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.

 

Everyone in America needs to watch this

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I have a link to an Q&A article with questions being asked to a Professor Ilan Pappe a professor of Political Science at the University of Haifa.

I had found a link to this on an american website but this site had been hacked so badly with porno redirects and other pop-ups



Q: So why did you decide to become an expert, or study the question of the Palestinians and the formation of Israel?

I realized at the very early stage that the research of history in the cases of people like myself, or as anyone knows in Israel and Palestine, is not just an intellectual pursuit; that the reality, the realities of conflict are informed by what happened in the past. And therefore I thought that not only historians, professional historians, but the society at large should look deeply into the past if it wishes to understand the present better. And I also understood that the way history is taught, being taught and researched in Israeli academia is very loyal to the Zionist ideology, and it was very clear for me, from the early stage in my professional carrier that writing history books, and teaching history courses about the Palestine past, is also a political act, an ideological act, not just an intellectual act.

Ever since then I am still convinced that my way of activism, which connects my professional history of writing, and my political activity in the present, is tightly closed together and I think this is why I still insist also on continuing researching the past, and being active in the present.


Q: When you began to study this, I mean, what conclusions did you come to about, about the state of Israel and the situation of the Palestinians?

I think what came out is something which I think many, many Palestinians before me realized, but for me it took this individual journey into the past to understand that. I was taught as an Israeli academic that there is a very complex story there, and in fact what you find out is that this is a very simple story, a story of dispossession, of colonization, of occupation, of expulsion. And the more I go into it, the clearer the story becomes, even it becomes simpler, and it also brought me to think of the state of Israel, and the Jewish majority in it, in very much the same terms that I used to think about places such as South Africa, and the white supremacy regime there. So I think this is the natural, main conclusion.


Q: The theory of Zionism was that if Jews had their own state that would be a solution to anti-Semitism, and that they will need a state to really defend Jews. What is the reality today?

Well, the reality is first of all that if you create a Jewish state, even if, and I will come back to it in a second, even if a Jewish state is the only solution for anti-Semitism, definitely it cannot be a solution if that state is being built at the expense of a native population. I mean, the fact that in 1948 the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homeland, dispossessed, did not allow Israel to become a safe place. Or the fact that the Zionists' forefathers decided to create a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world was also not a good formula to insure security. So the timing and the location of the project of building a Jewish state by itself had the seeds of insecurity. So it could not really solve the problem of anti-Semitism, and as we know, it, in many ways, increased anti-Semitism after the Second World War.

But even more than that, I think that one of the major conclusions of Jews who were not Zionists, after the second world war, was that Jews should take a very active part in building a world where not only anti-Semitism, but basically racism and ideologies of that kind, would not have hold of the people’s minds and hearts. And I think this is why you saw, after second world war, many Jews trying to be active in movements such as the civil rights movement, in the socialist movement, and so on; exactly motivated by this belief that the right answer to anti-Semitism was not Zionism but rather an international moral movement.

Of course, there are different versions. One can do it from the liberal side, one can do it from the socialist side, but I think basically it is the same idea. However, I think that these alternatives were weakened by the hold Zionism took over the Jewish story, if you want. Or the Jewish representation in the period after the second world war.

Source


American Link on Indymedia
sf.indymedia.org...
(where you can see the original link that was maliciously hacked)




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

I'm not exonerating the Palestinians. Israel has the power to change what's going on there. Palestinians don't, ...

They do too. Who supposedly is in control in Gaza? Israel or the PA? Looks to me like anarchy there more than any form of government. Who has the ability to control the militants lobbing rockets into Israel proper and sending suicide bombers into Israel proper? I shudder to think of all the horrible things Israel would do should the Palestinians decide to take a strictly nonviolent path of resistance. I'm sure they would just start "ethnically cleansing" in earnest then. The World would think the Palestinians were weak too, I'm sure.



Yeah... you're right... that Palestinian lobby is soooo powerful.

The point of the film is that it shows, very clearly, the power structures through which Israel manipulates what's going on in the US media. Can you point to anything remotely comparable?


