It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hamas will make a deal! Withdraw For End To Armed Resistance

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
really? tell these settlers that news.bbc.co.uk...


Maybe you got the wrong link.

The article there is titled: Muhammad cartoon row intensifies

Muslims outraged over a cartoon has nothing to do with the discussion here.


dont be ignorant they offered it once before but were rejected.


WRONG!

Israel has never offered a full withdraw.

They always want more land.


are you really that ignorant? israel is a democracy with a constitution...


Now you went and stepped in it, and then put your foot in your mouth.

The Israeli constitution is the original interim constitution, and it is void.

They were supposed to create a full constitution and let the people vote on it much like what Iraq recently did.

That never happened.

The PEOPLE never had a say so it is not a democracy.

Israel is a nation without a foundation.

It is an interim indirect representation republic in violation of its un-ratified founding document.

The people vote for parties, not for individual candidates that represent a certain land area.

The legislature only answers to its fellow party members.

If you really, really believe that there is an Israeli democratic constitution please present it.

Being able to vote does not make a nation democratic.


and palestinians want their own state, not israeli citizenship


I was only saying that it was a possibility for a solution to the occupation.

It could happen.....


BUT there are palestinians in the israeli government.


WRONG!

There are a few non-Jewish ISRAELI CITIZENS in the Israeli Government, but no Palestinians.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by ArchAngel]




posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what does an article about the charicature of mohammed prove about israel keeping agreements?

first off, does israel have ANY right to exist as a nation?


oops, wrong link...

here news.bbc.co.uk...

thats irrelevant, they already exist..if you hate jews just say so instead of hiding your anti-semitism in veiled rational questions.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the president of iran is one man, who can and will be overthrown if he were to go to war without the consent of his people, who are largely against attacking israel.

What part of "represents" did you not comprehend? Your implying another Operation Ajax? Well we know how that ended and so does Iran. Why don't you tell me your version of a proxy war.

Just who do you think the premiere takes his barking orders from? Where was all this dissent when Ahmadinejad announced his “second revolution” and how did he get elected by majority?

Iranian dissent? Yeah sure, with the West banging them over the heads with a no nukes or else stick. Ya ya, they're just going up and revolt about the new Hamas army attacking Isreal, so they can lick Uncle Sam's and Israel's buns instead.

Just like the US up and revolted for an illegal war based on false data, ehh?


Hamas regards the territory of the present-day State of Israel — as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — as an inalienable Islamic waqf or religious bequest, which can never be surrendered to non-Muslims. en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">wiki








[edit on 1-2-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

WRONG!

Israel has never offered a full withdraw.

They always want more land.


Now you went and stepped in it, and then put your foot in your mouth.

The Israeli constitution is the original interim constitution, and it is void.



yes they have, youre wrong not me
really now... muse.jhu.edu.../journals/shofar/v021/21.4edelman.html
appears their supreme court thinks otherwise.



[edit on 1-2-2006 by namehere]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

yes they have, youre wrong not me
really now... muse.jhu.edu.../journals/shofar/v021/21.4edelman.html
appears their supreme court thinks otherwise.


This is what I get:


Access Restricted
In order to proceed, you must set your browser to accept cookies and then reload the login page.

This article is available through Project MUSE, an electronic journals collection made available to subscribing libraries.

NOTE: Please do NOT contact Project MUSE for a login and password. See How Do I Get This Article? for more information.


But I have no restrictions on cookies in both Firefox and IE, and it won't let me in.

Maybe you could paste the important parts...

Or, instead you could post a link to the Israeli constitution itself instead of what someone said.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Oh please... yes the palestinians or the israelis whichever side you support don't have blood on their hands....

THE TRUE REALITY of the situation whether any propagandist on either side wishes to deal with it is plainly this. THE balfour decision is something we have to live with or face much more severe reprecussions in the very near future. Now including this the fact that Israel kicked the snot out of all comers multiple times.... you have a nation with a military and treaty right to exist... hamas gives up getting back their so called territory eventually or the europeans and russians will realize they don't want to give back territory to the cossacks and don't want to give a tithe of women and gold to the vikings.... As historical precedent says that is RIGHT too.

Honestly we all stand around treating the vanquished like the oppressed when most nations have been built on bones and the driving out of whoever.... it would be like saying the french had some sort of right to england .... any of you agree with that?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Oh please... yes the palestinians or the israelis whichever side you support don't have blood on their hands....


I support all of the sides.

Equal rights for everyone, or a return to pre-war borders.

There is only one other side here in this forum, and thats the far right Zionist side.

No one here is calling for the destruction of Israel.

What you have here is one side -vs- the middle, not a dichotomy.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
oooh the return of post war borders..... well answer me this little riddle then please.

how did us americans win most of our territory... I seem to recall poisoned blankets and winchester carbines playing a part....

My point is simple unless we want to give the US back to the sioux blackfoot apache and etc we are kinda roped into supporting israel.


The idea of supporting some nebulous historical claim to territory is a slippery slope my friend and one that would ultimatelly cost you your nice warm house and fairly new car.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Ok ordinarilly I'd just do an edit of my last post but I figured I should clarify some things.

