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.

 

Arab Palestinians; political pawns and human weapons

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I think the Middle East is in the news more than it ever has been, and while people are searching for the reasons why things are happening as they are in the Middle East, they are seriously contemplating other situations of the Middle East for the first time. Because of this, the Arab Palestinians are being looked at in a deeper, more critical way be folks who, until 2001, would have simply thought of them as those people who live in tents in refugee camps (that oughta give you a clue as to how antiquated their knowledge is).

What I would like to do with this typo-filled less-than-masterpiece is to describe how the Arab Palestinian Plight came about, what nations should be held responsible for assimilation of these people and why they are not doing this.

Before I go any farther, though, I would like to recommend a documentary that is pretty darned long (300 minutes) but well worth the time, if you want the facts with as little twist as one could ever get:
www.amazon.com...

Regardless of the fact that the Arab land territory is darned near 650 fold that of Israel's meagar allowance, when the United Nations voted to divide Palestine so that the Jews could also have a homeland, the concept of them having their own political entity was immendiatley met with threats of violence by the Arabs. As a matter of fact, a jihad was called for if this partition was to occur. Go figure, violence erupted as soon as the partition was created. Attacks on Jews spread throughout the area. 1948 brought major attacks on Jewish towns in the north, and the British handed over military posts and weapons to the Arabs, claiming they did not have the assets with which to stop the violence. The United Nations itself blamed the violence on the Arabs, stating that powerful Arab interests, both inside as well as outside the Palestinian area were working to disrupt the settlement of the area.


The partition was never recinded, so on 14 May, 1948, Israel declared itself a nation.
The Arabs neighbors immediately attacked. As the Secretary-General of the Arab League said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

Although the Arab world attacks the new state of Israel, Israel herslef is not forcing Arab Palestinians to flee. An example of this is a British report from Haifa:
"every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." This was not to be the case, though, as the Arabs were afraid they would be labelled as traitors, and so 50,000 estimated, fled. In the United NAtions, Syria attempted to assert that a massacre had occured there, but the same day, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee told the U.N, that the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town." than to accept a true.
The U.S. Council-General in Haifa reported that the Mufti of that area told the Arabs to leave, and themajority of the Arabs did just that.

This leads me to the meat of this essay on the Arab Palestinian Plight; the Arab leaders urged the Arabs living in Israel to leave.

In Haifa, the Higher Arab Executive notified the remaining Arabs that if they stayed and accepted "Jewish protection" would be considered renegades.

Iraqi leader Nuri Said said, "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

To me, one of the most damning pieces of evidence that the Arab refugee problem was Arab-created is the admission by Edward Atiyah, who was the Secretary of the Arab League Office in London. Atiyah said, "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country."
The Near East Broadcasting Station out of Cyprus had this to say in 1949,"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem."

After the war, and after Israel's successful fight to survive, the refugee problem still existed. Of course, it is not possible to simply allow a flood of people hostile to your small nation to sweep across your land, infiltrating and becomeing a 5th column for the next attempted invasion. Still, Israel attempted to make right for the Arab Palestinians even though they fled, either out of fear or out of loyalty to the "brethren" rahter than standing firm in their homes or fighting with their non-Arab neighbors for the new state. Israel offered to pay the Arabs for the property that they left behind, they offered to reunite families that become disconnected because of the war and even to repatriate 100,000 refugees. The Arabs refused all attempts to make better the situation.

The fact that the offers to reimburse, reunite and repatriate were turned down are not the only curious things to have happened. While Israel was absorbing thousands of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Arab countries, many allowed to leave with nothing more than their clothes, the Arab Palestinians were having difficulty finding Arab states willing to take them in. In fact, the only nation that accepted the refugees was Jordan, as King Abdullah considered them as one people.

I am posting this to ask you to think about this; why is it that the ones who are always the first to scream "The Palesitians" (meaning Arab-Palestinian refugees) and point their fingers accusingly at Israel refuse to absorb their "brothers" even though they are the ones who prompted the Arab Palestinians into the situation that they found themselves in? Why is it that they shirk the responsibility that they should shoulder, rather than making sure that these "brothers" are trapped in the situation they are in?

I suggest that the reasons are painfully clear. The reasons are so that they can be continuously used as political fodder, phychological manipulation, and from the desperate poor and ignorant, willing volunteers to be human bombs against the Israeli citizens.

I suggest to you that this is an international conspiracy between the Arabic nations to deprive a group of their own the chance to be more than refugees so that the nations can continue their striving toward their end goal - the destruction of Israel.




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   


I am posting this to ask you to think about this; why is it that the ones who are always the first to scream "The Palesitians" (meaning Arab-Palestinian refugees) and point their fingers accusingly at Israel refuse to absorb their "brothers" even though they are the ones who prompted the Arab Palestinians into the situation that they found themselves in?


Your post totally ignores the 1967 Israeli Sneak Attack.