I know this is not going to be productive but.... go ahead and bash the sites. Both sides do their best to present their side as the fair/good/victim side. Why is that surprising to you? Sure Israel is better at it, they have been always been better at politics and the like when compared to the Palestinian side.

www.camera.org...
x_context=2&x_outlet=31&x_article=1251

www.honestreporting.com...



I think the Palestinians should be given enough land, in one contiguous area uncrossed by Israeli roads and with adequate water resources, to be able to form their own state. If this means booting some settlers out of the occupied territories, they can resettle. I was nauseated by the coverage of the settlers being moved by the Israeli soldiers, treating them far less brutally than they treat Palestinians whose homes are simply bulldozed without warning.


See what I mean.... What does Israel get in return? How is is guaranteed? At least you seem to imply with your response that the 67 border is negotiable in some measure as you state some of the settlers. Let's just give the Palestinians most of the land back and hope for the best.... I mean their (the Palestinians) track record is so good. Oh btw, I hope you as nauseated when you see the Palestinians treat their radicals the same way you want Israel to treat it's citizens when it comes to enforcing agreements or decisions. I won't hold my breath for that one.


For heaven's sake, Israel has nukes. What Arab nation is going to attack them now?

Then why have most refused to recognize Israel or it's right to exist? Iran,(yes I know it's now Arab), seems to be so comfortable with Israel's existence in the Middle East, doesn't it.


If you'd like to pick one example of the Palestinians scuttling peace talks, we can look at it and see how the discussion develops.


Ok how about the last Camp David meeting with Clinton, Arafat and Barak? That's about as good as a deal will get, big picture wise with Israel. Sure some details needed to be worked out, but what did Arafat do? He walked away without even offering a counter proposal. Not one single productive counter proposal even. Just "no, that's not enough".

Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. During these months additional talks had taken place between Israelis and Palestinians, and furious violence had broken out between the two sides. The President's proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians' direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory. Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homeland in historic Palestine, a right that would guarantee their unrestricted ability to live in Palestine while subjecting their absorption into Israel to Israel's sovereign decision. In Jerusalem, all that is Arab would be Palestinian, all that is Jewish would be Israeli. Palestine would exercise sovereignty over the Haram and Israel over the Western Wall, through which it would preserve a connection to the location of the ancient Jewish Temple.
www.nybooks.com...

Just how much better does a compromise proposal have to get? Really. And what was Arafat's response to it? Go look that one up yourself. Face facts, Arafat did not want any meaningful solution to the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Otherwise he would have offered a counter proposal. What was the Palestinians major concessions in this round of negotiations? Israel offered to make many, how many did the Palestinian side offer?


Can you give a counter-example of the Israelis showing restraint?


Sure voanews.com...
What about just moving out of Gaza even with the Hamas election?




Further, to complain about a UN resolution not being complied with, when earlier in the thread there's a massive list of UN resolutions vetoed by the US that, in a truly democratic world, would have been imposed on Israel, is humbug.

I'm not complaining, I'm stating that the UN Security Council has agreed that 242 is the framework under which the peace should take place, you seem to feel that unilateral return of the West Bank and Gaza should take place with no other conditions. That will not happen.


I'm sorry, but if you can demonstrate something that's a little more central to the programme's thesis, I'd be grateful.


I'll work on something ok? Need to play some poker now.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
They do too. Who supposedly is in control in Gaza? Israel or the PA? Looks to me like anarchy there more than any form of government.


Well I don't think that blowing up Palestinian police buildings, for example, helps much.


After the Israeli attack on police headquarters yesterday, the Palestinian Authority issued a statement condemning what it called Israel's escalation, "which threatens all the efforts made to calm down the situation and to restore peace and stability".

A US-brokered cease-fire declared last month has never taken hold, and violence has surged in recent days. Since the violence erupted last September, 540 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 133 people on the Israeli side.


Again, a significant ratio in favour of the Israelis when it comes to casualties - five to one, roughly.




Yeah... you're right... that Palestinian lobby is soooo powerful.

The point of the film is that it shows, very clearly, the power structures through which Israel manipulates what's going on in the US media. Can you point to anything remotely comparable?

