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.

 

Iran has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you have got to be kidding me, i didnt ever bring race into it.


really? lets review:


Originally posted by grimreaper797
how you see it any other way can only be reverse racism propaganda telling you that if your not for the state of israel then your racist.


you brought up the race issue....i was merely correcting your ignorance.



i have been called "racist" because i believed the israel was obtained illegally.


that's between you and whatever idiot called you a racist for your beliefs. dont attack me for an argument you have had with someone else.



tell me why they didnt take kenya? tell me what reason they should have not to?


wow, how many times have you said the word "kenya" since i last posted? 10 or 15? kenya doesnt matter. kenya was always a temporary solution to the problem, both for the world and the jews.

here are better explanations than i can give:


source
Herzl negotiated with the British regarding the possibility of settling the Jews on the island of Cyprus, the Sinai Peninsula, the El Arish region and Uganda. After the Kishinev pogroms, Herzl visited Russia in July 1903. He tried to persuade the Russian government to help the Zionists transfer Jews from Russia to Palestine. At the Sixth Zionist Congress Herzl proposed settlement in Uganda, on offer from the British, as a temporary "night refuge." The idea met with sharp opposition, especially from the same Russian Jews that Herzl had thought to help. Though the congress passed the plan as a gesture of esteem for Herzl, it was not pursued seriously, and the initiative died after the plan was withdrawn. In his quest for a political solution, Herzl met with the king of Italy, who was encouraging, and with the Pope, who expressed opposition. A small group, the Jewish Territorial Organization ("Territorial Zionists") led by Israel Zangwill, split with the Zionist movement in 1905, and attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible. The organization was dissolved in 1925.


additionally:


source
The proposal was finally rejected in part because the British themselves had withdrawn it. Though alternative homes such as Uganda were never considered by Zionists as more than a temporary measure, anti-Zionists have falsely seized on these initiatives for national homes outside Palestine as "proof" that Jews have no special tie to Palestine. The contrary is true. Prior to the Zionist movement, various Jewish thinkers and philanthropists had proposed "national homes" in the United States or South America. However, though Baron Hirsch set up colonies in Argentina, the idea never captured the imagination of the people. The hearts and minds of the Jews were always set on "the Holy Land."


not that i really believe you are going to take the time to read the additional information, as you seem to have ignored every single post that provided you with information. you have been given time and time again excellent explanations as to the true history of the land now known as israel, and yet your arguments continue to blatantly ignore said information. i have come to the realization that you do not wish to debate the subject in a mature manner, but would rather continue spouting your propoganda regardless of the true facts and history of the matter. that's called ignorance, and from what i've seen of your posts, you intend to stay ignorant. so be it.




posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
no snafu i merely brought into the conversations the many times jewish people call other antisemite and racist because they believe that something the jewish people did wasnt right.

second ive read your information, and the main reason they never settled on it is because the jewish people didnt want it. of course you cant settle on a permanent land if the people you are finding land for refuse to except it. its not my fault that you believe that the jewish people were right in taking that land, and that people shouldnt have fought them. thats no propaganda, i merely stated that in the end, the jewish people took the land, and now palestinians are fighting back.

it was an invasion of their land, and it was the land jewish people were determind to get, regardless of who they had to displace. for a while the UN did not agree with it but the US made sure israel was their home state.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Afew quotes describing the area:

Samuel Clemens took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land, he said: A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. 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 a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

desolate country eh?


Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.



It did not exist eh?

Palestine was more of a name of a region.. not as much a country. You keep saying 'invasion'. invasion OF WHAT?? Not one shot fired.. Nothing. NO ONE was forced out of their homes. No Government, No schools, No public services, No hospitals, No real industries, No one governing or laying claim to 'ANY' land. Where is this big invasion?

Also.. What information did you recieve which described the UN as being unhappy??

[Note: Another interesting fact I pointed out earlier was that during the six day wars where Israel fought several countries.. when victory was handed to Israel, Palestinians were ready to leave the area.. but no Israel as a peace gesture said they could all remain and use public services such as schools, hospitals etc. Big bad Israel eh? Can see why Palestinians hate them!!
]

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Knights]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
Even more simple.. You (Jews) have a mobile phone.. Someone comes along (Romans and Turks) and beats you up and takes it.. A friend (Britain) finds it and gives you it back..