Before Israel invaded the Palestinians, and their land was not ever under Israeli control.

The Arab nations are not agreeing to "absorb their brothers" because there is no reason to unless Israel commits the greatest act of ethnic cleansing the world has seen since WWII by driving more than four million people from their homes.

You fault the Arabs for what Israel has done, and accuse them of using the Palestinians while yourself calling for a massive warcrime?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
T .C. after reading your umm.. debate with AA, I thought I would jump on your bandwagon and add an interesting article that I'm sure you can appreciate and hopefully will add a little insite for AA.
www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Myths about World Net Daily -- This is a respectable news source.

This is an agenda-driven newspaper. Why don't you find something that doesn't have an obvious political bias?

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
This is an agenda-driven newspaper. Why don't you find something that doesn't have an obvious political bias?

Care to subjectively provide a newspaper that is not agenda-driven to some extent, Jamuhn?

Personally, I would have a hard time putting one forth as being straight and completely objective or without 'agenda'.

Hell, the New York Times is allegedly one of the most respected papers sources in the world. As such, they are and have been "agenda-driven," just ask Eisenhower.

Your busting on a news source by using the 'a' typical ATS phrase that it is "agenda-driven," all the while neglecting the glaring factoid that regardless of degree, virtually all news sources are biased, slanted, and "agenda-driven" in one respect or another.




seekerof

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Care to subjectively provide a newspaper that is not agenda-driven to some extent, Jamuhn?


Read my comments again, Seekerof...


Originally posted by Jamuhn
Why don't you find something that doesn't have an obvious political bias?


Thanks. It is true that most, if not all, news-sources these days have some sort of devious agenda whether it be blatantly obvious in this case or lay hidden in the words used or the type of news reported on.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Thanks Seekerof, I was about to reply in kind.

Yes , Jamuhn it would be hard pressed to find a news source that is not agenda driven or biased, so the same goes for both sides.

I was merely pointing out an Arabs view(Joseph Farrah is an Arab) and has written many articles on this subject. If you didn't like the first article, your not going to like this either, but I feel the need to post as there are many conflicting arguments to this situation and without reading both sides one may come away with a not so difinitive answer.


www.sullivan-county.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It would be extremely interesting, ArchAngel, if you would provide information on the war crimes that are on topic with this thread.
This thread is not about the '67 War, to which you refer with your misleading and false misnomer.

I assure you at this time, AA, the next time tyou are banned for intentionally derailing a thread, you will be banned for good. You have a LOT of guts trying to do that in a thread I started, and before the second page is started.
Please, as Dirty Harry would say, make my day. I started this thread for the specific reason to keep another thread from being derailed, and you are totally aware of that.

Wait a minute. Yes, you are aware of that. And, yes, you know the last warning and three day ban was your last warning.

What is it, are you enjoying the penalty box? Does it give you time to think of other ways of derailing threads.
And to think, tomorrow I was leaving this particular topic of discussion and heading toward medical/nutritional topics and conspiracies. Your timing is WAY bad.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
why does everyone have to take sides on this?

can't both of these nations be wrong?

can't we just learn to look at things in gray?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The first thing that causes me to wonder about yuor knowledge of the topic is that you asked why these "two nations...."

Read my posting again. It isn't saying that any one side is spotless. No nation is. What I am saying is that there is a conspiracy between the Arab nations to use the Arab Palestinians as a tool against Israel, and that is why they are in the position they are now in.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Two nations? There is only one Nation, Israel, having it's civillians killed by terrorists.

Also, to AA, sneak attack? The Arab world declares war, sends troops, then Israel strikes before the armies of several nations got to Israel. It's like saying America sneak attacked Germany because America struck Germany first, ignoring that an ally of Germany, Japan, struck America, declared war on America, and that Germany was attacking American Friends/Allies.

On topic, I don't get why Israel isn't allowed to play in the sand box, America is attacked by, maybe, Arabs, and we have permission to invade any nation with Arabs in it. Israel is attacked by Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, multiple times, hundreds of times, and they are the bad guys?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Palestinians refugees were created by US. Without US military and financial supplies to Israel they would never have won against the Arabs.

More so there is never a justifable reason as to why the Middle East was chosen to be divided for the Jewish survivors of the Nazi discrimination to live in. Just because the current Palestine was homeland of the Jews' ancestors some thousand years ago before they were exiled by the Romans doesn't make it reasonable. All our ancestors came from Africa, does it mean everyone can go to UAE, South Africa and other African nations and demand a piece of land to live in?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Uh, that makes no sense.
Because they survived the unwarranted attack, we are at fault.
Flash for you, they were not supplied by us. Read a little history and you'll find out that we did NOT start out as a steady ally for Israel at all. As a matter of fact, the only nice thing we did was to give them the nod by recognizing them.
After that, we didn't show them favor until the Arabs clearly sided with the Soviets.