I know this is not going to be productive but.... go ahead and bash the sites.


I don't have to bash the sites. I asked you to point to power structures or organisations which promote a pro-Palestinian point of view. What you have provided is two organisations which seek to enforce a pro-Israeli point of view. What you posted suggests, even more strongly, that there is no pro-Palestinian lobby, and that the immensely powerful Israeli lobby is a lone player in the field.


Both sides do their best to present their side as the fair/good/victim side.


What "both" sides? What power structure, what organisation, is there to aggressively promote the Palestinian point of view? Please, again, enlighten me. All you need to do is point out the Palestinian version of the Anti-defamation Leage, of MEMRI, of AIPAC, of CAMERA. Where is their Hasbara project?

So far, I've found Palestinian Media Watch, a small and ill-founded site that, in contrast to the self-righteous smugness displayed by, for example, Honest Reporting, doesn't seem to be very successful in eliminating pro-Israeli bias from the US media. This post demonstrates that, on the rare occasions that they get more than a formal reply from any of the organisations they write to (on the lines of "thank you for writing to .... we're considering your complaint"), it turns out that the lengthy letter is aimed at people complaining about anti-Israel bias!

Oh... you shouldn't confuse Palestinian Media Watch with Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli-financed site that proffers "a self-portrait of Palestinian Society". Who seem to write in Hebraic script, by the look of their home page. I mean, when the Israeli propaganda machine can get away with saying the Iranians are going to make Jews and Christians wear badges like the Jews had to in thirties Germany (which was, eventually, exposed as a lie), I have to express scepticism at the content of websites like this.

Seems like one side is virtually unrepresented to me. When innocent mistakes in reporting are held up as evidence of pro-Palestinian bias, as happened here, the fact that there is little or no viable infrastructure countering Israeli spin can be concealed...


To the untrained eye, the Grossman affair might seem like the sort of routine journalistic error that occurs every day in the news business. Corrections to erroneous stories appear all the time. No one alleged any deliberate falsification in the Grossman case; the vast majority of injuries in Jerusalem the day the Grossman photograph was taken were sustained by Palestinians, so the assumption that the wounded man was Palestinian was plausible, though careless.

But the pro-Israel media critics cried bias. Newspapers across the country carried angry commentaries and letters by supporters of Israel brandishing the mislabeled photograph as palpable proof of their long-held suspicions. The New York Post (10/5/00) and Wall Street Journal (10/6/00) each ran op-eds on the photo. In commentaries, the mislabeled photo was proof that pro-Palestinian "misreporting by the media has been rampant" (Albany Times-Union, 10/25/00), and that "Anti-Israel Bias Warps American Minds" (Providence Journal-Bulletin, 10/13/00). Daily Oklahoman columnist Edie Roodman (10/13/00) accused the media of "indirectly stimulating riots" by Palestinians.


You know, it's funny. The thing I'm starting to notice is that a vast amount of the allegedly pro-Palestinian stuff I'm reading (and quoting) as I'm researching this is written by Jewish people who are appalled by what's going on in Israel! Where are the Palestinian voices? I only know of two, and I have quoted neither. Doesn't that tell you something?



I think the Palestinians should be given enough land, in one contiguous area uncrossed by Israeli roads and with adequate water resources, to be able to form their own state...


See what I mean.... What does Israel get in return?


The chance to get a genuine peace settlement rather than trying to beat down the Palestinians, who at the moment have nothing to lose. And, of course, a warm glow of moral correctness. Of course, if some big violent bully broke into your house and stopped you using most of the rooms, smacked your kids around. put a checkpoint on the bathroom and made it difficult for you to work, and then when asked to leave, said, "what's in it for me?" you might take a dim view of their morality.



For heaven's sake, Israel has nukes. What Arab nation is going to attack them now?

Then why have most refused to recognize Israel or it's right to exist?


Not the same thing as not attacking it. Israel is safe from outside attack. You never know, if they gave the Palestinians somewhere decent to live and stopped killing them and knocking down their houses, the Arabs might come around in time.


Ok how about the last Camp David meeting with Clinton, Arafat and Barak? That's about as good as a deal will get, big picture wise with Israel.