Oh wait...

is it yours now? Or is it theirs (Romans and Turks)? I mean you didn't hit them or forcefully take it back so by right it's theirs? Or if a new person recieves the phone and doesn't use it and you take it back use it and upgrade it.. does that give the the newcomer (whom you did not abuse or mug) or even the bullys the right to your phone?? The newcomer is allowed to try and take it back off you forcefully because they want it after your upgrade?


Oh and i'm interested to see who YOU think has rightful claim to the phone!

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Knights]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reference:
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...



3. In 1917 England issued a declaration in which she expressed her sympathy with the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine. When the Arabs knew of this they protested against it, but England reassured them by affirming to them that this would not prejudice the right of their countries to freedom and independence or affect the political status of the Arabs in Palestine. Notwithstanding the legally void character of this declaration, it was interpreted by England to aim at no more than the establishment of a spiritual centre for the Jews in Palestine, and to conceal no ulterior political aims, such as the establishment of a Jewish State. The same thing was declared by the Jewish leaders.


so originally the 'area' of palestine was arab dominated after the fall of the ottoman empire. they were told that this national home for the jews was merely spiritual. there was no intention of making it the home for a jewish state. thats why the violence wasnt encountered then.



4. When the war came to an end England did not keep her promise. Indeed, the Allies placed Palestine under the Mandate system and entrusted England with [the task of carrying it out], in accordance with a document providing for the administration of the country, in the interests of its inhabitants and its preparation for the independence which the Covenant of the League of Nations recognised that Palestine was qualified to have.

5. England administered Palestine in a manner which enabled the Jews to flood it with immigrants and helped them to settle in the country. [This was so] notwithstanding the fact that it was proved that the density of the population in Palestine had exceeded the economic capacity of the country to absorb additional immigrants. England did not pay regard to the interests or rights of the Arab inhabitants, the lawful owners of the country. Although they used to express, by various means, their concern and indignation on account of this state of affairs which was harmful to their being and their future, they [invariably] were met by indifference, imprisonment and oppression.


ok so now we know how england handled this. england didnt care that it was going to harm the future of the arab nation, they did it anyway.



6. As Palestine is an Arab country, situated in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world by various ties - spiritual, historical, and strategic - the Arab countries, and even the Eastern ones, governments as well as peoples, have concerned themselves with the problem of Palestine and have raised it to the international level


ok so according to the JewishVirtualLibrary, they consider palestine an arab country, in fact the heart of the arab countries. They had just as many ties to the land as the jewish people did. interesting isnt it?



The Pact of the League of Arab States declared that Palestine has been an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but the manifestations of this independence have been suppressed due to reasons which were out of the control of its inhabitants.


so basically the inhabitants, mostly arab, had no control over their country which was then flooded by jewish people, because england wanted to create a jewish national home.



Whereupon the United Nations began to realise the danger of recommending the partition [of Palestine] and is still looking for a way out of this state of affairs.


we then realized the dangers of dividing palestine, since we tried to divide it and make a jewish state, which england said would not happen.



The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.


quater million arabs....so i guess a quater million people being displaced answers the who you asked.

next reference:
www.jcpa.org...

this article states how the UN is the leading global purveyor of anti semitism and why



The United Nations discriminates against Israel in several ways. It delegitimizes the self-determination of the Jewish people, denies Israel the right to defend itself and demonizes it in the framework of the international regime of human rights protection. The UN also encourages terrorism directed at Israelis.

The UN has played a major role in the failure to defeat racism. The organization has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism - intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and their state.

In June 2004 the United Nations organized its first conference on anti-Semitism after almost 60 years of existence. It became just one more element in the organization's effort to separate anti-Semitism and Jews from Israel.


so first off apparently the UN encourages terrorism. They also are highly racist and antisemitic. as you can see they called they racist. interesting indeed.

reference:
www.pbs.org...

i dont really need to quote any of this link, just read it and see that the jewish people didnt do some violent invasion. they did it quietly with false promises of not making it a jewish state then, being backed by the US and others, took the land as jewish state officially.

but violence did take place. shots violence and blood took place all the way up to the palestinian displacement from israel. then after as well.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
who do i believe owns it? well when they were suppose to have their independence from the ottoman empire and become an independent state, it was arab dominated. so obviously the arab people who inhabited the land should own the land. thats not what happen though. england made it so jewish people could flood in and buy up the land, thus turning it into a jewish state. the arab people had no control over this happening either.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   


nobody ever reads a history book. the land was not muslim. it was a british protectorate in which both jews and muslims lived side by side. the land was given over to the UN who wanted to make two separate states out of it: israel and palestine. the "palestinians" said go to hell, because they were going to have to recognize israel to get their country. the israelis offered citizenship to any muslims wanting to stay. some did, which is why you will find muslim israelis who are allowed full citizenship and to freely practice their religion. nobody stole anyone elses land.


