Israel demands $300B from Arab countries

[Zevico]

Actually Italian Jews weren't subjected to the Holocaust until the Nazis took control of Italy after the coup against Mussolini.

And? Putting Mussolini into power meant aiding Nazi allies. That meant aiding the spread of Nazism. That meant spreading the Holocaust. Mussolini may not have killed Italy's Jews by his own hands but he was happy for his allies to do the killing for him outside of Italy.

Post-coup Italy was not managed solely by Nazis. It needed Italian support to function. Those Italians that contributed to Nazism's reign in Italy were directly complicit in the murder of Italian Jewish citizens.

The main point here is that Bergen Belsen wasn't run by Arabs, it was run by the Germans. Arabs had absolutely nothing to do with Bergen Belsen.

That's not exactly true. One quite famous Arab political leader, Husseini, called for the extermination of the Jews, visited Auschwtiz, was photographed at a parade line of Muslim SS soldiers, and reportedly called on the Nazis to slaughter the Jews. Husseini, the head of the Al Quds (Jerusalem) Mosque, and a popular figure in Arab nationalism and (nowadays) Islamism, was happy to wash himself in Jewish blood. Other Arab leaders led pro-Nazi coups against British forces in Iraq (to give one example). The Muslim Brotherhood is doucmented as having received aid from and given aid to the Nazis as part of an anti-British initiative. Their bonds were ideological and not merely tactical; each hated Jews. It is no coincidence that Arab political propaganda draws on Der Sturmer; the former was influenced by the latter.

Arabs may not have organised and established Bergen Belsen but many called for and participated in the Holocaust. Most stayed silent. None enlisted to fight against Nazism. (By contrast many Israeli Jews did and established their own brigade in the British army.)

There is another point to be made. Bergen Belsen wasn't the whole of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was composed not merely of extermination campaigns. It involved the dehumanisation of the Jews by any method. Theft, assault, riots, were the first recourses. Ghettos, next. Then deportation to concentration camps, or death camps. Some Arabs contributed to those elements of the Holocaust in examples already mentioned above.

Further, Arab treatment of Jews post-WW2 involved many of these very tactics. These were deliberately employed to expel Jews from Arab lands.

This Arab treatment of Jews stretches well into the 50's s and even to the present today in the case of the few remaining Jews in the Arab world. The few Yemeni Jews who remained recently in Yemen were subjected to similar treatment prior to their flight from Yemen to the United States and Israel.

My main point does not even strictly depend on Arab treatment of Jews during WW2 (though that certainly contributes to the context). It is this--

The notion that "good avertising" was the cause of Jewish emigration from the Arab states is not convincing. Of course Sephardi Jews went to Israel and were encouraged to do so, but they were happy to go pretty much anywhere except their former homes in the Middle East. The only place where Sephardi Jews -aren't- living in anymore in large numbers is the Middle East. The estimated number of total Jews in the Middle East in 2008 according to Wikipedia (and leaving aside Israel) is 6,400. In 1948 it was anywhere between 700,000-900,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...slim_countries

If this is the quality of Israeli propaganda then we can seriously consider discounting the rest.

I would not counsel you to treat any propaganda seriously.

I don't think they expect it. This is just propaganda.

The tragedy is that they don't expect it. For the Arabs, to admit any kind of culpability would be anathema. It would be like the Egyptians compensating the Coptic Christians who have been driven away, or threatened, or beaten, or imprisoned (most recently following a peaceful Coptic protest resulting in 24 dead and 200 injured). When the bulk of a society wants you to convert or die it won't have much time to consider your claims to compensation for when you are beaten and refuse to do either.

[Dr Strangelove]

This is due to the cruelty and inhumanity of the Arab rulers. There's no reason why the Palestinians can't be Jordanian or Syrian or Egyptian. The reason they're stateless is because the suffering of the Palestinians has been useful for those countries.

No, they can't be Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian because they're Palestinian. By your logic you could be Canadian if someone powerful enough decided that was the way it's going to be.

300 billion is the outside number. The OP gave a range of 16-300 billion. I don't know their methods, but I know that it's based on property and not people.

Love your sense of values.

Losers don't set terms.

