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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Aux champs de Mede, d'Arabe et d'Armenie
Deux grands copies trois fois s'assembleront
Pres du rivage d'Araxes la mesnie
Du grand Soliman en terre tomberont

In the fields of Media, Arabe, and Armenia
Two great armies shall assemble three times
Near the Arabic shore or Persian Gulf
The Israelites on land shall tumble

COMMENT: Western armies shall pursue the Muslim armies all the way to Iranian soil or Middle East. The Jews shall be drawn into the conflict and shall suffer greatly.


source:- www.crystalinks.com...




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Judah you're back! So am I!!!

Still justifying lebensraum I see

I spotted this gem in your previous communiqué

'Secondly, Hisotorically the Arab Israeli conflict resulted from Arab intolerance to Jewish immigration into the land of Israel'

There's an obvious historical and geographic flaw in that point - surely you can see it.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   


Hisotorically the Arab Israeli conflict resulted from Arab intolerance to Jewish immigration into the land of Israel'


Where is it written that the Arab Israeli conflict was started by arab intolerance?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
........
Secondly, Hisotorically the Arab Israeli conflict resulted from Arab intolerance to Jewish immigration into the land of Israel.


Jewish immigration into Palestine while under British occupation.


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.....
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.


And Mr. Twain was paid well for his lies.

The land has always been inhabited, and it was not called Syria in the timeframe you cite.

It was part of the Islamic Ottoman Empire stretching back 400 years before WWI.




Friesian: THE OTTOMAN SULT.ÂNS AND CALIPHS, 1290-1924 AD


After WWI the Brits and French divided it up into smaller nations including one called Palestine.




Israeli - Palestinian ProCon.org


There was no Israel at that time, nor had there been one since Biblical times.


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)


Palestine was populated with nearly million people before the British occupation. You should look at the census, not the words of propagandists.

www.mideastweb.org...


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....


Jewish Israelies are no less guilty of bigotry.

Their refusal to honor the right of return shows that their intent is a racist nation.


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.


Maybe in the one city they were for a time the majority, but in the rest of the area they were a small minority as shown in the census.


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.


Why don't they call it the Rothschilds declaration because it is addressed to him.

If there was violence because a Jew asked the british government to steal their land then what is the problem?

You would do the same if it were your land being given away by someone that did not represent you.


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.


The people left their homes in fear of their lives no matter who they were listening to, and Israel refused to allow them to return, and later stole their land.

This is the single largest reason why Israel is hated today, and the largest reason for the 1967 war.

Ethnic Cleansing.


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.


What about the ethics of denying freedom to more than four million people?

What about the 1967 war where Israel invaded in a sneak attack?

What about their racist immigration policies?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel


What about the 1967 war where Israel invaded in a sneak attack?



THAT again?

ArchAngel, this has been explained to you several times. for example here

Here's a quick summary of some of the major events leading up to the Six-Day War


Once again, there are those in the Arab world who seek to rewrite history and impute expansionist motives to Israel, but the facts are clear.


  • On May 16, 1967, Cairo Radio announced: "The existence of Israel has continued too long. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel." On the same day, Egypt demanded the withdrawal of UN forces that had been stationed in Gaza and Sharm el-Sheikh since 1957. Three days later, the UN announced it would comply with the Egyptian demand.

  • On May 19, 1967 Cairo Radio said: "This is our chance, Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation..."

  • On May 23, 1967 Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared his intention to block the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping, thus effectively severing Israel's vital trade links with East Africa and Asia. Israel replied that under international law this was a casus belli, an act of war.

  • On May 27,1967 Nasser said that "our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."

  • On May 30,1967 Jordan's King Hussein placed Jordanian forces under Egyptian control. Egyptian, Iraqi, and Saudi troops were sent to Jordan.

  • On June 1, 1967 Iraq's leader added his thoughts: "We are resolved, determined, and united to achieve our clear aim of wiping Israel off the map."

  • On June 3, 1967 Cairo Radio hailed the impending Muslim holy war.

  • On June 5, Israel, surrounded by Arab forces likely to attack at any moment, launched a preemptive strike.


    Events leading to the Six Day War- 1967 (**)

    Milhemet Sheshet Hayamim - The Six Day War begun. Yes - within six days, Israel had defeated its adversaries and, in the process, captured land on the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian fronts.