... the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians' direction.


Just how much better does a compromise proposal have to get?



Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders.

The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.

Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted.

...With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel's terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader.

The brilliant offer Israel never made


More details on why the Camp David was not a good deal for Arafat can be found here


...you seem to feel that unilateral return of the West Bank and Gaza should take place with no other conditions. That will not happen.


Well then it seems likely that the cycle of violence will continue.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
So the Palestinians have no control over their own destiny? It's all Israel's fault that the Palestinians have horrible leadership that half of it can't even seem to stomach the thought of living side by side with Israel. And yet Israel is supposed to unilaterally give up the land with no guarantees and place it under control of a group (Hamas) that won't recognize Israel and has stated in it's charter that it will liberate all of mandated Palestine and any treaties, agreements ect to the contrary are not to be honored. Give me a break please.

As to the last Camp David or for that matter any of the negotiations, what major changes in Palestinian offers were made? Arafat, didn't even try to make the last Camp David negotiation anything. When the chips were down, Arafat decided to not play. The excuse of "he smelled a trap, so he didn't offer anything" is so weak. Why didn't he offer a deal good for Palestine and too good for Israel to turn down if he smelled a trap. Truth be told, he had no other ideas to offer. Such is the lot of a Liberation leader who, when he has the chance to really Liberate his people, realizes he has no real idea of what peace should look like. History will and has already judged his decision to walk away as a really bad decision.

What is the Palestine's main goal? I always assumed it was to get a Palestinian State with the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem. What was the supposed offer on the table after Camp David? 96 to 99% of the land and East Jerusalem and a limited right of return, limited only by not being able to go back to pre 67 Israel. Everyone knows Israel will not allow a full right of return to Israel. The US would have compensated and expended much to make the Peace work, yet Arafat decided not to make any counter offer to give Palestinians the State they desire.

Do you think Arafat did the right thing by walking away from Camp David or should he have counter offered?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
the video doesnt mention how the 1967 war was started by Syria, Jordan and egypt. .... wouldnt have to worry about that land if you hadnt attacked Israel in 1967. :shk:


Exactly.

Oh .. and here's MY 'everyone in America needs to watch this' ...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
the video doesnt mention how the 1967 war was started by Syria, Jordan and egypt. .... wouldnt have to worry about that land if you hadnt attacked Israel in 1967. :shk:



First of all the 1967 war was a Pre-emptive war so how can one say Israel was attacked when no such thing occurred? Israel was the one that attacked because Israel said they were about to be attacked. You will never know if they were going to attack since clearly here was only one country attacking while the arabs were defending. The arabs were amassed at their borders more then likely because they knew Israel was about to attack. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Israel clearly needed the Golan Heights not only for defensive purposes but for water as well.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
The arabs were amassed at their borders more then likely because they knew Israel was about to attack.


Yeah.........right.....

Here's a timeline of the 1967 in the region.... you tell me what was about to happen.

encarta.msn.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
The arabs were amassed at their borders more then likely because they knew Israel was about to attack.


Yeah.........right.....

Here's a timeline of the 1967 in the region.... you tell me what was about to happen.

encarta.msn.com...


MSN encarta says that Israel was attacked. If it was Pre-emptive then how can it be that Israel was attacked when Israel was the one doing the attacking? Its not factual at all. It seems that history is being rewritten as though it never occurred. Are people that desperate to place Israel in such a good light that deceit has to take place just so it can be. The truth will be written one day down the line maybe not now.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The gist of my posting that article was to show Arab and Israeli moves prior to the actual war. Arab troops were not massing on Israel's border in response to Israeli troops massing on the other side. Israel did not block the strait of Tiran to shipping, Egypt did. Israel did not tell the UN troops to leave, Egypt did. Israel did not threaten to pound Egypt and Syria and Jordan into the sea, Egypt did. Why don't you talk about those points ok?

You talk about revisionist history when you yourself deny the actions that started the war in the first place. Without the actions by Nasser, the 6 day war doesn't happen, plain and simple. Sure Syria and Israel would have still had issues, probably leading to blows, but the full blown 6 Day War doesn't happen without Egypt's provocations.

