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.

 

Israel. Why? I Don't Get It.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Who would have known a small little document like the Balfour document would be such a problem today? Many people did actually.




The Balfour Declaration became a highly controversial document. It disturbed those Jewish circles who were not in favour of the Zionist aim of the creation of a Jewish State (the "internal divisions" referred to by Weizmann). Many Jewish communities of non-Zionist convictions regarded themselves as nationals of their countries, and the concept of a "Jewish national home" created strong conflicts of loyalties, notwithstanding the clause in the Declaration assuring retention of their status in their respective countries.

Foremost among Jewish critics was Sir Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India and the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet. His dissent from the political nature of Zionist aims stemmed from conviction that Judaism was a universal faith, distinct from nationality, and that in the era of the modern nation-State the Jewish people did not constitute a nation. He questioned the credentials of the Zionist Organization to speak for all Jews. In secret memoranda (later made public) he wrote:

"Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom ... I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that zionism should be officially recognized by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the 'national home of the Jewish people'. I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews, and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mohammedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine ... When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country ...

"I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews or properly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mohammedan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history ...

"... When the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the world's ghetto. Why should the Russian give the Jew equal rights? His national home is Palestine". 36/

This was very much a minority view in the British Government whose policy was summed up by Prime Minister Lloyd George:

"There can be no doubt as to what the [Imperial War] Cabinet then had in their minds. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that, when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. The notion that Jewish immigration would have to be artificially restricted in order that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered the head of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing". 37/

The implication is clear - the achievement of a Jewish majority would assure the establishment of a Jewish State. The fundamental question of the rights of the Palestinians themselves did not enter into the picture.

Warning: Long Read




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo
Seriously, what was that all about? Everything seems to be about Israel. The US dumps billions of dollars into this "state" we call Israel every single year. Why? In my opinion, alot of terror and hate is a direct result of supporting Israel.


Excellent post lombozo, I would say it's basically three things.

1) Massive Pro-Israel lobby in the US.
2) Israel is a ``Strong ally"' with excellent geostrategical location.
3) Holocaust, no one is speaking about other genocides though -- Holodomor, Sudan, Rwanda etc. (
)

[edit on 2006-11-13 by zer69]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

posted by SpeakerofTruth
For sure they knew. British intelligence as early as 1941 had a complete view of the nazi's plans of "Vernichtung", extermination. They followed the build up of Auschwitz and the whole logistic and industrial complex involved, IG Farben developing Cyklon-B, the laying out of railtracks to make it an efficient machine.

They could very easy early on have hindered or seriously delayed those plans. But the Brits did nothing.

As to why, one has to remember Britain by tradition and history has been one of the most anti-semitic countries in the world. Also, just prior to WW2, in 1936 Edward VIII gave up the throne, officially because of love to a divorced American woman, Mrs. Simpson, who according to FBI reports had another loveaffair with the German ambassador to Britain, von Ribbentrop, a top nazi soon to become Foreign Minister of Germany. But Edward himself was widely known for his pre-war nazi sympathies.

A sidestep to show that British admiration for the ideology of Hitler went far up in the ruling classes. So of course they didn't bomb IG Farben or the railroads to Auschwitz, never once they did. Instead they killed hundred of thousands of innocent civilians in the firestorm of Dresden, a city without the slightest strategic or logistic value ...or those of Hamburg, Hannover and Bremen, the strongholds of anti nazi resistance in Germany. Places where Hitler never once did hold a speech or any massrally.



Errr, "Speakeroftruth", let's correct some glaring inaccuracies there.


  1. Dresden, Hamburg et al were all industrial cities vital to the war machine. Hamburg was Germany's major ports, Hannover and Bremen major industrial and rail centres. Saying they had no strategic or logistical value is absurd.They were also bombed in 1945, not '41 (the firestorms, anyway).
  2. In 1941, Britian was in no position to launch bombing raids to disrupt suspected Nazi concentration camps. Not only had we only just fought off the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, but our limited air resources at the time were being dedicated to disrupting more strategic targets such as armament factories so we could win in North Africa.
  3. null


Anyhoo...back on topic....

[edit on 11/11/06 by stumason]


Stumason,I didn't post that. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by stumason

posted by SpeakerofTruth
For sure they knew. British intelligence as early as 1941 had a complete view of the nazi's plans of "Vernichtung", extermination. They followed the build up of Auschwitz and the whole logistic and industrial complex involved, IG Farben developing Cyklon-B, the laying out of railtracks to make it an efficient machine.

