourist attraction, which would boost trade in the rest of Cornwall, just as Gib creates jobs for the inhabitants of La Linea. After all, France has no objection to British rule in the Channel Islands ("Les Iles Anglo-Normandes) although in terms of "territorial integrity" they are part of France.

[Endovelico]

Let's suppose that three hundred years ago the French had occupied Southampton, had replaced all its population with people from Marseille and then claimed sovereignty over the town. Later on the British would insist on having Southampton back and the French would engineer a referendum in which the (French) population would declare they wanted to remain French citizens and retain their links with France. All very democratic, so that I'm sure the British government would simply accept the situation...

Good try, Endo, but a poor analogy. The British never expelled the population, most of whom came in after 1713 and are Spanish speaking. Southampton is a major port pop. 300,000, a Spanish equivalent would be Cadiz. In any case, the French would not be able to pronounce it... An equivalent to Gib (pop.30,000) would be a strategic but remote port in Cornwall such as Helston or Falmouth. I think that nowadays we would treat such a place as an amusing tourist attraction, which would boost trade in the rest of Cornwall, just as Gib creates jobs for the inhabitants of La Linea. After all, France has no objection to British rule in the Channel Islands ("Les Iles Anglo-Normandes) although in terms of "territorial integrity" they are part of France.

The point, Torch, is that all the essential rights of Gibraltarians would be respected if Gibraltar was just another Spanish autonomous region. There is no justification for the UK to keep control over a completely alien territory without any strategic or economic importance for the UK, if that means antagonizing the country to which that colony has historically been part of.

Like the Ulster situation was due to immigration from Scotland which created a foreign ghetto on Irish territory. That such an invasion is supposed to give special rights to the Ulster population and justify its separation from the historic Ireland is curious, especially as there are areas of Ulster where the original Irish (Catholics) are in a majority (Derry?) and thus should have a right to rejoin the Irish Republic. Any wise government would have agreed to the unification of Ireland, with guarantees for the protestant/British ancestry minority. But that would be expecting too much from a country historically used to impose its will...

[manolo]

Let's suppose that three hundred years ago the French had occupied Southampton, had replaced all its population with people from Marseille and then claimed sovereignty over the town. Later on the British would insist on having Southampton back and the French would engineer a referendum in which the (French) population would declare they wanted to remain French citizens and retain their links with France. All very democratic, so that I'm sure the British government would simply accept the situation...

Falklands anyone?

Alex.

[Endovelico]

"...A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a genuflecting cunt and a copper-bottomed lavender..."

That's the strongest argument I have heard so far in favour of bombing Syria. I'm totally convinced. The Tories have now proven they truly deserve ruling the UK!...

[Endovelico]

There is hope yet! The British Prime Minister was defeated tonight in the House of Commons, when his motion to allow for military intervention in Syria was defeated, with scores of Tory and Liberal MP's voting against. Will Obama understand that he can't go on alone, and that he must give up the madness of attacking Syria? Is this the first step towards a return to sanity?...

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



FT : An end decades of delusion

.

The game is up. Britain has reached the end of a long arc of delusion. For half a century and more it has clung tenaciously to the notion that it was among the pivotal custodians of global order. No longer.

.

Interesting (and true) FT article



Hollande still "dreamin"



.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



A leader humbled, a nation cut down to size

.

This was the most spectacular defeat of Mr Cameron’s political career. Political analysts – searching for precedents – declared that this was the first time that a UK prime minister had been defeated in parliament, on a matter of war and peace, since 1782.

. . this week’s events pose big questions about Britain’s role in global politics and about its much-vaunted “special relationship” with America.

[..]

.. a shell-shocked prime minister announced to the House that “I get it” – and immediately ruled out British participation in military action against Syria.

[..]

Now the British have sent a clear signal that they are less willing to use the military – and less willing to follow America’s lead in foreign affairs. Even some Conservative MPs are calling for the country to embrace a more modest role in global affairs. After the vote, Crispin Blunt, a Tory MP and former army officer, told the BBC that he was “delighted that we relieved ourselves of this imperial pretension”.

The call for the UK to play a smaller role in world affairs finds an echo among a war-weary public. Yet it is too soon to be certain that this will be a lasting mood. The “special relationship” has gone through cycles in the past. Britain stayed out of the Vietnam war but then cleaved much more closely to US foreign policy during the Thatcher and Blair years.