Please, "common" wisedumb that is not IAW the historical facts is nothing to base you opinion on.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
There are two nations. Whether we call them Palestinians, Philistines, or Joe-Jetsons, the fact is that there are many Arabic-speaking people who have called the land of Palestine their home for generations upon generations. As such, these people are a nation, bound by a common language and a common geographical region.

Arguably, the most commonly used definition of nation:

A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

dictionary.reference.com...

What may be disputed is that these people are not a state, that is, with a government. But, even then we find:

Currently, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), along with the United States, the European Union, and the Arab League, envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all or part of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government.

The State of Palestine was recognized immediately by the Arab League, and about half the world's governments recognize it today. It maintains embassies in these countries (which are generally PLO delegations). The State of Palestine is not recognized by the United Nations, athough the European Union, as well as most member states, maintain diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, established under the Oslo Accords

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
The US did re-supply Israel during the Yom-Kippur war. Just adding my two cents TC. Israel would have lost that one had the US not resupplyed them, the Israelis were litteraly on the coast of the Medditerrainian.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
This isn't the Yom Kippur War, Chris. Thanks for your .o2, I alwyus appreciate you joining in the discussions with me!

That particular war was in 1973. The U.S. only supplied Israel with supplies that were not weapons, I believe, after the Soviets quickly resupplied Egypt, and after the Soviets refused to help in bringing about a cease fire. Egypt and Syria were backed, both financially and with weapons and aircraft,. by nine or so Arab states.

While this war has nothing to do with the Refugee problem, it goes to show that, rather than spending money to absorb these refugees, as Israel absorbed the refugees that fled the Arabic states that threatened violonce to them if the partition was to occur, they would rather spend resources in the attempt to destroy Israel.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
That is not true. The Arabs only turned to Czechoslovakia for arms when they were defeated by the Israelis which were provided arms by the US. Israel was just established and it had no chance of winning against the outnumbered and better equipped Arab allied forces without any major foreign support.

The British just abandoned Palestine/Israel to UN, it didn't want anything to do with the Middle East until all the Jews Arabs mess is sorted out. France had no interest in ME, US was the only one with a valid reason to be involved expanding its sphere of influence in the ME region against the Soviets via Israel, especially after its Vietnam and Korea losses in containment of communism.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
This isn't the Yom Kippur War, Chris. Thanks for your .o2, I alwyus appreciate you joining in the discussions with me!

That particular war was in 1973. The U.S. only supplied Israel with supplies that were not weapons, I believe, after the Soviets quickly resupplied Egypt, and after the Soviets refused to help in bringing about a cease fire. Egypt and Syria were backed, both financially and with weapons and aircraft,. by nine or so Arab states.

While this war has nothing to do with the Refugee problem, it goes to show that, rather than spending money to absorb these refugees, as Israel absorbed the refugees that fled the Arabic states that threatened violonce to them if the partition was to occur, they would rather spend resources in the attempt to destroy Israel.


Oh sorry bout that. I thought you meant throughout history, just a misinterpretation on my part. Thanks for the correction, I too enjoy joining your posts, always make for interesting conversation.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
May I throw my 2 cents worth into the arguement.

My wifes grandfather (RIP) was a Haganna fighter in the 1948 war. He used to tell us that the Arabs were well equiped and out numbered the Jews. The thing that the Jews had was:
1- Better training: He used to tell us - "the Arabs wer stupid, they would throw grenades at us without pulling the safety pins. We would take the grenades, pull the pin and throw it back at them. He added another story that he was once taken to battle with a gun with 5 bullets, his comrades would kill an enemy and then provide him with ammunition and weapons of the enemy.
2- Jews had no choice but to fight for survival. Arabs on the other hand had no such motivation. They fought for a the pride of their leaders. Jews were willing to fight to the death. My wifes grandfather would say that whenever he went out to a battle he did not expect to come back. This is similar in mindset to todays Mujhaddin fighters and Palestinian suicide teams except that it did not have a religeous basis but a national one.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Well, of course the Palestinians are pawns.

The Arab nations use them for political fodder. What's the best way to hide your own ineptness at leadership in a mideaset nation? Scream about how Israel is oppressing hte Palestinians. It's also a great motivator. Without the Palestinians there getting the crap kicked out of them, Mideast leaders lose a great political resource.

They're also useful for the other side. Palestinian bombing is a profitable business for Israel - If the Palestinians suddenly made piece, or were accepted into their neighboring countries as full citizens, America would be that much less inclined to throw money at Israel. What does America get out of the deal? Increased power in the region under the name of "fighting terrorism". This is why we give some money to Palestine, too - It wouldn't do for Hamas to run out of funds, after all.

Your average Lebanese or Jordanian likely sees Palestinians like Americans see illegal immigrants. "Well, we feel real bad that they come from a cesspit of a country with no freedoms whatsoever and just want a chance at making a life for themselves, but I still don't want them here"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join