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.

 

Western countries block resolution against Israeli nukes

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Ok lets give the Arabs Israel; you will be throwing away Christian Jewish rights to their homelands too. Jews are not even allowed near the Shrine on Temple mount and that is in their own country supposedly theirs. They have found so much evidence of Jesus' existence and Jewish History that if the Arabs were there you would never have heard of it and forget the dead sea scrolls they would probably burn them if they had the chance, anything non Muslim historically is denied or oppressed.

So the Jews want a bit of land and the Christians because its their History its their Holy land for 2 billion followers. It is because Islam is not democratic that there is this problem, they don't like to share or integrate. The only reason why they want Israel is for its hate of Jews and its religion as Mohammad dreamed his way to Heaven from Temple mount, I thought they had Mecca that is not enough?
So I think the West the Jews have a right to keep Israel open too, the Devil wants to kill the Jews and destroy Israel and stop prophecy and this is what the Bible warns of. If the Muslims have a religious agenda then so do we and we should stick to it if they don't understand democracy let alone another religion, which constantly denies Christian, and Jewish faith head on its Koran.

Atheists want proof of Christianity as faith is not enough and its History, give Israel away and you will never find the truth and man kind at least deserves that an open land where we all can find the truth instead of being suppressed by a one way system that denies other history if it does not fit into theirs.

KEEP Israel open we also have a historical right why give it away its just as important to us if not more?


[edit on 25-9-2006 by The time lord]




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Are these people and this Rabbi also "anti-jew" for not supporting Israel?


There are suicidal and self destructive people in every group. Idiots who just don't understand that their actions and words will bring death and destruction down upon themselves and their country. Cindy Sheehan ring a bell?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There are suicidal and self destructive people in every group. Idiots who just don't understand that their actions and words will bring death and destruction down upon themselves and their country. Cindy Sheehan ring a bell?


Mind explaining how those Rabbis who state that 'Zionism goes against the Jewish faith' will bring 'death and destruction' on their country? Are they under the notion that everything related to Israel has to be approved or else it will deem 'death and destruction' to the entire religion of Judaism?

To note, the Jews who you witnesses preaching against Israel do not live in Israel, so I don't see how they pose a risk to their country of residency. There are many Jews in the world who do not advocate the creation of the state of Israel for the fact that the faith does not allow Judaism to be turned into any material means, including a state.

Also, please list the names of the people Cindy Sheehan brought 'death and destruction' to.

[edit on 26-9-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
The Heinnich Report in Reuters has been referred to by a poster above. IMO, Canada was trying to keep the current situation at the constructive debate level and not let it be taken over by the same illogic that has ruled the near Middle East since 1948. For no other reason than the United States has always had the “power” to “settle” the Arab-Israeli Issue, I must assume the current and past discombobulations are in line with how the US sees its own interests being served best.

One writer brought up the USS Liberty incident of June, 1967, but that tragedy seems to me was either 1) an anomaly, or 2) an Israel under siege genuflect. cf. our own broken communications effort during the happening of the Nine Eleven Event as reported by the 9/11 Commission. Things just happen. After-the-fact, it is sometimes impossible to put a rational face on the events. Adrenaline prevails over reason.

No one at the meeting was surprised by the Arab’s bombastic proposal. Arabs are stuck in a quagmire of their own making. Victims of their own hyperbole. Canada knew their proposal was an empty gesture to an unproductive past. Canada asked “is this conference to end on a negative note?” Better it should end on a neutral note than end on no note at all. Hence the Canadian proposal for everyone to commit to doing the right thing. Leaving each party to its own definition. Even that minimal effort failed to receive the support of the US and its puppy-dog Israel. Which surprises no one. America and Israel are totally predictable which I see as confirmation of my earlier assertion, above.