Nice, but wrong. The land of Palestine was Muslim from most of the last 2000 years. Then Britain went and took their lands, and then they gave it to the Jews, under pressure from zionists (the original ones, not the conspiracy fellows). There were a few Simites living amongst them, but the majority of the people were Palestinians.



they won it in battle, just as every single nation in existance at some point won their land in battle. which, incidentally, is how israel lost the land in the first place thousands of years ago.

so by your standards, everyone who ever won territory in battle should give it back to those they took it from? wow. guess i'm going back to britain. oh, wait, no scotland. oh wait, no....1/16 of my can stay here because of my cherokee blood. whatever.



Of course. Why not?

And Palestine was not "barely inhabited" as some people say. There were many arabs living there, as well as some Jews.



Even more simple.. You (Jews) have a mobile phone.. Someone comes along (Romans and Turks) and beats you up and takes it.. A friend (Britain) finds it and gives you it back..

Oh wait...

is it your now? Or is it theirs (Romans and Turks)? I mean you didn't hit them or forcefully take it back so by right it's theirs? Or if a new person recieves the phone and doesn't use it and you take it back use it and upgrade it.. does that give the the newcomer (whom you did not abuse or mug) or even the bullys the right to your phone??


Ah, so Britain is a liberator now? Please tell it that to South Africans, Indians (from India) and Cypriots to see what they think of Britain as liberators.

I find it extremely funny that powerful countries do not ever let 1 inch of their land to be given to others, yet they have no problem doing the same to others. Remember Falklands? Britain went to fight to the other side of the Earth for a little island that was too close to Argentina. Remember Spain a few years ago? Spain owns a very small island which is located a few hundred meters from Libya...but when Libya tried to get it, Spain sent its army.

The argument "it was their's, so we gave it back to them" is mute. If you are absent 2000 years from your home, you can no longer claim it as yours. If you do not ask for your mobile phone, then you do not own it any more. Zionism wanted to create a Jewish state in their "holy" land because they believe that the Messiah will come for them, so they have to be there.



not that i really believe you are going to take the time to read the additional information, as you seem to have ignored every single post that provided you with information. you have been given time and time again excellent explanations as to the true history of the land now known as israel, and yet your arguments continue to blatantly ignore said information. i have come to the realization that you do not wish to debate the subject in a mature manner, but would rather continue spouting your propoganda regardless of the true facts and history of the matter. that's called ignorance, and from what i've seen of your posts, you intend to stay ignorant. so be it.


Why did the British not want Jews in their country?



When the war came to an end England did not keep her promise.


The good ol' British..."divide and conquer"...let's all not forget who invented that!

grimreaper797: good post! let's see all the Israel supports answer that!



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
It's quiet. Too quiet. Iran hasn't announced a revolutionary new weapons system or scientific advance in at least 24 hours... maybe we should wait for them "to get game". LOL.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
grimreaper has left out the most important part, that of his source:

"Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine"

this revisionist history propaganda was drawn up by the arab league as an excuse to push the israelis into the sea. grim actually took the declaration from a jewish website in which every point made by this declaration is countered, point by point....of course he didnt bother to post that part, did he?

from the exact same site:



On November 2, 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration:

His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

According to the Peel Commission, appointed by the British Government to investigate the cause of the 1936 Arab riots, "the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan."

The Mandate for Palestine's purpose was to put into effect the Balfour Declaration. It specifically referred to "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and to the moral validity of "reconstituting their National Home in that country." The term "reconstituting" shows recognition of the fact that Palestine had been the Jews' home. Furthermore, the British were instructed to "use their best endeavors to facilitate" Jewish immigration, to encourage settlement on the land and to "secure" the Jewish National Home. The word "Arab" does not appear in the Mandatory award.

