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.

 

the palestine Israeli conflict

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I know what the conflict must look like to people, with the biased media giving us the story. But, I have recently been thinking it may not be the palestine side that is evil.

Due to the recent elections which brought the Hamas into power in palestine, nation that were thinking about helping palestine just said forget it. no country wants anything to do with a country whose government is nothing but a bunch of terrorists. But if you think about it, what choice did we give these people?

When the Israelis came back to Israel and told the palestinians to leave and the Palestinians refused, a major conflict was started. The Israelis tried to kick out the palestinians only because they claim god gave them the land, whose the religious fanatics again?

Once the war started, the United States and Europe backed the Israelis because they have similar religious beliefs. with the help of Europe and the U.S., Israel was able to fight a war with palestine and with many other neighboring middle eastern countries who were outraged by this invasion. The palestinians, facing superior technology and training of foreign countries, tried the only effective remaining way to fight a war that they could think of, thus terrorism and fundamentalism.

So in a way we created terror and turned the middle eastern countries against us by backing the Israelis. Also Clintons stunt in Lebanon only angered the middle east further, possibly leading to the 9/11 attacks. The war in Iraq and most of the problems therein all stem from this conflict in some obscure way. I wonder if knowing what we know now, would the U.S. nd Europe would side with palestine instead. IMHO it would have been a good decision to just stay out of it.

Mod edit: Title fix.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Djarums]




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
More than that.



1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi


early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.

1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


www.zmag.org...

There is much much more than that listed on the webpage.

Why isnt this known to the American public? We only get one side of the story.

Big Business is secrewing the world over! Thats why ME hates us.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Its like I walk into your city and supported by two major countries and say "Hey god gave us this land get out" kill and kick you out of your own city. I was with Palestine on this case you can have millions of debates but it was and always will be Palestines land.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
What a great idea for a thread.

You may not like where it ends up though.


Originally posted by daedalas
I know what the conflict must look like to people, with the biased media giving us the story. But, I have recently been thinking it may not be the palestine side that is evil.


How about both are evil, but Israel is the orginator of the conflict.


Due to the recent elections which brought the Hamas into power in palestine, nation that were thinking about helping palestine just said forget it. no country wants anything to do with a country whose government is nothing but a bunch of terrorists. But if you think about it, what choice did we give these people?


Hamas is 99% a charity. Terrorism is a small sideline for them.


When the Israelis came back to Israel and told the palestinians to leave and the Palestinians refused, a major conflict was started. The Israelis tried to kick out the palestinians only because they claim god gave them the land, whose the religious fanatics again?


Actually it was the Brits who invaded, and allowed the Euro Jews to immigrate in massive numbers especially after WWII.


Once the war started, the United States and Europe backed the Israelis because they have similar religious beliefs.


Israel represents Jews where the others represent Christians and Muslims.

The western world stood against their co-religionists.


with the help of Europe and the U.S., Israel was able to fight a war with palestine and with many other neighboring middle eastern countries who were outraged by this invasion. The palestinians, facing superior technology and training of foreign countries, tried the only effective remaining way to fight a war that they could think of, thus terrorism and fundamentalism.


There was more than one war, and more than one border.

The original one was in 1948 where Palestine was split.

In the 1967 war where Israel invaded in a sneak attack land that had not belonged to them was taken.

To this day Israel is still there with their military in the West Bank, Gaza, Golon, and the Cheeba Farms.

Never have they allowed these people citizenship, nor have they offered a full withdraw.


So in a way we created terror and turned the middle eastern countries against us by backing the Israelis.


EXACTLY!



Also Clintons stunt in Lebanon only angered the middle east further, possibly leading to the 9/11 attacks. The war in Iraq and most of the problems therein all stem from this conflict in some obscure way.


They stem from Zionisms Grand Intent.

Ezret Israel, from the Nile to the Euprates, with other nations doing the fighting for them.

With outstretced hand the Zionists sit and wait for the Muslim nations to drop the ball so that they can catch it and run to the rivers.


I wonder if knowing what we know now, would the U.S. and Europe would side with palestine instead. IMHO it would have been a good decision to just stay out of it.


If we had simply been fair we would have either bombed Israel until they withdrew, or years later after Iraq invaded Kuwait we would have given Saddam trillions of dollars, use of our UN Veto, some of our best weapons, and Nuclear parts all while saying thank you may I have another.

That would have been fair....



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
In defence of the Brits:

We wanted to establish Israel in Uganda in the 1900's but the Zionists (with significant US backing) insisted it could only be in Palestine (Zion).