Ah, so now we get down to the nitty gritty. "Might makes right" that's what you're about? Nice. Brown shirt family values.

So what? They started a war, and they lost. **** 'em.

As a matter of fact in 1948 Jordan and Egypt came out ahead, at least in terms of territory.

[Dr Strangelove]

And? Putting Mussolini into power meant aiding Nazi allies. That meant aiding the spread of Nazism. That meant spreading the Holocaust. Mussolini may not have killed Italy's Jews by his own hands but he was happy for his allies to do the killing for him outside of Italy.

Mussolini came to power in 1922 at a time when Adolph Hitler was an unknown politician in Bavaria, so no, putting Mussolini in power didn't mean aiding Nazi allies.

That's not exactly true. One quite famous Arab political leader, Husseini, called for the extermination of the Jews, visited Auschwtiz, was photographed at a parade line of Muslim SS soldiers, and reportedly called on the Nazis to slaughter the Jews. Husseini, the head of the Al Quds (Jerusalem) Mosque, and a popular figure in Arab nationalism and (nowadays) Islamism, was happy to wash himself in Jewish blood. Other Arab leaders led pro-Nazi coups against British forces in Iraq (to give one example). The Muslim Brotherhood is doucmented as having received aid from and given aid to the Nazis as part of an anti-British initiative. Their bonds were ideological and not merely tactical; each hated Jews. It is no coincidence that Arab political propaganda draws on Der Sturmer; the former was influenced by the latter.

Arabs weren't the only colonial people who sought assistance from the Axis to fight their occupiers. Their were Fillipinos who were in communication with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, there were Indians who sought assistance from both the Nazis and the Japanese. The Finns received assistance from the Nazis.

Arabs may not have organised and established Bergen Belsen but many called for and participated in the Holocaust.

In what way did they participate in the Holocaust?

Most stayed silent. None enlisted to fight against Nazism. (By contrast many Israeli Jews did and established their own brigade in the British army.)

You're certain that no Arabs fought under the command of the British or the French in WW2? Please, be quite certain here.

There is another point to be made. Bergen Belsen wasn't the whole of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was composed not merely of extermination campaigns. It involved the dehumanisation of the Jews by any method. Theft, assault, riots, were the first recourses. Ghettos, next. Then deportation to concentration camps, or death camps. Some Arabs contributed to those elements of the Holocaust in examples already mentioned above.

I think the usual definition of the Holocaust is restricted to Nazi efforts to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. You're re-defining the word to suit your needs. [quote]
Further, Arab treatment of Jews post-WW2 involved many of these very tactics. These were deliberately employed to expel Jews from Arab lands.

This Arab treatment of Jews stretches well into the 50's s and even to the present today in the case of the few remaining Jews in the Arab world. The few Yemeni Jews who remained recently in Yemen were subjected to similar treatment prior to their flight from Yemen to the United States and Israel.

My main point does not even strictly depend on Arab treatment of Jews during WW2 (though that certainly contributes to the context). It is this--

Iraqi-born Ran Cohen, a former member of the Knesset, said: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee. I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee". Yemeni-born Yisrael Yeshayahu, former Knesset speaker, Labor Party, stated: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations". And Iraqi-born Shlomo Hillel, also a former speaker of the Knesset, Labor Party, claimed: "I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists."

Historian Tom Segev stated: "Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision. It was based on the particular circumstances of the individual's life. They were not all poor, or 'dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits'. Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety

Word.

The tragedy is that they don't expect it. For the Arabs, to admit any kind of culpability would be anathema. It would be like the Egyptians compensating the Coptic Christians who have been driven away, or threatened, or beaten, or imprisoned (most recently following a peaceful Coptic protest resulting in 24 dead and 200 injured). When the bulk of a society wants you to convert or die it won't have much time to consider your claims to compensation for when you are beaten and refuse to do either.

The fact is that before the Balfour Proclamation Jews and Arabs had lived together in peace for millenia, then the British go out and promise to give a hunk of Palestinian Arab land to the Jews in a ploy to get German Jews to sabotage the Kaiser's war effort. If you think about it, it says something about European racism that the British thought that German Jews, only 1% of the German population, could bring down the Kaiser's war machine. After the war a Zionist organization presented to the British commission a map of what Israel should be. Curiously it looked just like Israel today. Arabs didn't ask to be occupied by the Europeans. They didn't ask for their land to be parceled up at the whims of the victors, they didn't ask that it be given away. What would have been wrong if in 1920 the Allies had left the Arabs to their own devices?

