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.

 

Enough is enough, what is going on with Israel?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NativeAmerican
Uh? You do realize you shouldn't be calling someone a racist after this comment. My Palestinian friends might find it offensive. Prior to this you say that even the Palestinians know that Hamas is the problem and not Israel. So why would you say something so offensive? There's also a difference between being anti-semetic and having problems with Israel.



Example: 2000 Camp David Summit. Israel agreed to give PLO 91 percent of west bank, 100 percent of Gaza, split Jeruselum, and put money into a fund to compensate palestinians who claim they were forced from they property during the first arab/israeli war.

Arafat walked away from this agreement because he wanted all of jeruselum, and the right of return.

A few other facts:

1) First arab-israeli war was declared by Israel's arab neighbors agaisnt Israel in 1948 when Israel was just a bunch of Holocaust survivors without a strong military.

2) Thanks to the help of the USA and the sheer will of the new Israelis, they were able to fight off Egypt, Syria, Jordan and others.

3) During the fighting - started by arab nations - 700,000 "palestinians" fled the fighting to Syria, Egypt and beyond.

4) It is these 700,000 people and their descendants (4 million now) who demand a right of return: translation, end to Israel by flooding it with Arabs.

5) When the United Nations and Great Britan created the nation state of Israel, there was a partition purposal for an "arab" state and a "Jewish" state. This purposal was rejected the Arabs, and the First arab-israeli war was started by all of Israel's arab neighbors against it.

6) The Word Palestinian meant jew in israel until 1967 when Arafat coopted the term to mean arab palestinian, which is why I use " " when I type "palestinian" as the word has meant different things over time.

In summation, the palestinian arabs were offered their own state in 1948, 2000, and now, but they keep rejecting a fair offer. They want all the land and for Israel not to exsits. Why don't you educate yourself in world history before calling me a racist.

People who claim that Israel has no right to exsit ignore the history of WWII. Before 1939, Jews did not have a sovergn state to call their own, they lived all over Europe and the USA as they do today. However, when Hitler tryed t expel the Jews no one wanted them. Even Roosevelt turned away ships full of refugees only to be sent back to Germany for extermination.

At least now, if a country tries to kick out the jews, they have a place to go. A country to take them in and protect them.

Now, are you a Palestinian sympathizer who just wants to slander Israel with lies about genocide, a term coined because of what the Nazis did to the Jews, or are you really asking a policy question about the USA's support for the only democracy in the middle east?




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Nice democracy where a PM that's been convicted of corruption was forced to resign, yet is still in power.
When the second in the party was asked to form a government and failed.
Therefore forcing some coalition or you might say illegitimate government.
And yet, that fake government, making fun of its people and democracy itself, with an illegitimate PM has the power to put its country at war.
I don't call that a democracy, its a mockery.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by finemanm
 


What you said was a bland statement to encompass all Palestinians when I know there are some at least living here in America that feel differently. I'll admit to being wrong by calling it genocide. Wrong use of words, on a situation I did not fully understand. So can you admit to making a racist comment? No one's going to think differently about it. Just admit it and be done with it. I messed up by labeling it genocide, and you messed up. We're human.

Also, I hope you can understand I am not on anyone's side despite the admittedly wrong word choice of "genocide". You probably think I am a racist because of this admitted mistake, but it is quite the contrary.

It's become apparent the immaturity level of the people on this site. Who are incapable at this point to answer a question without it becoming all out war (I am not referring to just you by any means, hell, I'm included in this on many other threads). All of us need to gain control. How ever impossible a feat it may be dealing with internet forum angst


[edit on 6-2-2009 by NativeAmerican]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
To clarify my position:

Does anyone here think that a system of Apartheid is not racist in it's very premise? If so please explain. I think Apartheid is racist. I believe that is why the whole world spoke out against it and why it was abolished as racist in South Africa. Yet Apartheid is the system that Palestinians are forced to live under by Israel. Under Israeli rule Genetics define your fate. That is the very definition of racism.

Hamas has stated that they would accept an Israeli state that is based on the legal pre '67 borders. International law describes the settlements as illegal, and Israel agrees that many are built on private land belonging to Palestinians. Does anyone feel that it is OK for Israel to illegally occupy territory that belongs to the Palestinians. Remember, the UN mandate that created Israel gave 48% of the land for Palestinian use. Israel has illegally occupied all but 12%, forcing Palestinians into ghettos like Gaza.