We invaded Palestine in WW1 to defeat the Turks.

Post WW2 there were many shipments of Jews to Palestine (funded by US & UK interest groups - mainly US)

Pre-'47 we lost 232 British troops to Israeli terrorist attacks when, under US pressure and faced with a now much larger Jewish population, we decided we could no longer protect the Arabs & withdrew.

Not entirely our fault.

en.wikipedia.org...

My sympathies have always been with the Palestinians - 232 dead squaddies have a lot to do with I admit - but Israel's tactics have, at times, been abhorrent.

I could never defend suicide bombers killing civilians but when faced with a sophisticated martial society enemy who have the best weapons the World can donate I can certainly understand such desperate tactics.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
this is probably going to show my ignorance....

Has Israel ever called for palestine, iran, iraq or saudie to be blown away?

just blow em up?

-DT



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Has Israel ever called for palestine, iran, iraq or saudie to be blown away?


Yes they have. It is the Zionist Grand Intent.

Ezret Israel from the nile to the Euphrates.

Nearly a majority support the enthnic cleansing of all Palestinians.


More Israeli Jews favor transfer of Palestinians, Israeli Arabs - poll finds

Some 46 percent of Israel's Jewish citizens favor transferring Palestinians out of the territories, while 31 percent favor transferring Israeli Arabs out of the country, according to the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies' annual national security public opinion poll.

In 1991, 38 percent of Israel's Jewish population was in favor of transferring the Palestinians out of the territories while 24 percent supported transferring Israeli Arabs.

When the question of transfer was posed in a more roundabout way, 60 percent of respondents said that they were in favor of encouraging Israeli Arabs to leave the country. The results of the survey also reveal that 24 percent of Israel's Jewish citizens believe that Israeli Arabs are not loyal to the state, compared to 38 percent who think the Arabs were loyal to the state at the beginning of the intifada.

They just don't tell you about it on the TV at home because if you really knew what they wanted to do you would no longer look at the Israelies as victims.

Transfer is a nicey-nice word for Ethnic Cleansing of over four million people.

Remember what we did to Serbia for trying this with a much smaller number of people?

Half of propaganda is what they do not tell you....



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
excellent post daedalas and some excellent clarifications by archangel. All i can say now is wait for the anti semitic crap to start and you will have people comparing you to hitler and whatnot



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The transferring of Arabs out of Israel is a security issue. Its not about destroying them. It says nothing of an ethnic clensing. It says remove them from Israeli territory. You got me dizzy with the spin you tried to put on that one.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So now, if people complain about someone being anti-semitic they're wrong, and if a thread (remarkably enough) stays clear of such arguing, there's just GOTTA be someone to come in and bring it about anyways.

Can we return to the topic now?



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
The transferring of Arabs out of Israel is a security issue. Its not about destroying them. It says nothing of an ethnic clensing. It says remove them from Israeli territory. You got me dizzy with the spin you tried to put on that one.


Ethnic cleansing is changing the ethnic population of an area.

Maybe you are confusing that term with Genocide.

It was obvious the other poster was creating a moral parallel where the Iranian leader called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Nothing need be destroyed for this to happen.

In reality what he was calling for was the transfer of the Askenazi Jews of Israel back to Europe.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Sorry partner, wrong again. Swing and a miss strike 2. Technically ethnic cleansing can include genocide as well.

Ethnic Cleansing


[edit on 2/8/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Sorry partner, wrong again. Swing and a miss strike 2. Technically ethnic cleansing can include genocide as well.

Ethnic Cleansing


By the definition provided by your own link the 'transfer' of Palestinains would constitute ethnic cleansing.

The worst ethnic cleansing since WWII.

It would wipe Palestine off the map.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Aye yes, you were technically right. Ill acknowledge that. But what if it could end the bombings of public places, shootings, and other madness that occurs in Israel every day. No more dead Israelis or Palestinians. Dont you think its best to seperate the two, I mean they will never live in total harmony, that is very clear I'm sure to most.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Hmm I see your logic

Palestinians living in their own land with a few Jews. Loads more Jews turn up.

Jews slowly take over land, killing Palestinians, more Jews turn up.

Jews win nation status after bloody terrorist campaign, more Jews turn up.

Jews grab more Palestinian land, more Jews arrive

Palestinians start own terrorist campaign

Jews put Palestinians in big camps, deprive them of basic services, grab more land

Now Palestinians and other Arabs to be deported 'somewhere else'

Astounding!

I agree, technically, that the two races should be separated but why should it be the Palestinians that have to move?