.

The US Loses an Ally




look, these thing do not happen by accident .. Cameron neither an i*diot nor a child .. most probably he "orchestrated an exit" .. Brits not Brits used 2B .. they broke




Thursday was, above all, a momentous day for British democracy.
The era of presidential rule is over.
Parliament has reclaimed the powers chipped away by successive prime ministers

.

In retrospect, it was foolish even to think of pre-empting the UN weapons inspectors, given what happened in the “poisoned well” of Iraq. They will determine exactly what chemicals were used. That is part of building a case: given that a senior UN official, Carla Del Ponte, suggested in March that the rebels might well have used sarin gas, one might reasonably hesitate until we know a great deal more than we know now.

Many of us had been through this before. Personally, I was assured by Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, at a Nato summit in Brussels just before the invasion of Iraq that the Government had the intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s WMD. “Just trust me, we have the proof but can’t reveal sources,” he said to four of us, all British journalists. We did indeed trust him, and bitter we are too, snake-bitten for ever.

.

.

[monster_gardener]

.



FT : An end decades of delusion

.

The game is up. Britain has reached the end of a long arc of delusion. For half a century and more it has clung tenaciously to the notion that it was among the pivotal custodians of global order. No longer.

.

Interesting (and true) FT article



Hollande still "dreamin"



.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari but..............

Hollande still "dreamin"

What do you mean by this.

Could not read article at link.....

[Torchwood]

.






Hollande still "dreamin"



.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari but..............

Hollande still "dreamin"

What do you mean by this.

Could not read article at link.....

The French kept out of Iraq, you will recall (quite rightly...) and were vilified for cheeseeatingsurrender primates, Freedom fries etc. Britain was gung ho for Iraq, now wary. The French now gung ho to support the Yanks, Kerry refered favourably to our "oldest ally", the fact that he speaks French no longer a vote loser...

Pity politicians don't do irony.

[monster_gardener]

.






Hollande still "dreamin"



.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari but..............

Hollande still "dreamin"

What do you mean by this.

Could not read article at link.....

The French kept out of Iraq, you will recall (quite rightly...) and were vilified for cheeseeatingsurrender primates, Freedom fries etc. Britain was gung ho for Iraq, now wary. The French now gung ho to support the Yanks, Kerry refered favourably to our "oldest ally", the fact that he speaks French no longer a vote loser...

Pity politicians don't do irony.

Thank You VERY Much for your post.

And Thank You VERY much for the explanation given as I could not see the article.

Your Friend,
MG

[Alexis]

Hollande still "dreamin"

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari but..............

Hollande still "dreamin"

What do you mean by this.

Could not read article at link.....

As I understand it:
HP claims that Britain has irremediably declined to the point that she will no longer exert significant influence on global security. He also claims that while France is still having delusions, she will have to drop exerting such influence as well.

His proof for those claims is refusal by British Parliament of military intervention in Syria.

Actually, France (correctly) refused to intervene in Iraq ten years ago, and this was no sign of such a terminal decline of her security influence abroad as HP predicts for Britain. The fact was exemplified, within the last five years alone, by successful and decisive French military interventions in the security of Ivory Coast, Centrafrica and Mali along with a determining influence on outbreak and success of intervention in Libya.

There is no more reason to expect HP' dreams to come true regarding Britain, just because Her Majesty's Parliament has (correctly) refused to support Al Qaeda cannibals in Syria, than there was to fear terminal decline of French influence, just because France had refused the 2003 Iraq adventure.

Sorry for the Anglophobes of this forum... a set which to tell the truth may be limited to a singleton. Isn't that so, Heracleam Persicum?

[Heracleum Persicum]

Hollande still "dreamin"

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari but..............

Hollande still "dreamin"

What do you mean by this.

Could not read article at link.....

As I understand it:

HP claims that Britain has irremediably declined to the point that she will no longer exert significant influence on global security. He also claims that while France is still having delusions, she will have to drop exerting such influence as well.

His proof for those claims is refusal by British Parliament of military intervention in Syria.


.

Alexis , What HP claimin (and hoppin) irrelevant .. but FT should reflect British public mindset and sentiment


from the article (title of FT article : The Syria vote brings to an end decades of delusion)

.