I state that Zionism is Racism because it's stated goal is to drive out all non jews from the area. It is not that they simply want the land, they want it only for jews. Unlike in imperial England, where people from all races and religions lived under the flag of England in colonies around the globe, in Israel they only want jews to live there. That area of the world has long had mixed communities. Running out one group simply because of their genetics is racism. Refusal of the right of return is racism because it is based on genetics.

I am not an anti semite. First, that word is misleading because the term Semite includes BOTH Arabs and Jews. I do agree that Israel has a right to exist, but I do not agree that Israel has the right to illegally occupy Palestinian territory, nor to wage a war of aggression against an occupied people. The People of Palestine have a right to a land of their own yet Zionism prevents that.

Why is it that Israel can violate the Geneva Conventions? Why is it that Israel can violate several UN mandates? Why is it that Israel can violate several international laws? If a Palestinian fights back against this illegal oppression, they get called a terrorist, when it is Israel that has been waging a war of terror and since it's inception. They seem to have no morals against using illegal weapons against civilians such as white phosphorus.

If Israel would abide by international law, and return the illegally occupied territory, then the majority of the problems there would end. It is time that Israel abide by the UN mandate and allow Palestinians 48% of the land.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


There. That's what I'm talking about.


You made your point without any snide or decidedly racist remarks. Forums back on track!



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Again the wrong usage of words.

Apartheid defined: An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.

Not the case in Israel. For one thing, there are over a million arab Israeli citizens.

Secondly, its the palestinians that want their own state. Israel occupies Gaza and they're wrong, Israel pulls out of Gaza and its called apartheid. See, Israel can't win. What exactly should they do? Open the border crossings completely so that the suicide bombers can blow themselves up at at shopping mall?

Until the palestinians choose to forgo violence, how can Israel engage them in commerce?

Additionally, the issue about democracy: Israel is a parlimentory system of government meaning that there are more than just two political parties. In order to "form a government" there must be compromise and colitions. Not like here were one party can control everything at a given time. Israel's system is more like those of all western european governments.

Olmert is corrupt. Wow that means that all Israelis are bad, or the entire government is bad. Nonsense! Blogoyavich is corrupt, therefore the entire Illinois government is corrupt. That is a rediculous statement.

As far as being racist? Thats fine, call me names because you can't argue with me with the use of facts. What have I said that is racist? I haven't said anything derogatory, I haven't resorted to using slurs. Is the word palestinian a bad word? When I use it, I am refering to the PLO, Hamas, Fatah, and all their other political movements that speak for the people as a whole.

Of course there are many palestinian people who just want to live and let live, but I don't know them. I only know that when given the oppertunity to vote, they elected a terrorist organisation as their government. An organisation which specifically states in its by-laws that the State of Israel must be destroyed.

Now, rather than calling me names, answer a few questions.

1) what would you do, or want your government to do if lets say native americans started to blow themselves in the mall nearest to your home calling for the end of American and demanding their land back. What the US Government did to Native Americans is far worse than anything Israel did in merely trying to survive.

2) Do you believe that one country can negotiate with another that denies the right of the first country's right to exsit?

3) What have the palestinians ever suggested that you beleive was a fair request in negotiations that Israel ever said no to?

Answer these questions, and maybe we can have a healthy discourse. Call me names, and we all understand what your position really is.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
To clarify my position:

I am not an anti semite. First, that word is misleading because the term Semite includes BOTH Arabs and Jews. I do agree that Israel has a right to exist, but I do not agree that Israel has the right to illegally occupy Palestinian territory, nor to wage a war of aggression against an occupied people. The People of Palestine have a right to a land of their own yet Zionism prevents that.

Why is it that Israel can violate the Geneva Conventions? Why is it that Israel can violate several UN mandates? Why is it that Israel can violate several international laws? If a Palestinian fights back against this illegal oppression, they get called a terrorist, when it is Israel that has been waging a war of terror and since it's inception. They seem to have no morals against using illegal weapons against civilians such as white phosphorus.

If Israel would abide by international law, and return the illegally occupied territory, then the majority of the problems there would end. It is time that Israel abide by the UN mandate and allow Palestinians 48% of the land.