The Mandate was formalized by the 52 governments at the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.


furthermore:



Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. “Mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people,” it said, “and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations s through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.” Furthermore, the agreement looked to the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and called for all necessary measures “...to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.”



Originally posted by masterp
There were a few Simites living amongst them, but the majority of the people were Palestinians.


not only have you just proven that you are not reading all the posts, you have shown your complete ignorance of the people of that area. the jews and the arabs living there were all semitic. with such a huge lack of understanding of this simple fact, why should we listen to any other information you present, as it is obvious your knowledge is limited to what you can find on google?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
what you added snafu is only that britian had control and not the inhabitates of the land, ultimately leading to their demise as a country. i left nothing out.
who are you to judge what is propaganda though anyway? were you personally involved with it back in the 1940s to 50s? were you part of the team making up the propaganda? couldnt i just as easily say that the jewish people have made up propaganda to make them seem innocent when they took this land?

because from what im seeing, britian made sure it was easy for jewish people to flood in and buy up land in palestine. not exactly a hostle take over, but a take over none the less. the inhabitors had no say as to who came in our out because they werent in control of their own country. which is funny because they were promised independence which they never got because england did this, making it so that they wouldnt get independence until the majority was in fact jewish. now to me that sounds a bit fishy considering they were promised the jewish people would not make palestine their home state. what i do see, is broken promises on britians side to benefit the jewish people and screw the palestinians out of their land.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Reaper, first let me say good find on Herzl, that much you're right about. I'd like to point out however that Herzl promoted the idea. An organization called the Zionist Congress wasn't able to see its way to accepting the British offer, despite the endorsement of one of the major leaders.

The conflict over Palestine is not so simple though. It's a tough call to have to make.

On the one hand, why shouldn't Israel have been established in the Middle East? That is where their culture came from (not counting converts, such as those decended from Khazars), and there were in fact a few of them still living there when Britain gained a mandate over former territories of the Ottoman Empire after WWI.
From that approach, we find that all the allies really did was return an area to the last group of people who had ruled an independent nation there (it had been conquered and reconquered by outside powers for the last 2000+ years, namely the Romans and Ottoman Turks). In fact, do you know why that land was called Palestine rather than Israel for all of these years? It's not because there was a group of people called Palestinians who lived there. Palestine is derived from Philistine, and the Philistines were out of that land long before the Romans set foot on it. The Romans named the area after the Philistines to punish the Jews for their revolt. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian", except for those people who are called such because of living in a land that was arbitrarily named Palestine by a hostile power 2000 years ago. The logic behind any claim of ancestral rights to the land is circular in that regard.

It also bears mentioning that Africa has enough genocide conflicts as it is and the Jews have far less legitimate claim to land in former British possessions in Africa.


On the other hand, yes, the Jews were mostly removed from that land by force a very long time ago and in most cases did not have as great of a practical connection to that land as those who had settled it later under the sponsorship of invading powers. I can see the argument.


The heart of the matter though is that both sides are ultimately wrong, although to be completely honest, the Israelis seem to have tried much harder to turn around than the so-called Palestinians have.
The conflict here is over religion. Muslims don't want to live next to Jews. Jews don't generally want to live by Muslims, but they've bent over backwards to accept compromises for peace, only to have the "Palestinians" reject most compromises. This leads us to the modern wars:

In 1948, Israel was prepared to live next door to Palestine and have Jerusalem be an international city. The Jordanians had other ideas. They told the Israelis that they were going to conquer Palestine and that Israel could remain free, but later changed their minds and said they were taking Israel too, and would only grant autonomy. Palestine was invaded and wiped off the map not by Israel, but by Jordan.

It wasn't until 1967 and the Six Day Smackdown, when Israel preemptively attacked its neighbors (because following the formation of an alliance between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan those nations as well as Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, and Algeria mobilized their armies and Gamal Nasser of Egypt said "our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.") that Israel then seized control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not because it wanted the territory (which has been nothing but a problem for them since day one) but because of the danger that those areas could be used as staging points for foreign armies.

Since that war, Israel has given back the Sinai to Egypt as well as loosened control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They have made repeated attempts to trade that land for peace, but the fact of the matter is that Israel's neighbors don't want peace, and they don't want the land; they want the Jews dead.

Israel has shamed itself with heavy handed tactics in the past, although that's not to say that military action was always unnecessary. "Palestinians" have commited just as many attrocities.