They could very easy early on have hindered or seriously delayed those plans. But the Brits did nothing.

As to why, one has to remember Britain by tradition and history has been one of the most anti-semitic countries in the world. Also, just prior to WW2, in 1936 Edward VIII gave up the throne, officially because of love to a divorced American woman, Mrs. Simpson, who according to FBI reports had another loveaffair with the German ambassador to Britain, von Ribbentrop, a top nazi soon to become Foreign Minister of Germany. But Edward himself was widely known for his pre-war nazi sympathies.

A sidestep to show that British admiration for the ideology of Hitler went far up in the ruling classes. So of course they didn't bomb IG Farben or the railroads to Auschwitz, never once they did. Instead they killed hundred of thousands of innocent civilians in the firestorm of Dresden, a city without the slightest strategic or logistic value ...or those of Hamburg, Hannover and Bremen, the strongholds of anti nazi resistance in Germany. Places where Hitler never once did hold a speech or any massrally.



well, 'one of the most anti-semetic countries' in the world was the one that 'granted' palestine to the jewish RELIGION, through the balfour declaration. so, it appears that all high level politics are just a puppet show to steer the masses.

all the german masons were partying with the english masons throughout all the world wars, and whatever other wars you want to mention. ordo ab chaos, man.

[edit on 11-11-2006 by billybob]


Why are you all attributing this to me!!!?? I didn't ^$$##@ say that. You people need to watch what the @#$% you are doing!!



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I did write that! I've already pointed out the mistake.
Donno how they got us mixed up.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
I did write that! I've already pointed out the mistake.
Donno how they got us mixed up.


I have no idea.... I usually know people by the difference in their writing.... Some peple don't possess that decipherment I supose.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
First off, I want to thank everyone for keeping this thread civil. It is a heated subject, and I was a little concerned how it would be received when I started the thread. I also appreciate that I was not taken out of context. Thanx again.



Originally posted by zer69

Originally posted by lombozo
Seriously, what was that all about? Everything seems to be about Israel. The US dumps billions of dollars into this "state" we call Israel every single year. Why? In my opinion, alot of terror and hate is a direct result of supporting Israel.


Excellent post lombozo, I would say it's basically three things.

1) Massive Pro-Israel lobby in the US.
2) Israel is a ``Strong ally"' with excellent geostrategical location.
3) Holocaust, no one is speaking about other genocides though -- Holodomor, Sudan, Rwanda etc. (
)

[edit on 2006-11-13 by zer69]


Your points are valid, and I have to agree with you. Is it your point #2 that makes these things we've been discussing happen? If Israel did not have such a good strategic location, would the Wests outlook towards them be the same?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I've covered this before, but the thread contributions here on both sides are interesting so I'll ask it again.

What would the world have done had the British - in response to attacks by the IRA - levelled Dublin?

I don't want to go into a huge debate about the semantics of it all. Its a simple question. The IRA was blowing up large chunks of the UK, targetting indescrimintely and hiding in Ireland. According to modern "Israel" logic, that means we would have been perfectly within our rights to target anywhere we saw fit in case it had anything to do with terrorists, including hitting the civilian infrastructure and invading the Republic of Ireland.

If we had done what Israel is doing to Palestine, would the right wing pro-Israeli supporters here from our closest ally, with whom we have a "special relationship" (and an excellent strategic geopolitical location!) have applauded us because we were striking a blow against terrorism and defending the free world?

If the answer is no, then why the hell do you accept what Israel is doing?


[edit on 13-11-2006 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by khunmoon
I did write that! I've already pointed out the mistake.
Donno how they got us mixed up.


I have no idea.... I usually know people by the difference in their writing.... Some peple don't possess that decipherment I supose.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


Well, it's really quite easy. It was some unholy hour of the morning, I was at work not paying full attention and looked at the wrong name. Easy enough mistake to make. I apologised for it and there's no need to get on your high horse about it.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I've covered this before, but the thread contributions here on both sides are interesting so I'll ask it again.

What would the world have done had the British - in response to attacks by the IRA - levelled Dublin?



Well, I don't know about the world,but I don't think America would have supported such action. Of course, any conflict between England and Ireland would put the U.S in a conuundrum, something similar to what it finds itself in in the conflict between India and Pakistan,becaus both are considered allies.