For an 'oppressed people' the Israelis seem to have picked up a few lessons along the way.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Nice thread displaying complete and total ignorance.

Hamas winning the election was mostly a result of internal Palestinian affairs. Anyone with a slight bit of knowledge about the Palestinian authority would also know that the main problem with the Fatah led PA was that they where corrupt as hell. While the Palestinians lived in poverty the leadership would squander away the PAs money. This has happened since the establishment of the PLO. The leadership lived in Villas in extreme wealth while the people themselves, as they claim, live in poverty ridden camps.
That was the primary reason the people voted for Hamas over Fatah. Another reason was the policy of Yassir to use the PA media outlets for virulent insitement against the Jews and for Martyrdom - A policy which worked for the benefit of the extremists which eventually backfired on the Fatah. Finally, Hamas was a charity organization at first which supplied education and healthcare before it turned to terrorism after alining with the Egyptian Moslim Brotherhood. During this period Israel supported Hamas as an alternative to the PLO.
So blaming Israel on the results of the election is quite idiotic.

Secondly, Hisotorically the Arab Israeli conflict resulted from Arab intolerance to Jewish immigration into the land of Israel.
Zionism is political movement supporting the idea of the creation of a homeland in the land of Israel. Zionism did not intend to 'steal lands' from natives but create a homeland on unihabitated land. Information on the land of Israel at the time was the land was mostly unihabited as was observed from numerous newspaper articles and journal records from people such as Mark Twain in 1867:


“ ...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

He never even talked about Palestinians but called them Syrians since, at the time, Palestine a a land did not exist but was considered southern province of Syria.
With this said the general feeling was that 'Palestine' was relatively barren. The arable land in Palestine was mostly taken by the people there, the Palestinians. This forced the Jewish immigrants (remember there was also a large influx of Non-Jewish Arab imigrants as well which are wrongfully perceived to be Palesinians) to go to unarable land and cultivate it. This was done in the remaining swamp lands. Malaria was a common disease among Jewish immigrants who contracted the disease from working by those swamps. Eucalyptus trees were imported for the purpose of draining the swamp lands and then cultivating the land. Now Israel is full of these trees.

My feeling is that Muslims and Arabs in general are too proud a people to allow for a Jewish sovereignty in what they perceive as Arab land and therefore as a result hostilities ensued. In Islamic terms non-Muslims who believe in the one G-d are coined dhimmi . This in itself is a bigotted concept. With this bigotry rooted in a people and a religion it is obvious why intolerance of a Jewish political entity is in effect until today.

The posts here make it sound like Jews did not exist in the land of Israel prior to Zionism. This is false. Jews made-up a majority of Jerusalem (Israel's Largest city) since the early 1800s.
My wife's family came from Safed for generations meaning - as far back as they remember.

If you want to discuss violence in the land. The violence was actually initiated by the Arabs in the 1920s as a response to the Balfour declaration.
These were instigated by Haj Amin El-Husseini (a distant relative of Yassir Arafat) who later became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Haj Amin El-Husseini was also a Nazi supporter and guest if of the Nazi regime where he enthusiasticallysupported extermination of the Jews
Jews responded to Arab riots and terrorist actions only in the late 1930s and this was by one organization 'the Irgun'. The first war was a war initiated by the Arabs. Arab nations themselves tried to persuade the Palestinian Arabs to leave their houses so it would be easier for the Arab armies to annhilate the Jews. This backfired on the Arabs and they are crying to this day about it.

That is the fact about violence and who initiated it. I am not saying that Israel is clean of blame. Israel has engaged in queastionable activities but I am suggesting that in comparison to the Palestinians and the Arabs Israel is much, much cleaner. The Arab world is caught up in the middle ages in terms of their ethics - this is true both now and in the past.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Nobody likes the atrocities committed by the Jews during occupation, but looking at it from just a slightly different angle provides some context. The Jews have been beaten around and tossed back and forth for thousands of years. They were persecuted almost relentlessly by European Christians, and tolerated (for the most part) by Arabs/Muslims, historically at least.

Their existence was certainly more peaceful in the holy land, historically, than anywhere else. While Jews in the holy land were not exactly welcome, neither were they burnt at the stake by the village-full, driven from their homes time and time again, and robbed of their material possessions simply because of their heritage. The Jewish state was founded in one of the few places not in the grips of anti-semitism, but of course that changed pretty quickly.

Arab anti-semitism is really quite recent, a point that most seem to miss in their rantings against Islam and the arab nations.