[kentonio]

Two of those countries, the two which contributed the majority of the military forces, Jordan and Egypt, had agreements with Israel allowing them to annex the West Bank and Gaza. Their fight with Israel was actually over how much of Palestine they were going to be allowed to keep.

That's not actually true. Jordan did have an agreement with Israel before the war which should have prevented them from joining in an attack on Israel, but they were pressured by the other Arab states into attacking anyway. 1948 was a war of attempted annihilation, and lets not try and paint it as anything else.

Incidentally Jordan at the time wanted to annex Palestine anyway, so they're hardly great defenders of Palestinian identity.

As a matter of fact in 1948 Jordan and Egypt came out ahead, at least in terms of territory.

They got their asses kicked, but yes they ended up in control of the Palestinian areas. So much for Palestianian identity again heh?

[notyoueither]

No, they can't be Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian because they're Palestinian. By your logic you could be Canadian if someone powerful enough decided that was the way it's going to be.

Actually, a lot of them are Canadian now. They are among the Czech, Hungarian, Vietnamese, and Lebonese refugees who came to Canada and attained citizenship as time passed and they applied. Citizenship for their children born in Canada is automatic.

[Felch]

No, they can't be Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian because they're Palestinian.

By your logic you could be Canadian if someone powerful enough decided that was the way it's going to be.

If America lost the war for independence, I'd be a Canadian.

The real reason they can't be Jordanian or Syrian or Egyptian is because those countries won't take them. It's a propaganda coup to have millions of people living as refugees. There's no reason why Saudi Arabia couldn't cough up the money to help resettle them. Arab rulers are just a cruel and cynical bunch of thugs.

Ah, so now we get down to the nitty gritty. "Might makes right" that's what you're about? Nice. Brown shirt family values.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but life isn't fair. Might doesn't make right, but it does shape reality.

As a matter of fact in 1948 Jordan and Egypt came out ahead, at least in terms of territory.

Jordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt held the Gaza Strip, but the Israelis still gained territory in the war. The losers were the Palestinians. Isn't it strange how Egypt and Jordan didn't give the Palestinians their land back? Seems like the friendly thing to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Brown shirt family values

And wait, so since Jordanians, Syrians, and Egyptians won't take in Palestinian refugees, that means Israel is free of any blame and the Palestinians are just out of luck? Well that's just biggest case of pass the buck bull I've ever heard. No wonder they realized that terrorism was the only way they'd get heard on the international stage.

[Felch]

Wait, since Israel is a popular punching bag, that means the Arab states are free of any blame and the Palestinians are just out of luck. Well that's just biggest case of pass the buck bull I've ever heard. No wonder they realized that terrorism was the only way they'd get heard on the international stage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would only make sense if anyone really liked the Arab states and dealt with them for purposes other than realpolitik as a result of the fact that they have oil. And, of course, the Palestinians fight against the Israelis for their land - I don't think they really are clamoring to get land in Syria or Jordan any more than Americans would be fine with land in Quebec if the Mexicans took over .

[Zevico]

Mussolini came to power in 1922 at a time when Adolph Hitler was an unknown politician in Bavaria, so no, putting Mussolini in power didn't mean aiding Nazi allies.

It did mean supporting him in World War 2. And that meant aiding Nazi allies.

Arabs weren't the only colonial people who sought assistance from the Axis to fight their occupiers. Their were Fillipinos who were in communication with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, there were Indians who sought assistance from both the Nazis and the Japanese. The Finns received assistance from the Nazis.In what way did they participate in the Holocaust?

I don't know about these specific examples. I make the point that Arab participation was both eager and willing in many reported and specific instances, and that it went beyond realpolitik to a genuine sympathy for Nazi ideology. Especially when that meant anti-Jewish racism.

You're certain that no Arabs fought under the command of the British or the French in WW2? Please, be quite certain here.

