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.

 

The true miracle of Israel

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmTetsuo
 


Nope. It's more the product of two tribes being mortal enemies for thousands of years, long before there was a modern republic of Israel. The "Arabs and Jews living in harmony until Europeans messed it up" is just another anti-Israeli myth. The "harmony" was that of dhimmitude, a form of economic slavery and second-class citizenship. Just ask (or read the writings of) Jews that were forced to live under Arab/Muslim imperialism.


Myth? Or Zionism? I don’t see it that way. Consider: Israel killed 13 Palestinians yesterday. No one needs myths to see the genocide going on every day in Gaza. That's fact, not myth. As to the past, the longest good times in the Christian era for the Jewish people was the 711 AD to 1492 AD in Moorish Spain. And that good time was followed by the 400 years of Ottoman rule from the 1500 to the 1918 end of War 1.

The fact is Jews have been persecuted more under Christians than ever under Arabs. Arabs have not engaged in open warfare with Jewish people until after the 1948 usurpation of the land of Palestine. That's fact, not either anti or pro Israel myth. Just fact!




posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmTetsuo
 


It's more the product of two tribes being mortal enemies for thousands of years, long before there was a modern republic of Israel.


You read a different history than I read. Surely you are not relying on the Hebrew Bible - Christian Old Testament - for your "historical" data? That statement, from wherever it originated, is not true. Crapola.



The "Arabs and Jews living in harmony until Europeans messed it up" is just another anti-Israeli myth. The "harmony" was that of dhimmitude, a form of economic slavery and second-class citizenship.


I do not need any myth to disgust me with the conduct of Israel post 1967. Once a place of promise of a democracy in the Middle East, Israel is now under the control of quasi-religious dictators. If you ever needed proof that mixing of religion and politics is a recipe for disaster, look at Israel. Kooks and nuts are unlikely to produce anything of value.

[edit on 3/1/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The only miracle of isreal is that it hasnt nuked all its neighbors yet. Soon they prob will.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by IAmTetsuo
 


Nope. It's more the product of two tribes being mortal enemies for thousands of years, long before there was a modern republic of Israel. The "Arabs and Jews living in harmony until Europeans messed it up" is just another anti-Israeli myth. The "harmony" was that of dhimmitude, a form of economic slavery and second-class citizenship. Just ask (or read the writings of) Jews that were forced to live under Arab/Muslim imperialism.


Myth? Or Zionism? I don’t see it that way. Consider: Israel killed 13 Palestinians yesterday. No one needs myths to see the genocide going on every day in Gaza. That's fact, not myth. As to the past, the longest good times in the Christian era for the Jewish people was the 711 AD to 1492 AD in Moorish Spain. And that good time was followed by the 400 years of Ottoman rule from the 1500 to the 1918 end of War 1.


Note that I was referring to the ancient emnity between Arabs and Jews. Neither the Moors who controlled Al-Andalus nor the Turks (and Islamicized Greeks and Slavs) who controlled the Ottoman Empire, were Arabs. In Al-Andalus, the only good times for Jews were from about 800-1000 when the Caliphate was strong enough to effectively punish Muslims for mistreating Jews.

As for the Ottoman Empire, they needed to preserve the twin economic engines of the old Byzantine Empire. These engines were the Jews and Orthodox Christians. The Muslims for the most part did nothing more than collect taxes, and put down the occasional revolt, and fight the occasional war with foreign nations. There was a good reason why the Ottomans never commited genocide (except against the Armenians in the dying days of the empire) or forced adult subjects to convert to Islam. It was economic necessity, not benevolence.

Perhaps the Ottomans really did prefer Jews to Arabs? After all, it was they who first defined the state of Palestine, and who considered selling it to the Jews.


The fact is Jews have been persecuted more under Christians than ever under Arabs. Arabs have not engaged in open warfare with Jewish people until after the 1948 usurpation of the land of Palestine. That's fact, not either anti or pro Israel myth. Just fact!


I guess that the 1936-1939 Arab revolt led by Mufti al-Husseini doesn't count?



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmTetsuo
 


Although I abhor the policies followed by Israel since 1967, I do not mean to be disrespectful of or to the Jewish people. I have often marveled how Jews - alone amongst the peoples of the earth? - have managed to persist as an identifiable people and preserve the religion that is their unique trait. Certainly the story of the conquest of the Promised Land is perhaps the earliest example of ethnic cleansing in the extreme. IMO it is a myth, but myth or real it illustrates what makes people tick! It is a tragedy that people in the 20th century and today actually are fighting over what must surely be known to any educated person is a fictional telling of an origins tale. The notion that GOD gave the mythological Abraham anything is too fanciful to repeat were it not the justification used in the on-going killing of fellow humans.