    Shortly after the Six-Day War, Israel indicated its desire to negotiate peace with its Arab neighbors. While Israel was unprepared to relinquish the eastern half of Jerusalem it was willing to exchange the seized territories for a comprehensive settlement. But Israel's overtures were rebuffed. An unmistakable response came from Khartoum, Sudan's capital, where Arab leaders issued a resolution on September 1, 1967 announcing the three noes:

  • no peace
  • no recognition
  • no negotiation"


    and Here is Seekerofs posting dt 12-12-2005 on page 4 of thas thread

    1967 Arab-Israeli war + pre-emptive strike + 1967
    define:pre-emptive strike
    States have the right to make pre-emptive strikes on others
    The Legality of Preemptive or Preventive Counterproliferation Strikes


    Originally posted by ArchAngel

    What about their racist immigration policies?



    And THAT also again? This has also explained to you several times, for example, here:


    Israel's Nationality Law relates to anyone wishing to settle in Israel, as well as those already residing or born there, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political beliefs.

    Citizenship may be acquired by:

  • Birth
  • The Law of Return
  • Residence
  • Naturalization

    [edit on 9-2-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by ArchAngel


What about the 1967 war where Israel invaded in a sneak attack?



THAT again?

ArchAngel, this has been explained to you several times. for example here

Here's a quick summary of some of the major events leading up to the Six-Day War

and Here is Seekerofs posting dt 12-12-2005 on page 4 of this thread

1967 Arab-Israeli war + pre-emptive strike + 1967
define:pre-emptive strike
States have the right to make pre-emptive strikes on others
The Legality of Preemptive or Preventive Counterproliferation Strikes


As has been explained to you over, and over again Pre-Emptive and Sneak Attack are not mutually exclusive rather they go hand in hand.

There are always reasons for a sneak attack, but who attacked first is not the only consideration.

What happens after the conflict is what matters, and the fact is that Israel took land that was not theirs, and has to this day refused to either withdraw, or allow the people of the land to become Israeli citizens with supposedly equal rights.

The settlements, and destruction of Palestinian homes and villages amounts to slow motion ethnic cleansing.

It is not justified by saying that Israel 'knew' they were going to be attacked.

Offer a solution for liberating the more than four million Palestinians rather than trying to justify their oppression with supposition from two generations ago.

It is weak, and falls on deaf ears.

The Palestinians are the victims.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   


The Palestinians are the victims.


Yes, but of what? Their own decisions, certainly. The racism of Israeli Nationalists, certainly. But also victims of their class, and victims of nearby arab nations intent on perpetuating the situation for PR purposes, wouldn't you say?

What's so sad is that these people are kin. They've dwelt beside one another for thousands of years, and still can't manage to get along for the most part. The extremists on both sides polarize the debate and make compromise functionally impossible (though no less tempting an ideal, I'll admit).

[edit on 9-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

What about the ethics of denying freedom to more than four million people?



Whom do you talking about?

The Arab Israeli citizens - or the people in the Palestine Authority who just choised to vote for the Terror group HAMAS in their last elections?

Election in the PA was just some days ago.....but some people have very short memory




[edit on 9-2-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


The Palestinians are the victims.


Yes, but of what? Their own decisions, certainly. The racism of Israeli Nationalists, certainly. But also victims of their class, and victims of nearby arab nations intent on perpetuating the situation for PR purposes, wouldn't you say?

What's so sad is that these people are kin. They've dwelt beside one another for thousands of years, and still can't manage to get along for the most part. The extremists on both sides polarize the debate and make compromise functionally impossible (though no less tempting an ideal, I'll admit).


I must suppose that you would say something like this while showing a sense of humanity because you really don't understand who what where and when a Palestinian is.




Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs


The darker blue areas did not belong to Israel before the 1967 sneak attack.

There were people living there when they invaded, and there are more than four million people still living there today.

Their status is non-entity.

They are neither citizens of Israel, nor can they become israelies without the permission of the Interior Minister[Rare].

Twice a year, Every year since the sneak attack The UN has called on Israel to withdraw, but they refuse.

Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other nation in the world if you only count these....



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by ArchAngel

What about the ethics of denying freedom to more than four million people?



Whom do you talking about?

The Arab Israeli citizens - or the people in the Palestine Authority who just choised to vote for the Terror group HAMAS in their last elections?

Election in the PA was just some days ago.....but some people have very short memory


I am speaking of the Palestinians.

They had elections, but the Israeli military has not withdrawn.

They are still under foreign military occupation.

They are not Sovereign.

They are not Free.

And Israel is the one denying them their freedom no matter how you justify it.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

And THAT also again? This has also explained to you several times, for example, here:


Israel's Nationality Law relates to anyone wishing to settle in Israel, as well as those already residing or born there, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political beliefs.