The root of it all, in the end, has much less to do with land than with religious intollerance and racism. The concept that a nation must be defined on racial lines is the problem here. If everyone over there could get past the idea of establishing a volkstaat (people's state: ie, racially defined nation as promoted by fascism) the problem would go away.

And as for the nukes: let's not kid ourselves that Israel's nukes are the only reason Iran would want its own. You do realize that Israel and Iran have never gone to war with one another, do you not? Iran has bigger strategic fish to fry than Israel, which is why they are developing weapons which can reach FAR beyond merely Israel, but all the way to Europe.

The North Korea argument holds little water because geopolitical concerns in the two regions are sharply differentiated. North Korea occupies the strategic armpit of the world- they're surrounded by militarily superior nations who have little if anything worth taking within NK's grasp. Their nukes were built out of paranoia that the US might attack.

Iran on the other hand is surrounded mainly by nations that it could beat bloody with one hand tied behind its back, and they have important strategic resources which Iran could profit handsomely merely by restricting export of; they wouldn't even actually have to invade anyone and capture the resources for themselves if they didn't want to. They were at little or no military risk before they provoked America by attempting to introduce nuclear weapons to a strategic tinderbox. Their nukes would be an assurance of regional hegemony. This is a VERY different situation.


The ideal answer to this situation has very little to do with deciding which race has a right to which land and which countries do or don't have a moral right to weapons that could end the world as we know it. There is no justice in weapons- ever. War revolves around force and is necessarily tyranical in nature.

The ideal answer revolves around presenting people with choices between profitable peace or a miserable continuation of the present state of things.
The Israeli question is best answered by keeping those two groups off of eachothers backs to the greatest extent possible for a couple of generations while boosting the economy for both groups there, so that poor Muslims can no longer be played off against Israelis or vice versa.

That's the oldest trick in the book: we saw a bit of it ourselves during Southern Reconstruction here in America, you tell one half of the poor that their being oppressed by the other, and tell that other half that even though their poor, the one thing they've got going for them is that they are better than the other half. Then they kill eachother when they ought to make common cause and demand better from the powers that be.

Get them homes, jobs, etc though, and see if they still feel oppressed, or see if they still have so little that they need racial/religious superiority to validate themselves.

As for Iran- if push comes to shove they'll probably get bombed, but in a perfect world they'd be approached by the US, Russia, and China to work out a compromise. If those three powers sit down and agree on a common plan for ensuring Iran's national security and helping them develop a strictly peaceful nuclear program, then go to Iran together and say "here's what you can have, and all three of us will be behind you for this, but if you don't want to compromise at all, we're cutting off all technical aid and destroying what progress you've made so far", then in that situation there would almost certainly have to be a peaceful resolution.

Take it or leave it though. I know that some people are just sure that one side or the other is completely wrong and must be stopped. I'm just saying that when it comes down to formulating a plan of action, I tend to set aside who was wrong yesterday (although it helps to know that for your own reference) and focus on how to get both sides right in the future.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
yes but what i was saying is just because it was your home land doesnt mean that thousands of years later its still your land. the jewish people mostly were kicked out of that land, however unjust it may have been, the jewish people did not take their land back. so they loose.

its a disadvantage of not fighting, you give up your right to the land. The palestinians as you can see have not stopped fighting, so obviously they are saying that they arent giving up their home. When they stop fighting and say fine israel can have it, then its no longer their homeland anymore.

what i have a problem with is the broken promises of england and having superior control over them in saying we are making this the national home for the jewish people. at the same time they promised the arab people in that region independence. It was a broken promise and they eventually get screwed out of their homeland. So now they are fighting, and have been since it started. Can you blame them though? you have just been tricked and losing your homeland now.

america wasnt our homeland till we fought for it. you have to have independence to call that place your homeland. it has to be yours, owned by you. if you dont own it, dont live on it anymore, and your only connection to it is spiritual, im sorry but thats not your land. In saying that, it was an invasion of that land. regardless of who was there, or how many were there, it was an invasion. that started a war eventually once they figured out they had been tricked and the true implications in which this invasion was for, to make it become a jewish state.

im not saying these people are innocent, im merely stating they owned this land, and it was their country. they got tricked out of it though, and now they are fighting. the US is backing the opposite side, so they are going to fight us too.