I know enough about Jewish history vis a vis Christianity to know you know more than I do about Jewish history. I am in no position to agree or to disagree with your observations about Jewish history other than in the most general terms.


There was a good reason why the Ottomans never committed genocide forced adult subjects to convert to Islam. It was economic necessity, not benevolence. Perhaps the Ottomans really did prefer Jews to Arabs? After all, it was they who first defined the state of Palestine, and who considered selling it to the Jews. I guess that the 1936-1939 Arab revolt led by Mufti al-Husseini doesn't count?


1) At this great distance in both time and geography I question how it is really possible to assign motives to deeds done so long ago. Maybe that is part of the Jewish victim myth I don’t agree with? 2) After the First Century Romans, I thought it was the British and France in the 1920s who next defined Palestine? 3) Well, you’re involving the Nazis more than Arabs in this particular event.

I thought Arabs and Jews were the same, genetically speaking?

[edit on 3/1/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOmaskedman
 


While I am loathe to enter the debate about the legitimacy and or evilness of the current situation in Palestine, I think we can all agree that it is unlikely the nation of Israel will nuke its neighbors, except as a final option, because I am sure that the Israeli's understand that it would indeed be the "final solution" for the entire region. ANY nuclear first strike would necessitate an immediate response from the nations of the world. And aside from that, it's kinda like crapping in your own nest, don't you think?



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DisgustedOne
 


While I am loathe to enter the debate about the legitimacy and or evilness of the current situation in Palestine, I think we can all agree that it is unlikely the nation of Israel will nuke its neighbors, except as a final option, because I am sure that the Israeli's understand that it would indeed be the "final solution" for the entire region. ANY nuclear first strike would necessitate an immediate response from the nations of the world. And aside from that, it's kinda like crapping in your own nest, don't you think?


Back when we had the Doomsday Bomb, the Israeli’s called theirs the Sampson Option. The Doomsday Bomb was an H-bomb wrapped in several tons of cobalt. It was located in your own country, and was to be set off if any other nation had nuked you. The fallout from this DD bomb would have pretty much assured all LIFE forms on the planet would be wiped out. As of course the Sampson Option alludes to the Biblical story of him pulling down the banquet hall onto his tormentors but himself dying in the process.

I think America is getting an unwanted and unexpected lesson taught on the limits of being the World’s Most Powerful Nation. And it was only 1975 when the US had to evacuate Saigon from the embassy’s rooftop. And the IDF has seen its limits too, found during the Lebanon RAMPAGE in 2006. The 3 IDF soldiers are still missing in action but no one in Israel mentions that anymore.

I wonder how many Palestinians Israel will kill in Gaza on their next rampage? 1.5 million people confined to 70 square miles of sand and gravel. Not a situation likely to endear the occupying power to the beleaguered inhabitants. But if ethnic cleansing is your mission, then it is exactly what you want.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Exactly my point: Israel has the means and has had the means for some time. They have until this point exercised at least some restraint (thank whatever diety (or not) that you might wish to thank) and will most likely continue to do so because the Israelis knows that nuclear in that region ='s a death sentence to all the inhabitants, including the Israelis. I personally favor COMPLETE worldwide disarmament simply because we are all only one crazy away from M.A.D. I may sound simple-minded here, but why the hell can't we all just get along?????

OK, got that off my chest... I think I know why, without going into a long geo-political diatribe on the history of the conflict. But why doesn't everyone i.e. govt see the total lunacy in the way they handle things? It is as if all of humanity has a death wish. All the conflicts and wars and destruction and evilness has taught us nothing. God help us.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DisgustedOne
 


Exactly my point: I personally favor COMPLETE worldwide disarmament simply because we are all only one crazy away from M.A.D. I may sound simple-minded here, but why the hell can't we all just get along? OK, got that off my chest. It is as if all of humanity has a death wish. All the conflicts and wars and destruction and evilness has taught us nothing.


The world once made a feeble effort at disarmament in the 1921-22 Washington Naval Conference. See Note 1. Back then, battleships - the Brit's Dreadnaught was the first modern battleship - and were the WMDs of choice in that era. Germany, having lost the Great War had seen its entire fighting navy scuttled at the North Sea's Scappa Flow, just off the Scottish coast.

Prior to the First World War, Britain had been the world’s leading naval power. The upstart US was coming along fast on Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet concept. Japan was still over exuberant from its surprise defeat of the Russian Navy in the Yellow Sea battles of 1905-06. Surprise to the West, but not to the Japanese. To everyone’s pleasure, the ratio, 5-5-3 was agreed to. Britain and the US each got 5 battleships to Japan’s 3. A lot of big ships were junked. But as some wags like to say, World War 2 was the LAST battle of World War 1. It didn’t work. See Note 2.