The game is up. Britain has reached the end of a long arc of delusion. For half a century and more it has clung tenaciously to the notion that it was among the pivotal custodians of global order. No longer.

When the Westminster parliament voted this week against joining a US-led military strike against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria it shrugged off the last pretensions of empire.

The journey began nearly 60 years ago with the humiliation of Anthony Eden’s government at Suez. Forced into ignominious retreat by Dwight Eisenhower’s White House, Britain decided that henceforth it would tuck itself in behind the Americans. It could play Greece to Washington’s Rome – a pocket superpower if no longer one of the great powers.

..

Just as Americans have tired of fighting unwinnable wars in the Middle East, so the Brits have decided to count the cost of their pretensions.

..

There was more to it. This week’s vote gave voice to a deeper weariness – a public mood that, albeit in sometimes inchoate form, reflects the harsh reality of British power. The war in Afghanistan, where the army has taken much heavier casualties than in Iraq, is a big part of the explanation. After more that a decade of fighting the Taliban, next year’s planned withdrawal is an admission of defeat. All that blood and treasure, and, voters ask, for what?

The war in Libya scarcely changed the calculus. Mr Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, then French president, had their moment in the sun after the fall of Muammer Gaddafi, but the country has since fallen into violent chaos. Much of Benghazi, the stage of the Franco-British triumph, now belongs to affiliates of al-Qaeda.


much more at the link

.

Who am I to contradict FT



Look, Alexis, Nations go to war only, ONLY and ONLY, for economic reason, for money .. and .. for Britain, reward does not anymore justify the cost of playing big boy .. Brits might be thinking they can achieve better result (money) with intrigues and diplomacy

Britain losing one by one .. Hong Kong gone, the Persian Golf clowns soon no more .. the lion not lion used 2B

Actually, France (correctly) refused to intervene in Iraq ten years ago, and this was no sign of such a terminal decline of her security influence abroad as HP predicts for Britain. The fact was exemplified, within the last five years alone, by successful and decisive French military interventions in the security of Ivory Coast, Centrafrica and Mali along with a determining influence on outbreak and success of intervention in Libya.

There is no more reason to expect HP' dreams to come true regarding Britain, just because Her Majesty's Parliament has (correctly) refused to support Al Qaeda cannibals in Syria, than there was to fear terminal decline of French influence, just because France had refused the 2003 Iraq adventure.

Sorry for the Anglophobes of this forum... a set which to tell the truth may be limited to a singleton. Isn't that so, Heracleam Persicum ?


.

France does not have the economic depth to afford big military power .. in that sense France was not in a position to engage in Iraq and is not capable to engage in Syria, only western power that can take big hits and still stand on its 2 feet is America and that might be changing too

[monster_gardener]

Hollande still "dreamin"

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari but..............

Hollande still "dreamin"

What do you mean by this.

Could not read article at link.....

As I understand it:

HP claims that Britain has irremediably declined to the point that she will no longer exert significant influence on global security. He also claims that while France is still having delusions, she will have to drop exerting such influence as well.

His proof for those claims is refusal by British Parliament of military intervention in Syria.


.

Alexis , What HP claimin (and hoppin) irrelevant .. but FT should reflect British public mindset and sentiment


from the article (title of FT article : The Syria vote brings to an end decades of delusion)

.

The game is up. Britain has reached the end of a long arc of delusion. For half a century and more it has clung tenaciously to the notion that it was among the pivotal custodians of global order. No longer.

When the Westminster parliament voted this week against joining a US-led military strike against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria it shrugged off the last pretensions of empire.

The journey began nearly 60 years ago with the humiliation of Anthony Eden’s government at Suez. Forced into ignominious retreat by Dwight Eisenhower’s White House, Britain decided that henceforth it would tuck itself in behind the Americans. It could play Greece to Washington’s Rome – a pocket superpower if no longer one of the great powers.

..

Just as Americans have tired of fighting unwinnable wars in the Middle East, so the Brits have decided to count the cost of their pretensions.

..

There was more to it. This week’s vote gave voice to a deeper weariness – a public mood that, albeit in sometimes inchoate form, reflects the harsh reality of British power. The war in Afghanistan, where the army has taken much heavier casualties than in Iraq, is a big part of the explanation. After more that a decade of fighting the Taliban, next year’s planned withdrawal is an admission of defeat. All that blood and treasure, and, voters ask, for what?