you bring a good point up about israel and iran not being in a conflict. but i would like to note that for them its not about arab or not, but muslim and non muslim. non muslim people have taken land that muslim people owned, thats how they see it. the muslim people seem to try an unite to defend other muslims. im not calling this honorable because it should be human standing up for other humans regardless of religion, but they feel obligated to stand up for the muslims who were tricked.

my proposal would be to declare the entire arear under UN restriction. no one owns it. its not an arab state, a muslim state, a jewish state, a christian state, nothing.
it is the first real international state. owned by everyone, it holds no religion or nationality. the government is on an international level and everyone decides on decisions made there.
some things will need to be figured out as far as a certain religion monopolizing the area, certain restrictions made (like affirmitive action in the US)but this is the only way to really to settle it. the entire area thats in debate of who gets what just gets turned into an international state owned by everyone who chooses to be.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes but what i was saying is just because it was your home land doesnt mean that thousands of years later its still your land. the jewish people mostly were kicked out of that land, however unjust it may have been, the jewish people did not take their land back. so they loose.


That reasoning doesn't work at all. If you're going to say "tough cookies cause the Jews got kicked out" then you have no standing to oppose Israel taking and holding land, or even driving out the Arabs. It would obviously be wrong for the Jews to exile or genocide their neighbors, just as it was wrong to expel the Jews in the first place.

The obvious answer, as I have said, is to renounce the volkstaat- any other answer must at somepoint acknowledge the legitimacy of taking land by force and perhaps even attempting to destroy a people.


its a disadvantage of not fighting, you give up your right to the land.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but neither have the Israelis, and generally speaking they are better at it than the Palestinians are.


When they stop fighting and say fine israel can have it, then its no longer their homeland anymore.

But since you acknowledge conquest by people who were never there, you can't imply any end to the claim when someone quits fighting. They can always come back as outsiders and retake it regardless of their prior claim. Your reasoning is flawed. Sorry.



at the same time they promised the arab people in that region independence. It was a broken promise and they eventually get screwed out of their homeland.

That's all on the British. SOMEBODY was going to get shafted, and it would have been no less wrong of the British to break a promise to Israel. In a certain way of seeing it, it would have been worse. You might notice an abundance of independent arab states if you look at the map afterall.



america wasnt our homeland till we fought for it. you have to have independence to call that place your homeland. it has to be yours, owned by you. if you dont own it, dont live on it anymore, and your only connection to it is spiritual, im sorry but thats not your land.


But you say that after we fought for America, it became ours. Israel has fought and won major wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 for their country. By your rationale that makes it their homeland, no matter whose it was before.



you bring a good point up about israel and iran not being in a conflict. but i would like to note that for them its not about arab or not, but muslim and non muslim.

Because Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. However, you miss the point. For Iran it's not even all about Islam. Trust me on this one: Iran could give less than a care about Israel when it doesn't fit in with their own interests. Where were they in 1967? Where are they NOW? Their content to use Israel as an excuse to support organizations which give them presence in Syria and Lebanon because those nations are strategically important for isolating the region from the West, just as Iran itself and the Strait of Hormuz isolate it from the East.


non muslim people have taken land that muslim people owned,

So? I thought you were all in favor of removing people by force. Or does that only count when the people in question are extremely unpopular? Your logic seems to be built around a bandwagon, not the process of rigid application of principles.


my proposal would be to declare the entire arear under UN restriction. no one owns it. its not an arab state, a muslim state, a jewish state, a christian state, nothing.
it is the first real international state. owned by everyone, it holds no religion or nationality. the government is on an international level and everyone decides on decisions made there.


I've thought about that idea myself, and it has its merits. I doubt that it would work however. It boils down to introducing a third party into what remains a war of conquest. I don't think anyone would ever muster enough troops to quell violence there. I think the violence has to be undermined culturally by giving them better things to worry about than fighting- namely an economy. Protecting a few key areas for a project like that would be far more efficient than trying police every settlement.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
first i would like to say that israel has never stopped their war, there may have been slow points, but its never stopped, they are still under attack.
when america fought, eventually they were reconized, israel has not been reconized by its enemy.

the jewish people gave up their land. it wasnt like they fought for 2000 years in every means to get their land back. it wasnt even them that fought for the land when they did get their own state. other more powerful countries fought for them. they didnt even fight for their own state until these other nations declared it theirs, then they had to fight constantly since to keep it.