Note 1.
Held in Washington, D.C. from November 12, 1921 to February 6, 1922. It was attended by nine nations having interests in the Pacific Ocean and East Asia. Soviet Russia was not invited to the conference. It was the first international conference held in the United States and the first disarmament conference in history, and is studied by political scientists as a model for a successful disarmament movement. en.wikipedia.org...

Note 2.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. Currently 189 countries are party to the treaty, five of which are permitted to have nuclear weapons. US, UK, PRC, France and Russia. Only four nations are not signatories: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of complete opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmTetsuo
 

Israel has no intention of negotiating a settlement with the Arabs who live in the old Palestine territory. Israel knows exactly what is needed to stop the meager resistence put forth by disillusioned young Palestinians. WHY should they? They have been gradually winning the whole of the British Palestine Mandate from the League of Nations. The wildest dreams of the 19th century Zionists is being realized as it is now moving. ALL the Arabs inside Old Palestine will either be gone or be dead by 2100 AD.

In the 1890s Theodor Herzl infused Zionism with a new and practical urgency. He brought the World Zionist Organization into being. Here’s a brief measure of his success.
Year Jews Arabs
1800. 6,700..... 268,000
1880. 24,000.....525,000
1915. 87,500.....590,000
1931. 174,000....837,000
1947. 630,000.1,310,000



GAZA (Reuters) Sunday, March 2, 2008. - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended peace negotiations with Israel on Sunday, demanding it end a Gaza offensive that has killed more than 100 Palestinians, many of them civilians. A 21-month-old Palestinian girl, two other civilians and three militants were killed in the latest fighting in the Gaza Strip, raising the Palestinian death toll in five days of bloodshed to more than 100, including about 60 civilians, medical officials said.

PA President Abbas had ordered "the suspension of negotiations ... until (Israeli) aggression is stopped", a senior aide to the Palestinian leader said in the West Bank city of Ramallah. But Abbas stopped short of declaring dead the U.S.-brokered statehood talks opposed by Hamas Islamists who control of the Gaza Strip. Anti-Israeli demonstrations erupted in the occupied West Bank, where Israeli forces confronting stone-throwers near the town of Hebron shot dead a 14-year-old boy wearing a Hamas headband, witnesses said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to meet Abbas and Olmert this week. Washington has said it hoped Israeli-Palestinian talks can lead to a statehood deal before President George W. Bush leaves office in January. Israel has sent tanks and other armored vehicles as well as special forces and front-line infantry units into the Gaza Strip, but has released no precise troop figures. "EXCESSIVE FORCE" Earlier, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon accused Israel of using "excessive force."



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by DisgustedOne
 


Exactly my point: I personally favor COMPLETE worldwide disarmament simply because we are all only one crazy away from M.A.D. I may sound simple-minded here, but why the hell can't we all just get along? OK, got that off my chest. It is as if all of humanity has a death wish. All the conflicts and wars and destruction and evilness has taught us nothing.


The world once made a feeble effort at disarmament in the 1921-22 Washington Naval Conference. See Note 1. Back then, battleships - the Brit's Dreadnaught was the first modern battleship - and were the WMDs of choice in that era. Germany, having lost the Great War had seen its entire fighting navy scuttled at the North Sea's Scappa Flow, just off the Scottish coast.

Prior to the First World War, Britain had been the world’s leading naval power. The upstart US was coming along fast on Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet concept. Japan was still over exuberant from its surprise defeat of the Russian Navy in the Yellow Sea battles of 1905-06. Surprise to the West, but not to the Japanese. To everyone’s pleasure, the ratio, 5-5-3 was agreed to. Britain and the US each got 5 battleships to Japan’s 3. A lot of big ships were junked. But as some wags like to say, World War 2 was the LAST battle of World War 1. It didn’t work. See Note 2.


You and I both know why it didn't work: It was not a complete disarmament. I am not even sure this could ever be achieved. Man truly is a barbarian and has not changed from that in all of his history. From the neighborhood to the nationhood, we arm ourselves, hoping, yes, hoping the other guy doesn't open fire first. And we all have itchy fingers on a hair trigger.

To clarify my position in the discussion: I support Israel's right to exist. That does not mean I support the regimes policy towards the Palestinians. I do not wish to get drawn into the geo-political historical failed policy debate that many others are into. The context is now, not what may have happened X number of years ago. Can there be peace in the M.E.? Maybe, but not without a lot more bloodshed. What then is the answer? I wish I knew. I can assure you, it will not be at the negotiating table. Any peace agreement will be shortlived, if it happens at all. There is just too much hate between the parties involved. Too many unwilling, yes, unwilling, to budge. Too many itchy fingers and hair triggers. Today. Not yesterday. Today.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


To create an Oasis of peace for a deserving people.
As well as an extension of the US for keeping an eye on things in that region.


It would seem that both of those objectives have failed miserably. I think it is sink or swim time for Israel. The US should cut them off so we can see the "miracle" for what it really is.