I gotta think the Jews have consistently gotten the short end of the violence stick, for thousands of years. That fact alone doesn't justify their actions over the last 50 or so years, but it really does put the transgression into context. For being the chosen people, they have some seriously crap luck.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Regarding ethnical cleansing:
In 1929 the 67 Jews were killed in Hebron. As a result the Jews were removed from Hebron by the British. This was the first case of ethnical cleansing both by the Arabs by their murderous spree and by the British (incidentally it was only after 1967 when Israel conquered the West Bank that the Jews were returned to Hebron - a correction of a wrong).
The mass exodus of the Arabs from Israel in 1947 was a result of the Arab armies why asked the Arabs to leave their home (as I mentioned in teh previous post).
It was recently the Jews who where ethnically cleansed by their own country in Gaza afew months ago.
Finally, hostilities between Greeks and Turks after the Greco-Turkish war (1919-1922) was much reduced by a populace transfer (Ethnical cleansing) which awarded a Norwegian diplomat a Nobel prize from peace after 2 million people were transferred from their homes.

I suggest the following. It is obvious that the Arabs and the Jews do not get along in the current scheme of things. A populace transfer would be necessary to reduce the friction. Therefore, hostile Arabs would need to be transferred from Israel to 'Palestine' as well as small villages adjacent to Israel and small Jewish settlements that are not within strategic or historically significant locations would have to be moved to either Israel or the new areas defined as Israel under the new border definitions.

Historically it is the Arabs who provoked and initiated violence and therefore it is the Arabs who need to 'suffer' the consequences.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
WyrdeOne,
I need to correct you here

The Jews have been beaten around and tossed back and forth for thousands of years. They were persecuted almost relentlessly by European Christians, and tolerated (for the most part) by Arabs/Muslims, historically at least.


Yes, Jews were persecuted in the 'Christian world'. But they where also persecuted in the Arab/Moslem world even before Zionism see here as a single reference (there are others).


I gotta think the Jews have consistently gotten the short end of the violence stick, for thousands of years. That fact alone doesn't justify their actions over the last 50 or so years, but it really does put the transgression into context.


What actions are you referring to? We can bring this up and talk the issues on a one to ine basis. I am not saying Israel is clean but the Arabs are certainly dirty when it comes to the actions they engaged in.
In a nutshell. Israel was created on a strip of land under the authroity of the UN. The Arabs disagreed, attacked and lost. They lost more land then they would have if they didn't attack. Is Israel to blame? Palestinians left their houses under fear of the upcoming war and at the request of the Arab armies. Is Israel to blame?
Occupation of the West Bank after 1967 is Israel fault? What historical reasons did Israel have to take control of the West Bank and Gaza? I suggest all the posters on this thread research this from a balanced perspective.
We in Israel have been brainwashing our children toward peace for decades. Many of our most popular songs are about peace as well. There are those who are extremists but they are both not in power and also a minority. Even mony of those bad settlers are willing to give up their homes for peace and compensation.
It is the inherent jingoism of Pan-Arabism feuled by the Muslim Dhimmi laws that forbid them from accepting Israel wholeheartedly since in their view we are lesser people since we are not Muslims.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Interesting link, thanks for providing it.


My statement was qualified with (for the most part), and I guess any debate on the accuracy of the statement is moot, since I didn't (and indeed can't) qualify it further. I based my statement on the fact that Dhimmi status was an improvement of sorts over European laws governing Jewery during the medieval period (medieval Jews had NO protections from property seizure, outright murder, and forced conversion in Europe - excepting the almost prenaturally tolerant atmosphere that persisted in Italy most of the time, IIRC.)

I also based my statement on the fact that Jews spent most of the medieval period being pushed out of Europe, ever Eastward it seems. They got shuffled around the European counties for a time (not necessarily eastward), essentially going in large numbers wherever the laws were most tolerant. The Christian church was instrumental in the persecutions, as opposed to the other side, where Islam offered the only shred of protection available to Jews in arab tribal lands.

The 'actions' I mentioned: the use of overwhelming force as a deterrent shows questionable judgement, IMO. It hasn't worked yet anyway. Kids throwing stones at tanks, getting bullets between the eyes, that sort of thing. Levelling buildings because intelligence indicated one or more residents may be involved in terrorist activities.

Obviously endless appeasement isn't going to solve the problem either though, so people need to put on their thinking caps and find new avenues to explore for possible solutions. I don't know if occupation of the West Bank is either strictly necessary from a tactical pov, or advisable from a PR standpoint, or even ethical - I just don't know.

Spoils of war are hard to contest though. If you attack me, and I knock you out, don't be surprised if I take your wallet as compensation for my time.




[edit on 9-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join