The war in Libya scarcely changed the calculus. Mr Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, then French president, had their moment in the sun after the fall of Muammer Gaddafi, but the country has since fallen into violent chaos. Much of Benghazi, the stage of the Franco-British triumph, now belongs to affiliates of al-Qaeda.


much more at the link

.

Who am I to contradict FT



Look, Alexis, Nations go to war only, ONLY and ONLY, for economic reason, for money .. and .. for Britain, reward does not anymore justify the cost of playing big boy .. Brits might be thinking they can achieve better result (money) with intrigues and diplomacy

Britain losing one by one .. Hong Kong gone, the Persian Golf clowns soon no more .. the lion not lion used 2B

Actually, France (correctly) refused to intervene in Iraq ten years ago, and this was no sign of such a terminal decline of her security influence abroad as HP predicts for Britain. The fact was exemplified, within the last five years alone, by successful and decisive French military interventions in the security of Ivory Coast, Centrafrica and Mali along with a determining influence on outbreak and success of intervention in Libya.

There is no more reason to expect HP' dreams to come true regarding Britain, just because Her Majesty's Parliament has (correctly) refused to support Al Qaeda cannibals in Syria, than there was to fear terminal decline of French influence, just because France had refused the 2003 Iraq adventure.

Sorry for the Anglophobes of this forum... a set which to tell the truth may be limited to a singleton. Isn't that so, Heracleam Persicum ?


.

France does not have the economic depth to afford big military power .. in that sense France was not in a position to engage in Iraq and is not capable to engage in Syria, only western power that can take big hits and still stand on its 2 feet is America and that might be changing too

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Look, Alexis, Nations go to war only, ONLY and ONLY, for economic reason, for money ..

Not so, Azari.

Depraved, Sinful, Egotistical, Chaos Monkeys are capable for finding reasons other than money & economics to resort to violence* and go to war....

Anger is a prominent reason......... Even righteous anger at injustice..........

Also Pride and Arrogance....... "Nobody is going to tell us what to do"

Recalling an awful Jewish Civil War in which the Tribe of Benjamin was almost exterminated because they didn't want to give up some nasty bisexual perps who had raped a woman to death

But beware when the Warriors put the War masks on.....

Much more may be done than intended......

Even by the "good guys".........

Can be hard to repair the damage.......

And more atrocities done doing the repair.........


And of course religion is another major reason too...... Jihads & Crusades and similar............


*Depraved Sinful Egotistical Chaos Monkeys will sometime kill because they are bored!!!

Happened recently in Oklahoma.......... An Ozzie killed by some teenaged Uz punks.....

But happens elsewhere too.......

Remembering bored young men in Egypt killing endangered songbirds because they are bored......

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Mugabe.jpg (21.37 KiB) Viewed 2385 times

.

Interviewer : ‘ Mr President don't you think 89 years old would have been a great time to rest and retire ? ’

President Mugabe : ‘ Have you ever asked Queen Elizabeth this question or is it just for African leaders ? ’

.

The cow gotto go





.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

.

Look, Alexis, Nations go to war only, ONLY and ONLY, for economic reason, for money ..

.

Not so, Azari.

Depraved, Sinful, Egotistical, Chaos Monkeys are capable for finding reasons other than money & economics to resort to violence* and go to war....

Anger is a prominent reason......... Even righteous anger at injustice..........

Also Pride and Arrogance....... "Nobody is going to tell us what to do"


.

Am not aware of a single war that was not in reality fundamental for economic reason .. excuses not same as fundamental reason

US wants to attack Syria not because of Chemical weapon use (with certainty a "false flag" as Buchanan and Ron Paul say, probably supplied by Saudi or Turks) .. but for gas pipeline and and and

.

Recalling an awful Jewish Civil War in which the Tribe of Benjamin was almost exterminated because they didn't want to give up some nasty bisexual perps who had raped a woman to death

.

.. come on, Monster, come on

No such thing as Jewish history .. all rubbish invented by Hebrew university "cookin kitchen"

Read Schlomo Sand "invention of Jewish people"

Jewish people are the Hebrew tribe, and they, after Babylon, settled in Persia and dissolved in Persian population .. those calling themselves Jews now (Ashkenazim) Russian and Latvian and Estonian and their history is Russian and Latvian and Polish history, nothing to do with Hebrew tribe



.