A brash statement, I admit. There was the Jordanian Arab legion (under British control). The legion was founded well before the war. Also, there were apparently some Gulf Arabs in the Assyrian and Iraqi levees.
There are no other volunteer forces I can find any reference to.

I think the usual definition of the Holocaust is restricted to Nazi efforts to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. You're re-defining the word to suit your needs.

Not at all. My point is that dehumanisation was the first part of the extermination campaign. I am not saying that post--WW2 Arabs participated in the Holocaust because they dehumanised Jews; I am saying that dehumanisation was part of the Arab post-WW2 strategem.

I do not argue that Sephardi Jews did not immigrate to Israel for Zionist reasons before World War 2 but this was much less common particularly because Zionism was not well known at that time in those places.

I do point out that Sephardi emigration occurred mostly after the establishment of Israel, and that such emigration was not just to Israel but also to France and the United States; and that overall its effect is to leave the Middle East practically Jew-free apart from Israel. And I do argue that this was in large part becuase Jews were persecuted. Their flight then mirrors (in more rushed circumstances) the flight of Arab Christians from the Middle East today, and for much the same reasons.

The fact is that before the Balfour Proclamation Jews and Arabs had lived together in peace for millenia

Under a system of Islamic political and social supremacism. Much as Christian Arabs were under that same 'comfortable' system. Rebellion against that system, and its defeat, was basically attributed to the evils and conspiracies of those same minorities; and in turn, justified their dehumanisation and ultimate extermination.

If you think about it, it says something about European racism that the British thought that German Jews, only 1% of the German population, could bring down the Kaiser's war machine.

A simplistic and erroneous explanation for British policy in the Middle East.

After the war a Zionist organization presented to the British commission a map of what Israel should be. Curiously it looked just like Israel today.

So? What does it matter what some Zionist organisation or another presented to some British commission? That presentation did not reflect British policy. Perhaps it reflected the policy of some unnamed Zionist group (of which I am unaware). What does that establish?

Arabs didn't ask to be occupied by the Europeans.

What does that establish?

They didn't ask for their land to be parceled up at the whims of the victors, they didn't ask that it be given away.

What does that establish?

What would have been wrong if in 1920 the Allies had left the Arabs to their own devices?

Wrong for whom? The British? The French? Oil, old boy, oil, and lots of it, was in the Middle East. So too were markets for goods and services (albeit relatively small ones). Leaving the Arabs to their own devices meant risking less oil and more war and instability. The "Arabs" were not and are not a political unit but a mess of tribes and ethnicities. It was a political powder keg then just as it is now.

[Dr Strangelove]

It did mean supporting him in World War 2. And that meant aiding Nazi allies.

You said putting Mussolini into power meant aiding the Nazis, which implied that the very act of supporting Mussolini's coup in 1922 meant supporting a German political movement that was probably completely unknown at the time. You're not a wormhole alien form Deep Space Nine you can't claim to be unaware of the linearity of time.

I don't know

fixed

about these specific examples. I make the point that Arab participation was both eager and willing in many reported and specific instances, and that it went beyond realpolitik to a genuine sympathy for Nazi ideology. Especially when that meant anti-Jewish racism.

Even Chandra Bose paid lip service to Nazi ideals when he was negotiting with them to obtain support of his bid to drive the British out of India, and after all, Chandra could make a valid claim of Aryan status. That's something the Arabs couldn't do. Oh, oh, I'm sorry I mentioned an example that Zevico doesn't know about. Ohhhh...... It's going to be a short discussion if we can't introduce facts that don't support his argument.
Look, you said that Arabs sent Libyan Jews to Bergen Belsen, an idea that's completely ridiculous considering that Libya at the time was controlled by the Italians and Germans.

A brash statement, I admit. There was the Jordanian Arab legion (under British control). The legion was founded well before the war. Also, there were apparently some Gulf Arabs in the Assyrian and Iraqi levees.
There are no other volunteer forces I can find any reference to.

Ah, you didn't notice that I deliberately included French forces. Algerians and Moroccans were a significant component of the Free French Army.

Not at all. My point is that dehumanisation was the first part of the extermination campaign. I am not saying that post--WW2 Arabs participated in the Holocaust because they dehumanised Jews; I am saying that dehumanisation was part of the Arab post-WW2 strategem.

