Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Israel Does Not want Peace!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by Reignite
 





then what explains the big bulldozer next to the tank


Bulldozers are not there to "grab" only. There are dozens of use for buldozers. As an example:
bokertov.typepad.com...
Now i am not saying that it is all that they do. Palestinian houses and property was (and is, but much less) destroyed - but it is not to "grab". There are gozillion other reasons. Like - removing cover from area used by snipers. Removing charges. Clearing area for security wall/fence. Destroying illegal houses - inside Israel, and illiegal settlements in territories.
I do not say that all the actions above are justified or correct, not to mention humane. But those are still not for grabbing land.



First of all, for the 'gazillionst' time, you bend my words (did not use grab.. )



then,
there you go:

'Destroying illegal houses - inside Israel, and illiegal settlements in territories.'

THEY are building illigal houses and settlements

so that also confirm's my post, 'slowly taking over the land'




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Reignite
 


But they are considered illigal by Israel too!!! In Gaza Israel removed all its settlements (that were legal by the way as far as Israel was concerned - same Sharon that removed them was the one that built them and organised all the people to move there).
So those settlements that are illigal - are in majority house or two usually unoccupied - and are not a problem. What is problem is that once Israeli forces (with buldozers by the way) destroy it, settlers come after a week and re-built it. But once there would be borders, then no Israeli would be able to do it.
In 1970s-1980-early 1990s a lot of settlements were created and indeed


take over the land!

happened. Not grab. You never said -grab.
However there were no Oslo agreements then. And the same Fatah, not to mention Hamas , did not recognise Israel in any borders - 1948, 1968 or 1989.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by Reignite
 


But they are considered illigal by Israel too!!! In Gaza Israel removed all its settlements (that were legal by the way as far as Israel was concerned - same Sharon that removed them was the one that built them and organised all the people to move there).
So those settlements that are illigal - are in majority house or two usually unoccupied - and are not a problem. What is problem is that once Israeli forces (with buldozers by the way) destroy it, settlers come after a week and re-built it. But once there would be borders, then no Israeli would be able to do it.
In 1970s-1980-early 1990s a lot of settlements were created and indeed


take over the land!

happened. Not grab. You never said -grab.
However there were no Oslo agreements then. And the same Fatah, not to mention Hamas , did not recognise Israel in any borders - 1948, 1968 or 1989.



yes indeed, i believe there are some cases in the court about that right now...

wasn't the Fatah the first and only party to officialy recognize Israel? thought id read that somewhere on wiki



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Reignite
 


Fatah recognised Israel in Oslo agreement. Israel on the other hand agreed to creation of independent Palestinian state.
It happened in 1993.Vast majority of major Israeli settlements on occupied territories were created before that.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


but that was after Israel was declared a state right?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Reignite
 





but that was after Israel was declared a state right?

I fail to see what it has to do with the issue. Israel is a result of 1947 UN partition plan. When in 1948 Israel declared Independence, surrounding Arab countries and Palestinian Arab leaders refused to agree to partition plan and declared war. Result is known.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by Reignite
 





but that was after Israel was declared a state right?

I fail to see what it has to do with the issue. Israel is a result of 1947 UN partition plan. When in 1948 Israel declared Independence, surrounding Arab countries and Palestinian Arab leaders refused to agree to partition plan and declared war. Result is known.




nothing i was just curious. thanks for the info



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Founding
 


How's that hate speech? I'm pretty sure there's about 4 BILLION people on this earth that can agree the world would in fact be a better place without Zionism.

The truth of the matter is that Israel is a bully (I'm talking about the Zionist psychos not it's average people). They fund groups and then when the group is no longer needed it's a terrorist.

They want a "Greater" Israel like "promised" in the made up bible/torah who most likely was written by Zionist Jews even back in the day.

The point of the matter is that the Zionists are thousand year old beliefs and ideas trying to co exist in the 21st century. There's no room for them.

Also "wiped off the map", you do know the president of Iran was saying that "every civilization that is corrupt will eventually lead to its own self destruction and be wiped off the map." It is true, and it is very reasonable.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The "Zionist Psychos" are no more psychotic than the Muslims that go on a pilgrimage every year, or the Christians who go to where Jesus was supposedly born. If those places were taken over by someone else, or if people were afraid that they might be, they would be really freaking angry, too. What about the Vatican? Vatican City? Is that okay? Because I'm pretty sure some homes had to be bulldozed to make that thing and it's kind of the same deal, except Catholics didn't live there thousands of years ago. But no one really complains that there is a blatantly religious country. Whereas in Israel you can live there and not be Jewish and not feel totally awkward, because not everybody who lives there is Jewish. You can be Israeli and not Jewish. You can be Israeli and support the state of Israel and not be Jewish because your family did live there for a long, long time and it was about time for you to become a state.

Like, whatever. We do that too. We're even worse about it. "We came to America and killed Native Americans but we were here hundreds of years ago and it's our RIGHT to own this land." Or "My family lived in this house hundreds of years ago and we forgot about it or moved somewhere else but now we want it back because it's my family's history."