the jewish people stopped fighting for their land and gave it up. the palestinian people havent stopped since the begining. theres a difference. one group said fine, and left. the other group is still trying to take it back by whatever means necessary.

im not riding any bandwagon. if the palestinian people gave up fighting then i would reconize the state of israel as a legitimate state. they took it, the palestinian people gave up, that settles that. they forfeit their land then. until the ottoman empire forfeited its land, the ottoman empire legitimately owned it. it wasnt the jewish people land then, it was the ottoman empires land. if the jewish people have came in then, they would be declaring war on the ottoman empire and the ottoman empire would be fighting the jewish people rather then the palestinian people that inhabited that land.

britian is at fault for making promises to both sides. palestine happened to get the short end of the stick, so thats why they are fighting. britian should have promised them independence when it knew that wasnt going to happen. had the truth been told events would have went MUCH differently. the palestinians would have never went along with allowing the jewish people to flood it, because they were under the belief there wasnt going to be a jewish state made.

we lied to a group of people, backed the people that took their land, and now were baffled why they want to kill us. its pretty simple. we lied to them, tricked them, and practically robbed them. gave their land away which they were promised was theirs. yes they are going to be pissed and rightfully so. to say otherwise would be hypocritical.

edit: once they give up it isnt their land. so later on if they try to come in after they have stopped fighting for such a period of time, then they are invading and i would back israel 100%. i do not support invasions. what the israeli people did was an invasion. had the palestinian people givin up then years later tried to take it, then the palestinian people are invading and im against them.

simple point though, the violence has never stopped, the fighting still continues to this day. bombing and killings have never stopped.

also your never going to stop it culturally. they will probably forever hate eachother. split them up. you dont put two animals in a cage knowning they are going to rip eachother into pieces. you separate them. thats what we need to do. separate them, and the disputed land becomes UN territory. thats the ONLY way you can stop two things from killing eachother if thats their main goal. maybe after you let them cool down they may be able to come back.

they are both real heated, you need to separate them for a time before putting them back together for peace talks.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the jewish people gave up their land. it wasnt like they fought for 2000 years in every means to get their land back. it wasnt even them that fought for the land when they did get their own state.


Historically speaking, that's a half-truth at best. The Balfour delcaration promised them a state after WWI, but the British renegged. The Jews organized militias and fought the British until the Brits threw their hands up and said we've had enough, the UN can decide what to do with you. The UN voted to slit the region 50/50 between the two warring sides, but this was ignored and the war went hot the minute Israel declared independence. The Israelis won their own independence then against a coalition of their neighbors.

One can hardly claim that the Israelis just pranced right up to the state they've got now and were handed the keys by the British without any struggle on the part of the Israelis.

If you do not support invasions that you cannot possibly claim that the Palestinians have any claim. How do you think Israel came under Roman control? How do you think it later came under Ottoman control?

When you embrace violence as an arbitor of justice you cannot adhere consistently to any other principle, because war is tyrany- period. The whole basis of using violence and who kept fighting to decide whose homeland it is plays right into the race-state mentality that creates and sustains conflicts like these.

Foresake that criteria and you'll find a consistent moral answer.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
i dont support an invasion. but if they do invade and the opposing side gives up, theres nothing more that can be done. i support the side being invaded up to the point where they decide they had enough and let the invadors scatter them across some foreign land. thats what happen. jewish people got scattered across europe, they didnt fight to the death.

so your saying that before ww1 that palestine was NOT arab majority, with jewish people as a small miniority in the area?
its the british fault for promising them a official state, then letting them flood palestine, and at the same time promising the palestinian people that they would get their independence. they knew that by promising the jewish people a home state, then making it so they could flood present day israel they would evidently end up making that their state. they knew this obviously, and went along with it anyway. they didnt have the palestinians interests at hand, they just wanted to get rid of the jewish people. palestine was the perfect place to get rid of them because the jewish people wanted it. so they tricked those palestinians so it could happen, or at least get to the point where its too late to stop, and they did.


technically, the jewish people did prance in their. they moved their claiming it was just for a spiritual homeland, then once enough were their the british removed all their troops and such, leaving a now majority owned palestine. once they did that the UN didnt have much choice. the british made sure that it would happen because, lets face it, they wanted to make sure the jewish people werent their problem anymore.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The British didn't actually let them all 'prance' in, they let Jews settle but had tight controls on immigration. Many Jews were angry at Britain as they felt these controls helped kill many others during the Holocaust. If it was that easy to get across most of Europe would have moved there.