You are absolutely correct, semites are both jews and arabs.

However, you are wrong in a number of other points.

Right return and occupying palestinian land:

Firstly, you have to identify what is palestinian land. Are you referring to the west bank and gaza, or are you talking about all of Israel.

Obviously, if it is the latter, you cant have an Israel, because you call for all the land to be returned.

If it is the former, well lets discuss that.

West Bank: Prior to WWI it was under Syrian Control. At the time of the first arab-israeli war, it was taken by Jordan. Jordan controlled west bank until 1967. In 1967 Israel seized the west bank in the Six Day War which was ostensibly started by Egypt, and then joined by Syria and Jordan.

If Israel should give back land it acquired from Jordan during a war, then the USA should give California back to Mexico.

Gaza: The Gaza Strip was always part of Egypt. Again, in the Six Day War of 1967, Israel took control of Gaza. Same argument as above with respect to California.

Since the Clinton administration, Israel has been trying to negotiate a deal with the PLO/Arafat to create a "palestinian" state out of land which formerly belonged to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

So what exactly IS palestinian land?

With respect to Israel pre-67 borders: when the state of Israel was formed, this was arid, unimproved, and unfarmed land with some religious landmarks.

Since 1948, Israel has developed the land for farming with irragation. Israel established a first world economy, Israel built cities where there was sand and desert.

Its like I by a abandoned house that was in foreclosure and repair it and make it really nice, and the prior owner who let the house fall into disrepair and foreclosure shows up on the stoop demanding his house back.

I know you are going to say that Israel was able to do that with USA money. I say so what. Why doesn't Saudi Arabia help the Palestinians build a country? What about the United Arab Emerates. They can build the most amazing things in Dubia with Petro-Dollars, why not spread the wealth. Remember, there is no Oil in Israel. They have an economy based on commerce and inovation, not natural resources.

So I ask you, what palestinian land? Israel occupies 0% of Gaza (formerly Egyptian land), and the Palestinian Authority is the governing body in control of the West Bank.

Interesting Fact: 2.4 milion "palestinians" live in the west bank while only 187,000 Israelis live in west bank.

How does Israel force palestinians to live in 12% of the land? 12% of what land?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


Also, haven't you read my other posts? "when it is Israel that has been waging a war of terror and since it's inception."

Your kidding right? A bunch of Holacust survivors were oppressing someone in 1948? Egypt, Syria and Jordan declared war against Israel in 1948, not the other way.

Who did Israel oppress since its inception. Gaza and the West Bank were taken as spoils of war in 1967, almost 20 years after the inception of Israel.

White Phosphorus: Not illegal. "White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets."

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
OK lets talk facts again.

The UN mandate that helped establish Israel specifically set aside 48% of the area for Palestinian use. Israel had the other 52%. Israel has taken all but 12%. This is a fact. You can check it for yourself. That is why it is called The Palestinian Occupied Territory.

Israel is in violation of Several UN mandates, several International laws, and several parts of the Geneva Conventions. It is due to these facts that I speak about Israel having illegal settlements. Even the Israel Supreme court has agreed to these facts. If Israel were to comply to international law and end the occupation then the majority of the problems in the Mid East would end. Not all of them, but many of them.

White Phosphorus is not legal when used in urban areas where it ends up being much like Napalm. Flechett bombs are not legal in urban areas. Cluster bombs are not legal in urban areas. These are indiscriminate weapons that end up being antipersonel weapons that target civilians. For that reason international law prohibits their use in urban areas such as Gaza. Israel knows this, yet chose to use them anyway.

Apartheid is a social and political policy of racial segregation and discrimination enforced upon a subjugated population. Apartheid exists in the occupied territories as Palestinians are not allowed citizenship, yet are subject to control by Israel. The Palestinian authority is very limited in scope and its abilities are strictly limited by Israel. Palestinians do not have freedom in their own land.

Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians

Often excluded from their former homes, land, and places of worship, protesting Palestinians have been severely dominated and oppressed. There is forced segregation between Israeli settlers and Palestine's citizens, with a complex pass system required for Arabs to traverse Israel's multiple checkpoints.
That is Apartheid by definition.