As for the article, it plainly states that yes, Israel did a pre emptive attack, I don't think anyone is debating that. You seem to think the actions of Nasser, the UAR and Jordan were just saber rattling, that they were not intent on attacking Israel. Moving out the UN troops and bringing 100,000 Egypitan troops and 1,000 Egyptian tanks to Israel's southern border and putting all the Arab troops in the area under one command were not very good forms of diplomacy I guess.

I wonder if Israel had not attacked, would you be condeming the Arab sneak attack? If someone threatens to punch you, cocks their arm back, threatens you again, you are supposed to wait for them to hit you before defending/attacking back? It wasn't like Egypt was making peace overtures at the time and got hit.





[edit on 18-12-2006 by pavil]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
The gist of my posting that article was to show Arab and Israeli moves prior to the actual war. Arab troops were not massing on Israel's border in response to Israeli troops massing on the other side. Israel did not block the strait of Tiran to shipping, Egypt did. Israel did not tell the UN troops to leave, Egypt did. Israel did not threaten to pound Egypt and Syria and Jordan into the sea, Egypt did. Why don't you talk about those points ok?



Strange how The blocking of the Strait of Tiran which was Egyptian waters to Israeli shipping was an act of war yet Israel can place blockades wherever they wish when it comes to Palestine or Lebanon to the point where it strangulates and endagers the people being blockaded. Even though Israel had other means of routing it was not threatening their lives in any way. I wonder if Biblical lands also had a part in this. It seems Israel has always had a need for the things they did, so it seems. When I say need I mean land or resources. Which always happened to coincidentally work out so well for Israel whenever they were "attacked".



Yesterday the armed forces [of Egypt] occupied Sharm el-Sheikh. What does this mean? It is an affirmation of our rights, of our sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba, which constitutes Egyptian territorial waters. Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba. The Jews threaten war. We say that they are welcome to war, we are ready for war, our armed forces, our people, all of us are ready for war, but under no circumstances shall we abandon our rights. These are our waters ..

Source

Obviously Israel was threatening a war since even the Jewish Virtual Library quotes the Egyptians as saying so. So why shouldn't they have been preparing?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Strange how The blocking of the Strait of Tiran which was Egyptian waters to Israeli shipping was an act of war yet Israel can place blockades wherever they wish when it comes to Palestine or Lebanon to the point where it strangulates and endagers the people being blockaded.



Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza and can pretty much make the rules. In Lebanon, they were pretty much at war with Hezbollah when the blockcades were happening, was Egypt pretty much at war with Israel when it started it's blockade?

Please stay on topic, right now we are talking events of the 67 war not other events. I said that the blocking of the straits was ONE of the events leading to the war in 1967. Do you think it was a peaceful gesture by Egypt to deny Israel access to its ports by means of the blockade? What about the removal of UN monitors and the Egyptian troops and tanks up to the Israel/Egypt border. No provocation there, right? Sure they are entitled to do that, but is it a wise choice given the events happening in 1967?

I'm not sure back then, but now the straits are recognized as International waterways. One can extrapolate from that the the closure of the straits to Israeli ships was not the correct course of action.

[edit on 18-12-2006 by pavil]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Exactly.

Oh .. and here's MY 'everyone in America needs to watch this' ...
www.youtube.com...



If I could I would vote you ANOTHER WATS!!!!

Even taking into consideration all of the hate that is so apparent for Israel, it is hard to believe that REAL Americans can be so blind to the truth.

I guess it is true that hate makes one blind...

Anyway....

WAY TO GO FF...



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
you know something about that video by FF is a bit fishy
maybe the fact that it's somehow implying that the entire west bank was celebrating after 9/11...

yeah, that's it, the hatemongering in the video



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you know something about that video by FF is a bit fishy
maybe the fact that it's somehow implying that the entire west bank was celebrating after 9/11...

yeah, that's it, the hatemongering in the video



Well some people seem to have been celebrating, they could have done nothing that day but they did something and it was caught on tape. Would it have been taped if they were not celebrating, no. Was it wrong for someone to film them celebrating, no. Again, people are responsible for their actions or inactions. Sounds like your blaming the messenger for the message he is delivering.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
The celebration footage was faked.