Citizenship may be acquired by:

  • Birth
  • The Law of Return
  • Residence
  • Naturalization



  • You should go back to where you supposedly showed me, and look at my reply because you obviously missed it, but I'll paste it here.

    .......

    If you read it do you even understand it?

    Lets take a closer look at it, and understand what it means in application today.

    Acquisition of nationality by birth

    This is pretty straight forward, and to be expected.

    Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anyone else are Israelies if born to an Israeli parent.

    Acquisition of Nationality according to the Law of Return

    This is racist to the core.

    The Law of Return allows only Jews to immigrate.

    Acquisition of Nationality by Residence

    This applies to everyone that resided in Mandate Palestine before the 1948 war and in Israel until 1952.

    The kink in this is that Israel did not allow the non-Jews who fled in fear of their lives to return to their homes and their land.

    Right of Return for the non-Jews, which was one of the conditions for Israel to become a UN member, has never been honored.

    Acquisition of Nationality by Naturalization

    This gives the Jewish Minister of the Interior the power to grant citizenship almost with a free hand.

    So you can only be an Israeli citizen if you or your parents did not flee before the Stern Gangs reign of terror in fear of your life.

    Or if the Jewish Minister of the Interior says so.

    Or if you are Jewish.

    No non-Jews immigrate, even if they had lived in what is today Israel during the British Occupation, and even owned land there.


    ONLY JEWS CAN IMMIGRATE


    How can you say with an honest face that this is not discriminatory?



    posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:51 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ArchAngel


    ONLY JEWS CAN IMMIGRATE


    THAT again?


    I highly recommend you'd read my posting again. Probably you are also intersted to look at the old discussion, where you still can find sources about immigration into the democratic Jewish State of Israel



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:03 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka

    Originally posted by ArchAngel


    ONLY JEWS CAN IMMIGRATE


    THAT again?


    I highly recommend you'd read my posting again. Probably you are also intersted to look at the old discussion, where you still can find sources about immigration into the democratic Jewish State of Israel





    Why don't you paste it here so that it can be properly debunked.

    Many times before I gave you a pass to avoid going off topic, but not here!



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:32 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ArchAngel

    Why don't you paste it here


    Why should I ?

    Just go into the old threads ad read the facts I provided to you about my country in older discussions.

    It is that easy, Just do it



    [edit on 10-2-2006 by Riwka]



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:47 AM
    link   
    I dont really understand why you guys wanna bother with archangel. All he wants is to rewrite history the way the Japanese tried to do to whitewash their WWII crimes to a new generation of Japanese.

    All those maps and words are pure senselessness and the work of an irrational mind. Leave him to his deliberate ignorance. The only ones who will believe or support him are those who do not bother to study history, only seeking selective and subjective history that suits their purpose to perpertrate lies.

    The world is no longer as foolish as archangel wishes us to assume. Let the fools flock together and revile in their utter stupidity and prejudices.



    [edit on 10-2-2006 by SeekerofTruth101]



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:37 AM
    link   
    wyrdeone,

    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.

    I need to clarify issues with the above statement. When you define overwhelming force you seem to jumble up facts with the propaganda lies of the Palestinian incitement machine.
    1- Kids throwing stones at tanks are not responded with hails of bullets. The hails of bullets come from the IDF when Palestinian gunmen fire from behind children with stones. It does go on record, though, that the IDF may respond to children throwing stone (not at tanks though) with rubber bullets. In general, kids do deserve being beaten when they thow stones on civilian cars. Stones kill.
    Therefore the above line stating that children get bullets between the eyes for throwing stones is false.
    2- Leveling building is not policy unless:
    a) It is the house of a suicide bomber (this policy is not being practiced anymore as an appeasement to the Palestinians). This was done so that volunteer suicidal psychos have second thoughts when considering what will happen to their families.
    b) If a particular building is a location from which numerous attacks are perpetrated.
    c) Whenever the building housed a missle factory or a bomb workshop.
    In all the above cases the buildings are normally demolished when vacant of people.
    d) When intelligence has it that militant are hiding inside the house. Special forces are called to arrest him. If he resists arrest and it is suspected that it wouold be dangerous to enter the house the house is the demolished with him inside.
    e) In the Gaza strip it was policy to bring down houses where the opennings of weapon smuggling tunnels were found.
    f) On a single occasion tens of houses where brought down that were adjactent to the Philidelphi route (border Gaza Egypt) in order to help forces fight the smuggling tunnels.
    Incidentally the tunnels were also used to smuggle foreign agents, contraband and white slaves (e.g. Ukranian women for the prostitution trade).

