Understanding the Isaeli/Palestinian Conflict - The Roots of Zionism

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Argggg... Yes, the piece is biased. It is biased toward the creation of Zionism and it's founding principals - the purpose of the thread. Notice how I stopped explaining the history around 1948, about the same time Israel became a nation!? I was trying to give the perspective of where this thing started and why - not to slam the Jewish people or anything like that.

I will state again, from the point that Israel was formed, BOTH sides of the equation have committed atrocious acts against the other. Sadly, our history lessons only seem to start at the end of WWII when it comes to Israel and that gives a very biased view in and of itself. There is perspective here. There is greater understanding to be gained from having thte knowledge of where this started.

This is not something that just happened. It has evolved over time and there was a starting point. I have attempted to illustrate that starting point by demonstrating how Zionists are different from Jews and what their political objectives were from the beginning.

So, yes, there is bias... warranted bias based on the topic being discussed.




posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
So, yes, there is bias... warranted bias based on the topic being discussed.

I learned something while obtaining my psychology degree and that is that everyone forms bias and it's based upon evidence that they gather and form an opinion on.

Some people form opinions in one direction and others in another direction - based upon the same evidence.

Forming a bias is a natural thing. It's part of evolutionary psychology.
A survival skill that modern humans have readapted to modern living.

Of course, this is psychology we are talking about, so things could have changed in the past years since that psychology-thought came out.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
People believe what they want to believe. They select information that fits in with their world-views, aspirations, and current conditions, and reject that which does not. It is possible to overcome this habit to some extent by cultivating intellectual detachment, purposfully pushing yourself to entertain uncomfortable ideas, exercising critical thinking, and identifying your own biases.

Unfortunately these skills have largely been lost. They take courage, and are not easy. TV and other aspects of our "media coccon" tell us that if it fdoesn't feel good, it isn't natural. They tell us that thinking from our gut and with emotion is somehow nobler than intellectualizing things, which is seen as stale and tepid. They tell us that courage means stickin' to your guns, even when all the evidence flys in the face of your belief. They tell us its more corageous to scream simplistic slogans and throw yourself wholeheartedly into one "side" or anther, rather than carefully pick your way through an intellectual minfield. Unforunately, NONE of this is true. Not. One. Bit.

A low tolerance for ambiguity is generally a marker of stupidity. Media and consumer culture have turned that truth on its head and gotten us to equate such stupidity with "courage," "keepin' it real," and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I am reading this thread and asking myself are we all watching the same news? I know the news is different in Europe vs. the US but still ...
Children being killed by snipers as they go on the street to buy food with their parents, homes being bombed, Israeli colonists executing their anger upon innocent Palestine's. If we may agree that all children are innocent how many innocent victims have fallen in the events of the last week only? I as a mum, being a pacifist, would also be seeking justice for the dead of my child, if the world would turn a blind eye to my children's killers, I fear I would also turn to those who - be it in the wrong way - are seeking justice.
The horror that was put upon the Jewish - and please let us not forget all the other groups that were targeted in WW2 - is not an excuse for their actions they have taken in this conflict. From a state that is build on the terrors its people survived we cannot tolerate that they in turn commit terror on others. I believe that indeed from such a state we could and should expect other behaviour.
And what is the US doing whilst innocent people are being killed and Israel is threatening with their nuclear weapons? For a country portraying itself as the saver of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan - why are the children of Palestine not entitled to the same peace and help ?



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Woman on the moon
why are the children of Palestine not entitled to the same peace and help ?


As far as I'm concerned they are.

From your post I pick up that you may think some one is trying to give a reason or excuse to what is happening. I know I'm not and I don't believe kozmo is either. I can only speak for myself on why I wrote my pieces, but I operate on the assumption kozmo had the same intention, just to share the historical events behind the conflict. That's not proffering an excuse for the violence, it's just sharing the historical record for the sake of knowledge transfer.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
So, this is all the response this thread gets??? Perhaps I should have "Hated" on the "Evil Jews" instead of focusing on the Zionist?

Seems to me that whenever a thread is posted that is well-thought out and constructed, clearly illustrating its points it is quickly disregarded. Just curious guys, other than the 4 or 5 other people who have submitted meanigful debate on the subject, why hasn't this garnered more attention? Especially with the current events taking place? Input would be helpful - I just wanna post better threads. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
So, this is all the response this thread gets??? Perhaps I should have "Hated" on the "Evil Jews" instead of focusing on the Zionist?

Seems to me that whenever a thread is posted that is well-thought out and constructed, clearly illustrating its points it is quickly disregarded. Just curious guys, other than the 4 or 5 other people who have submitted meanigful debate on the subject, why hasn't this garnered more attention? Especially with the current events taking place? Input would be helpful - I just wanna post better threads. Thanks.


It's fairly simple. No one wants to deal with facts. They find facts boring. They also find facts to be hard to take. So they would rather spend their time concocting conspiracy theories that they some how feel they can "out" (i.e. have a feeling of control over) than deal with factual matters that they simply have no control over.

When push comes to shove people opt for delusions of comfort over facing that there is uncontrollable evil in mankind (i.e. greed over humanity, materials over compassion, etc.). When we watch two sets of people blow each other up for 100 years, we're watching uncontrollable evil...no one wants to accept that.

Welcome to the human race....and the apathy of ATS.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Thanks Val, for your input. It's sad, but true. This is probably the best little sociology experiment to date. History does repeat itself and it is largely due to the fact that so few people know or understand history - and your explaination may just be the reason why. Alas, we are destined to repeat our mistakes over and over again.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Good thread. I was surprised to not see Jabotinsky (he of the 'Iron wall') mentioned, but a generally good outline of the issue. Sometimes does feel that modern history began in 1948 when I read discussions of Israel/Palestine.

ABE: I think similar claims of bias could be made against one of Val's articles. But I've only read part one. I'm not sure I've got the energy to read nine more, lol. It brushes over much of the zionist violence vs. the arabs during the mid to late 30s - Jabotinksy's Irgun. Indeed, they were labelled as a 'terrorist' organisation by many at the time, and can readily be seen as religious fundamentalist terrorists in retrospective (not that different than Hamas). But hey-ho. You, also, have done a good job of outlining this complex issue.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Kozmo, From what I understand, the Zionists approached the British leadership about a year after the Lusitania was sunk and offered them a proposition. The British were getting their butts kicked by the Germans at that time and were running out of food too. The Germans had cut off their supply ships.

The British were in a state of panic, very close to having to surrender to the Germans. The Zionists, led by a Rothschild, told the British that if they could get the United States to enter the war to help Britain win the war, they wanted Britain to guarantee the land of Israel to the Zionists.

Because the British just knew the United States was not going to get involved they agreed to the terms of the Zionist deal. This is when the Zionists pulled off a false flag operation, the sinking of the SS Sussex, a large ferry boat supposedly carrying about 35 Americans was reported sunk in the English Channel by a German U-boat.

When this news hit the American congress, war was declared against Germany, mainly because Americans were still angry about the sinking of the Lusitania a year earlier. So, then America entered the war and kicked Germany's butt. Later it was discovered that the SS Sussex event never happened. It was a complete lie.

That's why the Zionists got Israel. They lied and got America involved in a bloody war. The Zionists have been evil since day one!





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join