Whatever happened to the Jewish patriots fighting for a safe harbor in 1948-49? At some point in time prior to 1967, I’m convinced the Israeli government was taken over by people with other ambitions and another idea how to accomplish it. The total expulsion of Arabs from old Palestine. The 1000 year's dream of the Ultra Right Wing religionists! Also known as ethnic cleansing in other settings.

Arab intransigence has played right into this hideous goal. I say that because the seemingly insoluble issues must be “solved” if this land is to ever have peace. Or more properly, its people. Arabs have refused to accept the inevitable. The forced insertion of 6 million Jewish people. I’m convinced Yitzhak Rabin was ready to end the struggle in 1995, on terms most Palestinians would have gladly accepted. Yasser Arafat proved he was incapable of ending his personal raison d’etre. Fate had been a cruel taskmaster!

Regardless of your opinion of the validity of my interpretation, it is undeniable the US still has the power and the good offices to bring to a halt the endless attack-counterattack scenario that is the permanent state of affairs in Israel and its Occupied Territories. Only the US can end this so why don’t we?


[edit on 9/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Its really not that hard to understand why the West wants a nuclear-free Arab world. Favoritism may play some role, but as it stands, there is a tenuous peace in the region and its largely based upon a military stalemate. The Israelis are outnumbered and surrounded, but their nuclear weapons counterbalance that Arab advantage.

If the Arabs develop nuclear weapons, that balance of power shifts, and no one knows what the results will be. I think the idea is that peace, even if it appears somewhat one-sided, is better than many of the potential alternatives.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   


posted by vor78

Its not hard to understand why the West wants a nuclear-free Arab world. Favoritism may play a role but as it stands, there is a tenuous peace in the region and its largely based upon a military stalemate. [Edited by Don W]



Well, that stalemate involved the USSR. After 1991, we are watching a new paradigm form, which is as yet not clearly defined. The IDF was out counter-force to the Soviet’s Syria and Egypt, but is no longer nearly as useful for our purposes facing the emerging paradigm. Other forces were in play, too, even before 1991, including the Islamic Brotherhood which was a nationalistic movement strongest in Egypt. By whatever name, there is still a very strong force felt by Middle Easterners to be rid of the region’s colonial powers and their successor. Whether the Arab leaders are corrupted by greed for oil profits or are genuinely motivated liberation patriots, I do not know.



The Israelis are outnumbered and surrounded, but their nuclear weapons counterbalance that Arab advantage. If the Arabs develop nuclear weapons, that balance of power shifts, and no one knows what the results will be.



I agree, to a limited extent. I agree Israel will not stand by and let Egypt assemble 100 armored divisions in the Sinai. At the same time let Syria assemble 50 divisions of mounted infantry opposite the Golan. At the same time let Jordan reassemble the old Desert Legion, say, 20 divisions of cavalry, facing Jerusalem and the West Bank. So what’s Israel to do? Start dropping atom bombs every where? 10 bombs to Syria, 5 bombs to Jordan, 25 bombs to Egypt. Is Pakistan going to sit by and watch its Muslim brothers killed by the millions? Some of the old USSR -stans have atom bombs. They are Muslim. There may be more than one source of atom bombs to retaliate against an Israel gone berserk?



I think the idea that peace, even if it appears somewhat one-sided, is better than many of the potential alternatives. [Edited by Don W]


Yes, by all means. Better a live coward than a dead hero. Or he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. And etc. But time is running out. And for that - time running out - the US must bear what I say is total responsibility. We can settle the Arab-Israeli issue anytime we want. Anytime.



[edit on 9/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Isreali nukes = defense
Islamic nukes = offensive mass destruction and death on a global scale.

Israel's nukes are defensive and they absolutely have a right to defend themselves against their idiot neighbors.
[edit on 9/24/2006 by FlyersFan]


Excuse me for taking the above comments "out of context"...but...

How do you know for certain that Iran would actually detonate a nuclear weapon? This is a matter of opinion and certainly NOT fact. *shrug*

Each side thinks the other is bad, and each side thinks they are right.

It's a matter of perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join