    Palestinians use every chance to sling mud in Israel and most of it is by using lies.
    The Jenin massacre myth, the IDF poisoning children with radiation, poison candies, HIV viruses, the denial of the holocaust, claiming Mossad perpetrated 9/11, the list goes on and on.

    The Israeli-Arab conflict is a conflict of survival on the Israeli side and Pan-Arab pride on the other. Arabs don't give a flying #*@$ about Palestinians.



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:41 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Strangerous

    I spotted this gem in your previous communiqué

    'Secondly, Hisotorically the Arab Israeli conflict resulted from Arab intolerance to Jewish immigration into the land of Israel'

    There's an obvious historical and geographic flaw in that point - surely you can see it.


    I see your point. I meant land of Israel being the LAND. I will call it Israel. Go to the history and see why Palestine was named Palestine (hint: Jewish revolt circa 1st century AD) then you may understand why I said what I did.

    I see your point



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:31 AM
    link   
    Archangel,

    I never said that Arabs were not a majority in 'the land of Israel' I just mentioned that all your posts and the seeming attitude of the Arabs and Palestinians that the Jews all of a sudden popped into existance in the land.

    My reference to the MAPS and that Palestine at time was never on the maps relied on Twain's book where he seemed to refer to the Palestinians as Syrians at times. This is based on the maps that appeared at the time and more maps and look at the name of this map. These maps are from before Zionism and therefore this would negate any argument stating that the zionists were behind the creation the these maps.
    As you can see Palestine as a nation, people or entity was very artificial until the Zionist movement started. Again, I am not saying that Arabs did not exist on this land. If you look back at my post I stated that Jews drained marshes to create arable lands. This was necessary as to NOT steal lands from Arabs. The claim to land theft is mostly a lie as well. Prior to 1948 Jewish lands were purchased. After the 1948 war there were confiscations as a result of a war initiated by the Arabs.
    It is common knowledge that the 1948 war was initiated by the Arabs so I will not argue this.

    You say that the right to return is racist. OK if that is your view then when the Ottoman Empire refused to allow Jews to immigrate to 'Palestine' and Arabs were allowed to travel freely this was OK. In contrast to what you claim, the British actually greatly restricted Jewish immigration as opposed to freely allowing Arab immigration. Arab population growths in the early 20th century was attributed to a high birthrate in addition to high immigration rates. Jobs were available in 'Palestine' which was very attractive for Arabs from the area who were not 'Palestinian'. In addition, the census you refered to did not reflect the true demographics since illegal Jewish immigrants were NOT counted.

    Peace to you and may you see the light of truth.



    posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:38 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ArchAngel

    I am speaking of the Palestinians.

    They had elections, but the Israeli military has not withdrawn.

    They are still under foreign military occupation.

    They are not Sovereign.

    They are not Free.

    And Israel is the one denying them their freedom no matter how you justify it.


    The Israeli military withdrew during OSLO from most of the Palestinian lands and returned only after the WAR OF OSLO broke out in 2001. This was a necessity in order to defend Israel from the hostilities of teh Palestinians.
    BTW in GAZA there are no Israeli soldiers so they are truely free there. You can see what the Palestinians do with their freedom there - daily barrages of missiles and occasional terror attacks on Israel. That is what they do with there freedom so what do you expect Israel to do?

    [edit on 10/2/06 by JudahMaccabbi]



    posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:17 AM
    link   
    A few notes:
    1. The Palestinians did not leave their homes in 1948 because "arab armies told them to" that is a lie repeated over and over by zionists, they were forced out by a massive terror/murder campaign similar to the one milosovich used in Kosovo during the NATO bombing in 99.

    2. Palestinians are the indeginous people of the levant, indeginous means your grandparents were born there, and so were theirs, and so were theirs. Very few Jews in Israel/Palestine can claim this.

    3. The Palestinian "state" that the Americans/zionists are talking about will end up confining the Palestinians to 10-12 percent of the state(Israel-Palestine), an aphartied scheme, and the clinton/barak camp david plan wasn't much better, leaving Palestinians to seek "equal rights"-which would erase Israel as soon as equal rights are granted-so ofcource they elected Hamas, Fatah wasn't able to get the Palestinains enough space so they can be free and now they are confined into bantustans, either they be given more space-like 22-30% of the state with continuous territory or their must be a 1 state solution and not a jewish or muslim state. Or having Hamas & Likud in the same Parliament?



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    << 1    3 >>

    log in

    join