One woman later claimed she was offered a piece of pie for whooping it up in front of the camera. It is unclear whether it was explained to the woman what she was supposedly celebrating, nor is it clear whether the person who offered her the treat was a reporter. [2] The Panorama TV report which analyzed the full video footage noted (translated):

A closer look at the complete film material which was not broadcast shows that the street around the celebration is quiet. Only in front of the camera there are a few excited children. The woman, who is remembered for her cheering, shortly afterwards moves along quietly. A man in a white T-shirt is conspicuous. He incites the children, and keeps fetching new people. The woman who just left the picture says today that she was offered cake if she celebrates on camera, and that she was appalled when she saw the pictures on television.


[edit on 20-12-2006 by rich23]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
The celebration footage was faked.



Using your same source we see the following:


On the day of the attacks, Times Newspapers LTD. (British) reported that 3,000 celebrants were pouring into the streets of Nablus and dozens of people were celebrating in Arab East Jerusalem.

Moderate Palestinians and the Palestinian leadership quickly distanced themselves from any celebrations. The Palestinian Authority recognized the matter as a public-relations nightmare and moved quickly to censor further reports of public celebrations. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat's Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority could not "guarantee the life" of an Associated Press cameraman if footage he filmed of post-9/11 celebrations was broadcast. Rahman's statement prompted a formal protest from the AP bureau chief, Dan Perry.


Plus this as well from your source: Attacks celebrated in West Bank

There does seem to have been celebrations on the West Bank that caused a media black out by politicians in the West Bank. Were they widespread, probably not. Were they nonexistent, probably not as well. Were all of the reports staged by reporters, again, probably not. That this images were an embarrassment to the Palestinian leadership lends credence to the fact that they did in fact occur.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Would it have been taped if they were not celebrating, no. Was it wrong for someone to film them celebrating, no.


Would it have been taped if they were not celebrating? Apparently, yes. There are reports of 3000 people celebrating, according to the Times. Personally, having seen for myself how the Times degenerated after Murdoch bought it, I wouldn't use it to wipe my bottom, let alone as a reputable news source. It's roughly as reliable as Fox News.

But my point is that it's another example of bias in the media. It wasn't enough for there to be reports, we had to have footage. And now, this footage, despite having been discredited, still has a life. If there were so many people celebrating, how come they had to fake footage? This makes no sense. And if you say it's because a reporter was threatened, then how come someone was able to fake footage and get away with it? Why hasn't the original footage come out?

This CAMERA article is one of the sources for the Wiki entry.


There is no international law making Israel’s occupation of the territories illegal; over 97% of Palestinians live under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority who determine their civil rights; Israel has never received open-ended financial or military backing from the U.S.


Three assertions, all of which are patently false. Are we to take anything this article has to say seriously? I cannot.

I have already posted about the illegality of the occupation. To say that the Palestinian Authority determine the civil rights of the Palestinians is patently untrue, as Israel constantly brutalises the people in the occupied territories; and to say that Israel has never received US financial and military assistance is absurd. The words "open-ended", if used as a get-out clause, are pitiful, because while the US may have to vote on continued support for Israel, they have not yet turned off the taps and are unlikely to do so.

I dare say that some few Palestinians celebrated that day, though I doubt that it was anything like 3000 anywhere. The footage that was so helpfully posted, as we have seen, was faked.

And of course, there were a few Israelis celebrating - from a good deal closer to the disaster:


Five Israelis are arrested around 4:30 pm for “puzzling behavior” related to the WTC attacks: filming the burning WTC from the roof of their company’s building near Liberty State Park, New Jersey, then shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. A neighbor spotted them and called the police and the FBI. The police tracked them down in a van with the words “Urban Moving Systems” written on the side. [Bergen Record, 9/12/2001; Ha'aretz, 9/17/2001] One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. [ABC News, 6/21/2002] Investigators say that “[t]here are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen.” [Bergen Record, 9/12/2001] One of these Israelis later says, “our purpose was to document the event.” [ABC News, 6/21/2002] The FBI later concludes at least two are Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission.