Israel has had several opportunities to make things right.

UN Resolutions, the Camp David Accords of 1978, the Oslo Agreement of 1993, official US Policy, and the International Roadmap for Peace are all based on the premise that Israel withdraw from occupied territories. Also, Palestinians must accept the same commitment made by the 23 Arab nations in 2002: to recognize Israel's right to live in peace within its legal borders.
Hamas has specifically stated that they would accept the State of Israel if they stuck to the pre '67 borders as those are the legal ones. They reaffirmed this statement recently.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


You know what, I agree with you. Its to bad that Arel Sharon had a stroke because he pulled out of Gaza and took the settlers with him. He was planning to do something similar in the the West Bank. In Tuesday's election, it is expected that the conservitive party Lukid will prevail. That is not good news for anyone because Benjamin Netanyahu is not likely to be very negotiable.

I think Israel should give the Palestinians their own state whether they like it or not. Just withdraw to as close as possible to the 1967 borders, retain a portion of Jeruselum, and give the rest to Fatah, Hamas, or who ever wants to run things.

Only once Israel withdraws, it should completely disengage financally from the Palestinians too.

I bet the violence would not stop. I bet the palestinian organizations would find some other justification to fire rockets at Israeli civilians.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by finemanm
 


Alright I'll admit to the mistake of calling the comment racist. But it was a forum of ethnic grouping. Saying that all Palestinians want Jews dead. Terapin also grouped Israeli's with the "arrogance" comment. Lol, almost everyone here seems to be guilty of some type of inaccurate or ethnic comment thus far (at least the main contributor's, including myself). In all honesty I am entirely neutral on the situation at hand (though I admit I felt guilty writing my posts because the way they are written they do seem more pro-Palestinian. I don't know why.) Mainly because, well, it's so hard to get educated on what's actually going on. The more I try to research the more I'm referred to a news article I later find was written by an Israeli or a Palestinian. All the major networks also seem to have a pre-bias view to begin with.

So my question is, what is the best way to get accurate information at hand? I realize there is an abundance of information going on here, but it's obvious people already are pre-bias so I don't know if I'm being lead to articles that just suit what they want it to and so forth. It just seems hard to get to the truth these days.
I have no beef with anyone here on this forum, at all, though some people may have a problem with me. Things always seem to get distorted over an internet forum, assertiveness is read as anger and so on. I am not in any way your enemy and I hope we can approach each other as friends. If anything comes off as angstful or negative it's because I'm so confused about what's actually going on. I keep getting shown this or that and I don't know if what I'm reading is true anymore. I'm starting to realize the news is well....pre-bias thoughts to support their own agenda. Admittedly I still watch MSNBC and CSPAN, so forth because at the same time I don't want to feel like I'm living in the dark ages. The local news seems fine. Live news seems pretty accurate. I mean it's good to know what's going on around me in the immediate area....it's just very hard to tell these days. I suppose I'd have to parachute into the Gaza strip to see what's actually going on (apparently this is ill advised).

I wasn't able to read all of your post, because I'm actually quite sick with some type of stomach problem. I did read the Native American, mall scenario though. Here is my answer:
If such a thing did occur. I would feel split. For three reasons. One being that I am non-violent. Also I am European (mixed blood). As well as being too scared to know what to do


[edit on 7-2-2009 by NativeAmerican]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm

1) what would you do, or want your government to do if lets say native americans started to blow themselves in the mall nearest to your home calling for the end of American and demanding their land back. What the US Government did to Native Americans is far worse than anything Israel did in merely trying to survive.

2) Do you believe that one country can negotiate with another that denies the right of the first country's right to exsit?

3) What have the palestinians ever suggested that you beleive was a fair request in negotiations that Israel ever said no to?

Answer these questions, and maybe we can have a healthy discourse. Call me names, and we all understand what your position really is.



I will pass on the first one because it is a hypothetical and I'd prefer to stick to actual events. It is also comparing apples to oranges and that is never good.