No it wasn't. Jews had been dehumanized in Europe for more than a thousand years. The main point is that to the Arabs of post WW1 era the Balfour proclamation legitimized European occupation of the middle east, and while in the rest of the middle east the Europeans set up native puppet governments with a promise to gradually let them go free, the "promised land" would become a permanent European settlement. I can guarentee you that if the British or French had constructed settlements in the Middle East their settlers would have gotten the same treatment. As a matter of fact the European occupation of the Middle East was best with a nearly unending string of uprisings, guerilla attacks and sabotage.

I do not argue that Sephardi Jews did not immigrate to Israel for Zionist reasons before World War 2 but this was much less common particularly because Zionism was not well known at that time in those places.

Actually there were Zionist organizations scattered throughout the Middle East.

I do point out that Sephardi emigration occurred mostly after the establishment of Israel, and that such emigration was not just to Israel but also to France and the United States; and that overall its effect is to leave the Middle East practically Jew-free apart from Israel. And I do argue that this was in large part becuase Jews were persecuted. Their flight then mirrors (in more rushed circumstances) the flight of Arab Christians from the Middle East today, and for much the same reasons.

The quotes I posted were from people who immigrated to Israel after the foundation of Israel. Well maybe they didn't know what they were talking about. Iraqi christians have been fleeing Iraq because Iraq has been a violent unstable mess, and they know that as Christians they have a better chance of being accepted in the US and Europe. Ditto for the Lebanese.

Under a system of Islamic political and social supremacism. Much as Christian Arabs were under that same 'comfortable' system. Rebellion against that system, and its defeat, was basically attributed to the evils and conspiracies of those same minorities; and in turn, justified their dehumanisation and ultimate extermination.

What rebellion? So what if Arabic Christians and Jews lived in peace under a system dominated by Islamic domination if the majority of people in that area were Muslims. The important fact is that Muslims accepted them and did not persecute them. Face it, you're just against self-determination for colonial peoples.

A simplistic and erroneous explanation for British policy in the Middle East.

Oh please do give us your explanation.[/quote]

So? What does it matter what some Zionist organisation or another presented to some British commission? That presentation did not reflect British policy. Perhaps it reflected the policy of some unnamed Zionist group (of which I am unaware). What does that establish?[/quote] The map got published and became widely accepted as the British plan for the region. After the embarassment of having the map published the British decided to fold Palestine into transjordan for the time being in order to appeas the natives.

What does that establish?

Do you really not understand? It's a pronciple know as self-determination.

Wrong for whom? The British? The French? Oil, old boy, oil, and lots of it, was in the Middle East. So too were markets for goods and services (albeit relatively small ones). Leaving the Arabs to their own devices meant risking less oil and more war and instability. The "Arabs" were not and are not a political unit but a mess of tribes and ethnicities. It was a political powder keg then just as it is now.

And you wonder why so many "arabs" hate folks like you?

[Dr Strangelove]

It did mean supporting him in World War 2. And that meant aiding Nazi allies.

You said putting Mussolini into power meant aiding the Nazis, which implied that the very act of supporting Mussolini's coup in 1922 meant supporting a German political movement that was probably completely unknown at the time. You're not a wormhole alien form Deep Space Nine you can't claim to be unaware of the linearity of time.

I don't know

fixed

about these specific examples. I make the point that Arab participation was both eager and willing in many reported and specific instances, and that it went beyond realpolitik to a genuine sympathy for Nazi ideology. Especially when that meant anti-Jewish racism.

Even Chandra Bose paid lip service to Nazi ideals when he was negotiting with them to obtain support of his bid to drive the British out of India, and after all, Chandra could make a valid claim of Aryan status. That's something the Arabs couldn't do. Oh, oh, I'm sorry I mentioned an example that Zevico doesn't know about. Ohhhh...... It's going to be a short discussion if we can't introduce facts that don't support his argument.
Look, you said that Arabs sent Libyan Jews to Bergen Belsen, an idea that's completely ridiculous considering that Libya at the time was controlled by the Italians and Germans.