Oh! Deserving people? Please explain what they did to "deserve" being given land which has belonged to the Palestinians for centuries?



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


Please explain what they did to "deserve" being given land which has belonged to the Palestinians for centuries?


Religion.
If a one word answer to a complex question is ever in order.

Christians first began to persecute Jewish people in the 2nd century AD. This is attributed to the fact that the Romans treated Christians as a Jewish aberration. The Jewish people of old Palestine had engaged in almost a continuous revolt since being conquered in 61 BC. The First Jewish Revolt came in 66-73 AD. Aside: I believe Jesus was leading a failed revolt in the 30-33 AD period, which got him crucified. End. Then came the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 AD, usually called the Second Jewish Revolt.

In between those two revolts was a period of uninterrupted unrest some writers elevate to "revolt" status, the Kitos War 115–117 AD. By the middle of the second century, many Christians were not Jewish. Nevertheless, the Romans punished them as Jews. They, the non-Jewish Christians, for their part, took great umbrage against REAL Jews for whose misconduct they were suffering. (Dates are from Wikipedia and not from my memory).

Christians all across Europe thereafter regularly ostracized and sometimes robbed and murdered their Jewish neighbors. It became much worse after 476 AD, generally the accepted date for the FALL of the Western Roman Empire. And did not end until 1945. A cool 1,000 years. Aside: I assert this millennia long Christian "Christ Killer" theme went far to set the stage for the Nazi Holocaust. End. Irony. Those same Christians also believed in the re-assembly of Jews in old Palestine as a necessary prerequisite to the Second Coming of Jesus. People like me call those Christians END TIMERS. Bush43 is an End Timer. It is essential to people who hold to that belief that Jews be ensconced into what is now Israel. It must be ironic that 99% of the Jewish people who now live in Israel do not believe any of that STUFF. But at the same time they are smart enough to take full advantage of the millions of Americans who DO believe that STUFF. And who vote!

Just look at John McCain's pandering to John C. Hagee, a throwback evangelical preacher who “owns” his own mega-church in San Antonio. Those people are dangerous to democracy. Hagee-types and their followers. We more rational types do not know how to deal with them. We who are more literate know of this risk but we continue to accord to them the same freedom of speech and thought we want for ourselves. By virtue of our respect for tolerance and by taking advantage of which those kinds of people are able to spread intolerance. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. James Dobson. And etc. There! My fuller answer.

[edit on 3/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DisgustedOne
 


I personally favor COMPLETE worldwide disarmament simply because we are all only one crazy away from M.A.D. All the conflicts and wars and destruction and evilness has taught us nothing.


The last 10,000 years of human history say that is truly “the impossible dream.” Worthy to aspire to, but not to be the cause of depression if it fails. But with the coming of the WMD age, biological, chemical and nuclear, we may have reached the time in human history when we can no longer afford the luxury of war.

I can’t lump ALL the wars of the past into the same category for equal condemnation. The United Nations Charter embraces the idea of self determination of all peoples. In 1999 following the UN sponsored act of self-determination, Indonesia relinquished control of the territory and East Timor became the first new sovereign state of the twenty-first century on May 20, 2002.

OTOH, look at the divided Cyprus. Look at the Six Counties of Ulster. Look at the brand new Kosovo versus Serbia about-to-be conflict. Now we are saying it is OK for Kosovo to separate from Serbia, but look what Abraham Lincoln said to South Carolina in our own country. Some separation good, some separation bad.


To clarify my position in the discussion: I support Israel's right to exist. That does not mean I support the regimes policy towards the Palestinians. The context is now, not what may have happened X number of years ago. Can there be peace in the M.E.? Maybe, but not without a lot more bloodshed. There is just too much hate between the parties involved. Too many unwilling, yes, unwilling, to budge. Too many itchy fingers and hair triggers.


One person on another person, one on one, people can and do get along. It is their leaders - in equal madness, political AND religious - who constantly revile the other side, and constantly harangue their own of the abuses they have suffered in the past. We truly do need good leaders but that is as hard to find and to know as disarmament is to accomplish. We need to find a new way to choose our leaders. There and here.

[edit on 3/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Well said, sir, I appreciate your well researched and thoughtful answers. With all the hot spots heating up as we speak (Kosovo, South America, etc.) we can only hope that cooler heads will now prevail. But if history is any teacher, it is a dim hope at best, because it seems to me that the barbarian usually wins, at least for the short term...

Good day to you and thank you for tolerating my rants...

And yes, we do need to find a new way to choose our leaders, or at least a better way to qualify them. On the other hand, maybe more people need to involve themselves in the process. When only a third of the eligible voters actually participate, can we expect great leadership to come from that?

[edit on 3-3-2008 by DisgustedOne]




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join