1. I should clarify that morally I find the stances of both so called nations extraordinarilly offensive. the entire israel versus palestine fight to me smacks of a my dad can beat up your dad argument transferred to a my god can beat up your god fight.

2. My only support of israel comes from sheer pragmatism. (btw the root word of that is pragmatic which is in itself a nice way of saying selfishness)
This comes into play in a simple statement really. the palestinians LOST a war, the jordanians LOST a war, the Egyptians LOST a war..... ya get my point yet.... ?
to transfer the point the Sioux indians lost to us, the blackfoot lost to us,..... get it now?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

The idea of supporting some nebulous historical claim to territory is a slippery slope my friend and one that would ultimatelly cost you your nice warm house and fairly new car.


Is the 'nebulous' historical claim you are refering to the Muslim, or Arab claim to the land?

There is no question that is has been under Islamic/Arabic control for more than a thousand years before the Brits invaded in WWI, and the Western Powers later gave away the Arab lands.

The Jewish claim is the 'nebulous' one.

The same for the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golon.

Please look through the maps here:

Friesian: Islâm, 622 AD-present



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Equal rights for everyone, or a return to pre-war borders.


Then get off Seminole land or your talking heap big cow pie.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
regenmacher that was what I was attempting to say. at the end of the day how many decades centuries or millenia back do we go to decide who has the so called "ancestral right" to the land?

many people don't realize how much upheaval we could cause by opening this pandoras box.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Then get off Seminole land or your talking heap big cow pie.


you're.

Apples and Oranges.

Seminoles are afforded citizenship, and Equal Rights.

Palestinians are not.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump
regenmacher that was what I was attempting to say. at the end of the day how many decades centuries or millenia back do we go to decide who has the so called "ancestral right" to the land?

many people don't realize how much upheaval we could cause by opening this pandoras box.


For the occupied territories you only have to go back to 1967 when Israel invaded in a sneak attack.

Why not withdraw, or assimilate the people by making them citizens?

One, or the other option must be better than the current situation.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Oh the sneak attack that was really a Spoilling attack? Considered by even the chivalric type to be a valid military concept....

because all that military buildup was just for practice by the pan arab coalition?

OOOOH and for the record my historically rose colored goggle wearing friend. even the so called victim nations admit they were within weeks of launching an invasion at that point.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Sugarlump]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Seminoles are afforded citizenship, and Equal Rights.


Only after the Seminoles were literally wiped out and the remaining ones were too deep in the Everglades to be removed. Your idea of fair only applies to those not in your backyard. Hypocrisy is what you preach, walk the talk....excuses everyone has.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
As I understand it, the initial topic concerned the real motives for HAMAS to make a deal with the Israelis for that territory.

Answer is! Food! Plain and Simple. In exchange, like the Mexicans, do hard manual labor in Isreal for paycheck to buy goods from Isreal for themselves. -

Now for all those intellectual types out there with education facile in the areas of geographics combined with that regional food markets, is there another Middle Eastern country that could sustain such a market. And la. If Isreal is taken out of the food equasion, (this includes access to its sea ports) Where would Palistine get food to feed it's people? Let alone a country that has religious views commensurate with theirs.

I am looking forward to finding out which country could handle it in about five years or less. Cordially, Ravenmock.

P.S. I am thinking Syria.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
As I recall, there have been a number of attempts to regain lost land with force. And, as I recall, the 1967 war is not even the most recent, and by no means should be the benchmark. It is simply the most profitable for the Palestinians to launch yet another assault into Israeli territory.

It should be noted, as well, that the Arab nations all but egged on the war. Syria was shelling Israeli CIVILIAN settlements in the spring of '67, and Jordanian troops occupied Jerusalem's Old City. Egyptians blockaded the straights of Tiran, forcing more economic pressure on the Israeli state. Israel's war was not an offensive one, it was one of survival. It was NOT unproked. The Arab states were simply in the wrong. Read the history.

DE



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sugarlump
Oh the sneak attack that was really a Spoilling attack? Considered by even the chivalric type to be a valid military concept....

because all that military buildup was just for practice by the pan arab coalition?

OOOOH and for the record my historically rose colored goggle wearing friend. even the so called victim nations admit they were within weeks of launching an invasion at that point.


While its true that there were many reaons for doing so the fact remains that the 1967 war was launched with an Israeli Sneak Attack where they bombed the Arab Airforces as they sat on the ground.

The fact remains that from then until today they have refused to withdraw from land taken in that war, and have denied National, Civil, and Human Rights to what now numbers over four million people.

What solution would you propose if not what I suggest?

Outright ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and Israel absorbs all of the land?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Israel's war was not an offensive one, it was one of survival.


How do you tell if you are offense, or defense?

You look at the ground under your feet.

If it didn't belong to you before the conflict began then you are the offender.

If it was only survival Israel would have withdrawn long ago.

The occupation is the largest single source of hatred against them.

In order to survive Israel must allow an equitable solution.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join