A brash statement, I admit. There was the Jordanian Arab legion (under British control). The legion was founded well before the war. Also, there were apparently some Gulf Arabs in the Assyrian and Iraqi levees.
There are no other volunteer forces I can find any reference to.

Ah, you didn't notice that I deliberately included French forces. Algerians and Moroccans were a significant component of the Free French Army.

Not at all. My point is that dehumanisation was the first part of the extermination campaign. I am not saying that post--WW2 Arabs participated in the Holocaust because they dehumanised Jews; I am saying that dehumanisation was part of the Arab post-WW2 strategem.

No it wasn't. Jews had been dehumanized in Europe for more than a thousand years. The main point is that to the Arabs of post WW1 era the Balfour proclamation legitimized European occupation of the middle east, and while in the rest of the middle east the Europeans set up native puppet governments with a promise to gradually let them go free, the "promised land" would become a permanent European settlement. I can guarentee you that if the British or French had constructed settlements in the Middle East their settlers would have gotten the same treatment. As a matter of fact the European occupation of the Middle East was best with a nearly unending string of uprisings, guerilla attacks and sabotage.

I do not argue that Sephardi Jews did not immigrate to Israel for Zionist reasons before World War 2 but this was much less common particularly because Zionism was not well known at that time in those places.

Actually there were Zionist organizations scattered throughout the Middle East.

I do point out that Sephardi emigration occurred mostly after the establishment of Israel, and that such emigration was not just to Israel but also to France and the United States; and that overall its effect is to leave the Middle East practically Jew-free apart from Israel. And I do argue that this was in large part becuase Jews were persecuted. Their flight then mirrors (in more rushed circumstances) the flight of Arab Christians from the Middle East today, and for much the same reasons.

The quotes I posted were from people who immigrated to Israel after the foundation of Israel. Well maybe they didn't know what they were talking about. Iraqi christians have been fleeing Iraq because Iraq has been a violent unstable mess, and they know that as Christians they have a better chance of being accepted in the US and Europe. Ditto for the Lebanese.

Under a system of Islamic political and social supremacism. Much as Christian Arabs were under that same 'comfortable' system. Rebellion against that system, and its defeat, was basically attributed to the evils and conspiracies of those same minorities; and in turn, justified their dehumanisation and ultimate extermination.

What rebellion? So what if Arabic Christians and Jews lived in peace under a system dominated by Islamic domination if the majority of people in that area were Muslims. The important fact is that Muslims accepted them and did not persecute them. Face it, you're just against self-determination for colonial peoples.

A simplistic and erroneous explanation for British policy in the Middle East.

Oh please do give us your explanation.[/quote]

So? What does it matter what some Zionist organisation or another presented to some British commission? That presentation did not reflect British policy. Perhaps it reflected the policy of some unnamed Zionist group (of which I am unaware). What does that establish?[/quote] The map got published and became widely accepted as the British plan for the region. After the embarassment of having the map published the British decided to fold Palestine into transjordan for the time being in order to appeas the natives.

What does that establish?

Do you really not understand? It's a pronciple know as self-determination.

Wrong for whom? The British? The French? Oil, old boy, oil, and lots of it, was in the Middle East. So too were markets for goods and services (albeit relatively small ones). Leaving the Arabs to their own devices meant risking less oil and more war and instability. The "Arabs" were not and are not a political unit but a mess of tribes and ethnicities. It was a political powder keg then just as it is now.

And you wonder why so many "arabs" hate folks like you?

[Al B. Sure!]

Wrong for whom? The British? The French? Oil, old boy, oil, and lots of it, was in the Middle East. So too were markets for goods and services (albeit relatively small ones). Leaving the Arabs to their own devices meant risking less oil and more war and instability. The "Arabs" were not and are not a political unit but a mess of tribes and ethnicities. It was a political powder keg then just as it is now.

Wow. How often have we seen colonialism and the 'white man's burden' supported on Apolyton?

[Dr Strangelove]

Wow. How often have we seen colonialism and the 'white man's burden' supported on Apolyton?

I'll bet he'd vote to end this silly independence rubbish and rejoin the empire in a heartbeat. You know, getting good house help has been just beastly since they let the wogs go.

[Al B. Sure!]

And what's with Arab in quotes? Like Arab is a made-up ethnicity.