It would be interesting to see what the world's response would have been in such a circumstance. I suspect that it wouldn't have been as lenient as it has been in the case of Israel. Again, it gets back to the "feelings of guilt" that,not just the U.S, but the whole world still feels over the holocaust.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 13-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I've covered this before, but the thread contributions here on both sides are interesting so I'll ask it again.

What would the world have done had the British - in response to attacks by the IRA - levelled Dublin?

If we had done what Israel is doing to Palestine, would the right wing pro-Israeli supporters here from our closest ally, with whom we have a "special relationship" (and an excellent strategic geopolitical location!) have applauded us because we were striking a blow against terrorism and defending the free world?

If the answer is no, then why the hell do you accept what Israel is doing?


[edit on 13-11-2006 by neformore]


That is an excellent question. One I've not pondered before. I would bet that there would have been more of an outcry of condemnation than what Israel has been getting. Obviously, no one can predict what "could've, or would've" happened due to the fact that it would be just that, a prediction. What is not a prediction are the plain and simple facts of what Israel does, and the reactions to their actions.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lombozo
Is it your point #2 that makes these things we've been discussing happen? If Israel did not have such a good strategic location, would the Wests outlook towards them be the same?


I doubt it would be the same elsewhere (e.g. Israel in Central Africa...)



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Palestine and Israel are two slaves fighting over the actions of the same master. Israel is a victim of the West's anti-semitism and centuries long history of progroms. Palestine is a victim of the West's imperial colonialism and the opportunism that expunged the guilt of the holocaust on their heads.

Now they finish the work together that Hitler started.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
just to make my long past post clear, i never meant that israel is the only part at fault, both sides are coward bbastards that deserve what's happening(not the people the governments). but what do you mean israel gets all the blame, here many people make the palestinians guilty, plus once you look at it, you'll see that there are many instances were palestinian CIVILIAN actions are at least justified even if a little due to israeli atrocities, however militias, extremists, etc. are all coward power and money hungry bastards that deserve what happens to them and more, because without them the hwole thing could have been solved in the 90's. but extremists assaissinated rabin in israel, Saddam was cooperating with pressure from US, Jordan has been neutral for a long time now, and of course Egypt had a strong leader, and jordan had king hussien whihc was also a strong leader, all of these factors coming together could have ended conflict, but no somebody had to mess things up... as always in that part of the world.... it's sad actually how humans that have went through many years of evolution and thought and conflict, could not solve a simple problem in more than 60 years....



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
how about the people that is real.... or I mean are real, our real?

Wouldn't it be nice to have people who have no previous belief system in power? or 'ruling' ... people who never have a list of rules, .. do or do nots, .. people who just Do what is best for everyone all the time...

best for everyone who isn't entangibly creating unnecessary circumstances/demands for selfish personal reasons? ..

Oh but wait.. thats dictatorship.. so... EVERYONE should be just as educated as the next person... by switching job functions everyday (or staying to learn), interacting with multitudes of different people everyday... free flights and room and board, everywhere... free food, everywhere...... people constantly moving around interacting, no need for currency because everything is free, paid for by no one, because everyone is doing something, not by force... but because every job is open for everyone to learn... everything that can be done for service to others. Materialism would be dead.... yet very much alive... just our hold on it would be dissolved.. since what is yours is also your neighbours..
Everything that is 'excess' will be cut off.. because people won't be idle, they will be constantly happy and occupied with thoughts of communion and joy...
You argue that everyone will flock to certain jobs and leave other jobs....
I highly doubt that... have you seen how diverse the population of the world is? .. how sophisticated some of the simplist jobs would seem to a native from the jungle? .. who would jump at the chance to 'try' something new.. since they've never been invited.. or rather.. they've been invited.. but to hell in most respects... wars and religeons.. neither of which tempt anyone except the self important or self pitiful..

These are no plans of mine.. everyone, or rather many people have had glimpses of something similar.... blah blah, happy ending..

But what happened to you in the mix? .. GONE, disappeared... ran away... Whose left? ... a new creation... YOUR creation..
Accept Yourself so you can more easily accept your neighbour.

[edit on 11/13/2006 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Isreal is such a complicated issue.

I just found out that Hamas take the protocols of the elders of zion as fact, so I can see why they don't want palestinians living there.

However, after 'the final solution' you'd have thought Isrealis would want a peaceful existence.

My 2 cents.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join