2.)Hamas has shated that they would recognise Israel if it stuck to the legally established borders pre '67, that the UN mandate created. When Israel was established by UN Resolution 181, of the entire area the UN gave 52% to create Israel and 48% to found a Palestinian state. Israel has since illegally occupied all but 12%. Israel has always refused any talk of an independent Palestinian state despite numerous accords and UN resolutions. Who is denying whom statehood? Israel exists, Hamas understands the importance of UN Resolution 181, and has stated that they will recognize an Israel defined by those borders so long as Israel recognizes that Palestinians also have the right to establish their own State by that same resolution. Palestine does not exist as Israel refuses to allow it to come about. Since the beginning Israeli leaders have stated that a Palestinian state must never be allowed.


3.) Ok Hamas had a cease fire with Israel recently, The terms were that Israel would end the economic blockade and allow borders to be opened for food, jobs etc. Hamas in turn agreed to stop firing homemade rockets at Israelis. Israel has stated that Hamas did indeed stop firing the rockets, yet Israel never ended the blockade. Israel broke the ceasefire by killing Palestinians and the recent Gaza conflict started. These facts have been well documented and verrified.

I can also point to the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Accords and a few UN deals as well. Israel has a long history of entering into deals and never following through.
Currently Hamas has asked for outside aid in helping the civilian victims of the recent bombardment. Israel is holding up Red Cross assistance as well as a ship full of aid dispatched to the area. They refused to let journalists into the area, despite Hamas asking for them to be there. Israel is afraid of journalists because they wish to hide the facts. Asking for aid and journalists is not an unreasonable request, yet Israel denies it or impedes it.

Those are some concrete answers to your questions. Now perhaps you can answer mine.

1.) Why is it OK for Israel to ignore the Geneva Conventions?
2.) Why is it Ok for Israel to ignore UN Resolution 181 and several others?
3.) Why is it OK for Israel to ignore international law?
4.) Why is it OK for Israel to prevent the State of Palestine from being established based on UN resolution 181?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm




are you a Palestinian sympathizer who just wants to slander Israel with lies about genocide, a term coined because of what the Nazis did to the Jews, or are you really asking a policy question about the USA's support for the only democracy in the middle east?




Thanks for the informative post. But the people who sustain these threads have no interest in the truth or justice. Hatred of Israel and just by coincidence the people who make up the majority of the population overrides an examination of events.

They always always use the explanation they just don't like what the Israeli government is doing, and throw in a line about how they aren't anti-semitic.

I note that the people who like to apply words like genocide are mute on the mass extermination of the black people in Sudan by the Arab government. Something approaching half a million people are being made homelss in the desert, murdered, raped, left to starve, by government sanctioned and paid Arab mercenaries.

But our outraged indignant lovers of justice aren't too concerned about actual genocide.


MF



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


You're wasting good breath.

They will claim genocide when they don't know what the word means.

They will claim "gas warfare" when a gas agent isn't used.

They will claim "targeting children" when children aren't targeted.

They will claim "civilians being killed" when Hamas dresses in civilian clothing.

They will claim WP usage violates the Geneva Conventions.

They will claim targeting schools when nothing could be further from the truth.

They will claim "taking land" when Israel has given up Gaza twice already.

You're talking to some of the most hard-headed, blindly opinionated, outright lying and misrepresentative folks in existence.

You waste good time.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Woah, woah, guys. Come on now, read the posts.

I already said I was wrong to use the word "genocide". That's just how some of the articles I read labeled it. I now don't consider that word the right word. No reason to bring back posts that have already been discussed. I know it can be a lot to read through, but just give it a shot.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Olmert is corrupt, yet still in place, and yet, maybe so is the rest of the government because in the light of the current elections, all parties involved used the war as a tool, for political leverage.
You also say that Israel did efforts talking with Arafat, I guess that's irony, unless calling him arch-ennemy and laying siege to his quarters in Ramallah with tanks is a sign of friendship in these lands.
So i guess building the wall is also some kind of community project.
It happens there was one arab MP in previous knesset. They must really like that idea of a democracy since arab parties were barred from this current election.
Also nice pointing out that Hamas refuses to acknowledge the state of Israel while putting in office people that pledged to never let a palestinian state happen.

Finally, what i see here is absolutely futile. Again, it's recently registered people justifying war and killing of civilians, using same propaganda tactics we saw during the war, repeating same stuff over and over again until people give up or lose temper.

So maybe let's try something else.
Do you agree that Israel has to abide by the 2005 UN resolution and open the check-points, stop the embargo ?
Or your message is that gaza has to remain closed, it's children starved...?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NativeAmerican
Woah, woah, guys. Come on now, read the posts.