9/11 timeline



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The Palestinians have many relatives here in NYC so I doubt very much that many of them were celebrating. Those news people probably caught a celebration of an attack on Israel. A lot was said about that footage that it was older footage from another time.

Can you say the same for the Israeli footage of IDF soldiers beating down Palestinians and settlers ripping apart Palestinian irrigation equipment? Should you blame them for celebrating an attack on the USA if we allow, condone and support these things being done to them on a daily basis.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

I dare say that some few Palestinians celebrated that day, though I doubt that it was anything like 3000 anywhere. The footage that was so helpfully posted, as we have seen, was faked.


members.tripod.com...

Ok so FPA, Reuters, World Tribune and Associated Press all are in on the "faking of the Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks"? I've never said all the Palestinians were celebrating, nor were just a few. The answer is probably somewhere in between as it always is with these things. If it didn't occur, then why did the PA try to stem the flow of information?



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Unfortunately, I have been extremely busy, and unable to respond to this thread I have read all of the replies and I would like to comment on a few things.

First off, I am not anti-semitic by any means, nor do I hate jews. I have no agenda except for seeing our planet and species at peace and harmony some day. However to dismiss this video and anyone who agrees with it as anti-semitic simply reaffirms one of the main points of this video; namely that the best weapon Israel has is to label any critcism of it's foreign policy or politics as Anti-Semitic. This point has been beaten to death so I won't go over it.

Another major point that is raised is to say that the Palestinian's went to war with Israel and lost so they deserved to be occupied. Although it is true there were mainy skirmishes between jews and native palestinians before Israel was born, the first war that ensued was not waged by Palestinians, but by other Arab countries. Although it is said that arab leaders told these refugess to leave and them come back once the war was over, anyone with 2 cents would not want to stick around while a full scale war was waged. Anyone in their right mind would flee to safety while conditions remained unsafe. Unfortunately for these people simply trying to stay safe meant, when they attempted to return, their land was confiscated. But its ok, because Israel is the epitome of what is good and rigth, and if Israel steals, then its completely good and right.

Another point that has been made, is that an occupier deserves to occupy if they win. Lets assume for a minute that Israel did wage a full scale war with simply the native population, the Palestians. Lets also assume that millions of people were left homeless because um.......trying to make Israel look good here.......um......Ok, there really is no way to spin the fact that nearly a million familys were left homeless and without their land that was handed down for generations. Anyways, lets just assume that the victor has the right to punish and humiliate the victim, er I mean loser. Well if we go upon that logic, then the victim has the right to defend themselves, and the cycle of violence continues.

As a human being, a human being is going to pursue what is right. If your home is stolen, and your family is killed, as a man, you are not only going to defend yourself, but also pursue what is just and right. Your are not going to let whoever stole your home to get away with it. All human beings operate this way. If peace is ever desired, then common sense needs to be used and address the FACT that the original inhabitants of this land were driven out, there lands were confiscated, and WE support them. This is also the root cause of Islamic Extremism. There are only 2 solutions if we want peace. Kill every single arab in the world or make a fair compromise that addresses the root cause of the conflict.

The logic of staunch defenders of Israel goes like this. Lets say you live in a neighborhood. Your family lives in several houses in the neighborhood. A gang moves in and attempts to kill you and drive you from your houses. Now a few of your neighbors say flee to safety, and we will defend you. So you and your family flee to another street to safety, seeing as your children are the most important thing in the world to you and you would never want to see them in harms way. Unfortunately, this gang has far better weapons then your neighbors and they are defeated. You and your family are left with absoluately nothing. Nothing at all. You lose everything. Your job, livelihood, everything. Now the mayor says, just go to another neighborhood. You ask the mayor, arn't there any laws that protect me, and my family. We were robbed and our house was stolen. The mayor tells you, just go to another neighborhood you'll be fine. You tell the mayor, but there are no jobs there, and we have absolutely no money, we lost everything. The mayor responds tough #.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join