The British responded with the Passfield White Paper. The white paper attempted to stop immigration to Palestine based on the recommendations of the Hope Simpson report. That report stated that in the best case, following extensive economic development, the land could support immigration of another 20,000 families in total. Otherwise further Jewish immigration would infringe on the position of the existing Arab population.


and..


After the war, it was discovered that the Germans had murdered about six million Jews in Europe, in the Holocaust. These people had been trapped in Europe, because virtually no country would give them shelter. The Zionists felt that British restriction of immigration to Palestine had cost hundreds of thousands of lives


The British even tried to reinforce relations..


The British hoped to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate. The Jews were alarmed by the prospect of such institutions, which would have an Arab majority. However, the Arabs would not accept proposals for such institutions if they included any Jews at all, and so no institutions were created. The Arabs wanted as little as possible to do with the Jews and the mandate, and would not participate in municipal councils, nor even in the Arab Agency that the British wanted to set up.


Seems to me the Arabs took no real interest in what was going on in their country.


The Arabs claimed that Jewish immigration and land purchases were displacing and dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine. However, economic, population and other indicators suggest that objectively, the Arabs of Palestine benefited from the Mandate and Zionist investment. Arab standard of living increased faster in Palestine than other areas, and population grew prodigiously throughout the Mandate years


Forcing people out of their homes eh??

Makes you wonder!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

i support the side being invaded up to the point where they decide they had enough and let the invadors scatter them across some foreign land. thats what happen. jewish people got scattered across europe, they didnt fight to the death.


Why the hell should they have to fight and die for the cause?! You make out that if they don't fight and die they don't deserve anything?? Well IMO I think thats a pretty rubbish viewpoint on things. They were outnumbered, if it was you up outnumbered against 5-6 people you would fight and die for your beliefs?? As if!!!



[Edit: Oh, and say when Nazi Germany invaded France you would support the French until they surrended, then support the Nazis because they have conquered that territory?!?!?!?!]


[edit on 10-4-2006 by Knights]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
so in simpler words knight, if the USA was outnumbered you would rather leave then fight for it? im sorry but maybe you and i are a bit different there. IF some country came in, regardless of how many their are and who they are, i would take arms to fight them off. If your not willing to die for your country, and the people invading are willing to die to take it, guess whos gunna win? not you.

yes the arab people would benefit, if they decided that they wanted to let it become the jewish state. as you saw they didnt want the jewish people there. to them it was more important to have their own country then to have better living conditions. im not agreeing with that, merely stating their view. it doesnt matter if it makes sense to you because in the end they dont care what you think, they care what they think. and what they think is that palestine shouldnt be a jewish state, and thats more important.

i would support the french until they gave up. then i would support ourselves fighting germany because they were commiting crimes against humanity. in the view of self preservation we would keep fighting, just not to defend the french anymore. they were on world domination, so we were defending the world, not just the french.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

...if the USA was outnumbered you would rather leave then fight for it? im sorry but maybe you and i are a bit different there. IF some country came in, regardless of how many their are and who they are, i would take arms to fight them off. If your not willing to die for your country, and the people invading are willing to die to take it


I do not buy this AT ALL. I'm sure you do not know what armed conflict is like. It is alot easier to sit and say you will, but when it comes down to it i'm sure it'd be a different story in the majority of cases.

The fact of the matter is Jewish people have been outnumbered and persecuted against many times throughout history. Im sure most would rather keep their lives and flee than face almost certain death. This is not a big, bold bravardo scenario.. the fact is they would have been massacred. They want their homeland.. not to die for the sake of it to prove a worthless point.


yes the arab people would benefit, if they decided that they wanted to let it become the jewish state. as you saw they didnt want the jewish people there. to them it was more important to have their own country then to have better living conditions


No, the arab population DID benefit. Many Arabs living conditions actually improved due to Jewish people inhabiting the country.


doesnt matter if it makes sense to you because in the end they dont care what you think, they care what they think. and what they think is that palestine shouldnt be a jewish state, and thats more important.


And your point is? It doesn't matter what I, you, Arabs, UN or Jews think. Because you think something it does not give you the right to terrorise another country. This subject seems to have gone from facts to basic opinions now.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join