I already said I was wrong to use the word "genocide". That's just how some of the articles I read labeled it. I now don't consider that word the right word. No reason to bring back posts that have already been discussed. I know it can be a lot to read through, but just give it a shot.



Thanks for the elaboration. Sorry for the overreaction.


Mike F



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It is always interesting when Zionist supporters choose to point to Darfur when talking about genocide. Do they not realize that Israel has been supplying arms to that region since the Reagan era? Israel makes a tidy profit from supplying weapons to the genocide that is going on in Africa. Perhaps they should do some research before pointing to that mess. It doesn't help their position.

There are great photos of the University in Gaza that was bombed, despite Israel stating that they don't target schools and agreeing that there were no Hamas militants in the University. They bombed it anyway.

It is against international law to use WP in urban areas where civilians are present. Trying to deny that again, does not help their case. They also choose not to discuss the cluster bombs and the Flechette bombs that the IDF used. Both of which are illegal in urban combat.

Often Zionist supporters make the claim that Hamas hides behind civilians, yet they never mention how Israel uses civilian shields. When they entered areas of Gaza, the IDF forced Arab civilians at gun point to walk in front of them. Israel is not so innocent when it comes to its treatment of civilians during combat.

If you wish to have a meaningful discussion of the subject, it is far better to talk about facts and do a bit of research, than to make statements that are not supported by the evidence.

Why wont Zionists talk about UN resolution 181? The very resolution that established Israel in the first place.

We should also be talking about UN Resolutions 194, 242, 338, 465,and 681. I suspect that Zionists do not talk about them because in truth, they have no idea about the facts and history and simply go on an emotional attachment to the Zionist movement. They probably also have no idea of the context of the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to Israel, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel is in violation of every single UN resolution that I mentioned above, despite the fact that they agreed to them. The same can be said of the Geneva Conventions.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin

It is always interesting when Zionist supporters choose to point to Darfur when talking about genocide.



It's even more interesting how the lovers of freedom who hate uncalled murder feel compelled to elaborate on every transgression by Israel and are completely silent on the horrible things perpetrated elsewhere.

Where is all the outrage and indignation for the millions of Muslims killed by fellow Muslims. The slaughter in the Congo, what China is doing to Tibet, etc.

Always references to the UN, a group of counties with a large number of cutthroat dictators who for sport condemn Israel at every opportunity. Why isn't the UN concerned about the millions who have died in Africa and Asia?

It all comes down to slamming Israel and to so-called Zionists by armchair warriors with a hate agenda.

If they are so traumatized by injustice, why is there always only one target for their wrath?



MF



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


This is a discussion about Israel, hence the subject matter. Indeed there are a umber of serious problems elsewhere in the world. The UN IS involved in trying to bring about change in many nations. The UN has been hammering at the problems in Darfur but world leaders seem not to care. That is not the UNs fault. I noticed that you chose not to discuss Israels complicity in providing weapons for the genocide in Darfur. Why is that?

It seems like you are attempting to redirect the subject matter. I support efforts in Tibet with my hard earned cash. Not simply putting a bumper sticker on my car, but giving to OneHeartTibet.org and Shemgroup.org. Two groups that work to improve the lives of Tibetan woman and children. This does not mean that I can not form an opinion on the current troubles in the Mid East. When one considers how many of our tax dollars are spent there, coupled with the Iraq war, and the related troubles in the area, discussing Israel is understandable.

The UN is very relevant to this discussion in that it was a UN resolution that allowed the state of Israel to be created in the first place. Un Resolution 181. Indeed, Israel has agreed to all of the UN Resolutions I mentioned earlier. If the UN is meaningless, then why did Israel sign the resolutions? They do not have to sign them and some nations were against them. Simply dismissing the UN resolutions out of hand, does not in any way change their importance, simply because you do not like them. Israel agreed to them, their Supreme Court upheld them, ipso facto they are indeed relevant. Trying to change the subject by pointing to other problems in the world , does not in any way lessen the problems in the Mid East.

Why is it that Zionists always try to avoid a sincere discussion on UN Resolutions that were agreed to, and signed by Israel?



new topics




 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join