I don't even know why we keep arguing about this stupid Israel vs Palestine thing because there's nothing any of us can do about it. You can call your representatives all you want and beg them to stop supporting Israel/support Israel/Stop supporting Palestine/Stop supporting Hamas/Support Palestine/Support Hamas/whatever and you may feel better but you really have no say on the matter. It's not like you have control where your tax money goes, anyway, that's become super obvious in the past few months. So basically stop complaining and watch it happen, whatever happens, and if you live near there or have family there you have a right to be upset and concerned but for everyone else, I didn't hear you making all this noise when the US invaded Iraq for no reason at all.

Everyone has motives and I just keep wondering what the point of all this is, because there are about 200 threads like this and it's not changing anything. It's just making all of you feel better.

You should just do yoga or something instead, punch a wall, drink some tea, smoke some whatever, but like... everyone's just going in circles now. Take a rest.

[edit on 2/13/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Your analogy is wrong and instead I suggest you draw similarities between zionism and nazism. While the Christian and Muslim faith is found within personal introspection and is open to anyone, the zionist ideology propagates a race based idea in which one does not need to practise Judaism and can in fact be an atheist.

While you may discard my comparison between zionism and nazism, it is an academically studies proposition. I draw your attention to "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" by Lenni Brenner;

www.marxists.de...


Furthermore in an article in The Times, Brenner wrote;




Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews”?

No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization and later still the first president of the state of Israel.

And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but republished as late as 1936: “The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline”? Not in Der Stürmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer Hatzair.


www.marxists.de...



Zionism is the equivalent of a nationalist movement not reliant up on faith, culture or custom but race.

[edit on 122828p://am2842 by masonwatcher]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I like your train of thought. Israel is not going anywhere and only a sophist will try to disprove that. The claims of a Palestinian (a roman word) political and social identity are biased on a foundation of hate and destruction. Did not Hamas become elected on this promise to totally annihilate the state of Israel?

Also, Zionism is a dead political term. In its definition it means to help and support the creation of Jewish state. Since this is already done, there are no more Zionist left. Thus, you are only left with the connotation (key word) which is inherently racist. You see the same people that name drop Zionism compare Israel to Nazi Germany. We can obviously tell they are nothing more than simple minded and ignorant people. There are no Zionist, there is only the state of Israel and its citizens. You call Israel a religious state then take a step back and remember its in the MIDDLE EAST, home to the most fanatical and religious countries in the world.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Founding
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


...We can obviously tell they are nothing more than simple minded and ignorant people. There are no Zionist, there is only the state of Israel and its citizens. You call Israel a religious state then take a step back and remember its in the MIDDLE EAST, home to the most fanatical and religious countries in the world.



It is obvious that zionists believe that they are superior in all ways including in intelligence and worldliness as your ilk insist; that is the nature of supremacist ideologies.

The Palestinians are ancient peoples that pre-date the Jewish tribes that escaped Egypt that were no more than travellers during the Roman period. Herodotus comments of the Palestinian people as far back as 800 BC and the Pharaonic Egyptians give a detailed history of trade and cultural exchanges going back 4000 years.


cat.inist.fr...


As often proven, when any disparaging comments about Arabs or the Middle East by a pro-Israelis such yourself is closely examined, horrors are discovered and more often than not the perpetrators of these transgressions are zionists and/or the zionist state. The photo below is of an ambush by illegal zionist settlers on a school procession. Both the settler adults and the settler children were armed and sought Palestinian children to terrorise. The Palestinian adults were kept at bay by the occupation troops at a check point when these criminals descended up on the children.



I found it odd that most zionists insist that Israel is going to stay. Who are you trying to convince? I suspect that Israel will disappear one day. No amount of zionist terrorism, wars, killing of civilians and outrageous war crimes will save it. The speed at which it disappears with the dust of history depends on the violence to which it descends.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


Nice way to reply, first you attack me then try to inform me.

Check your facts it was not the "Palestinians" but the "Phoenicians." If you look up recent GENETIC studies they find that the current people of the westbank and gaza are genetically from a recent Arab migration.

I also like how you do not provide a link or any evidence to the picture you posted? The inconsistency of your logic and words is pure propaganda.

I am trying to convince people? Who are you trying to convince that Israel will fade into the dust (your own words)? All you do is repeat Zionist, Zionist, Zionist; I swear why don't you replace the word with Jew and throw you fists in the air. Remind you of any one? Come back to me when you have some thing rational and intelligent to say, your Ignorance is pathetic



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Founding
 


If the word zionist bothers you, that is really your problem but I could use Israel interchangeably or maybe colonialists immigrants.

If I meant to say Phoenician I would have said it. You are only trying to obscure things since the test of history, ethics. the truth and justice always finds zionists and the bandit zionist state always wanting.

[edit on 052828p://pm2807 by masonwatcher]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Zionism will become a thing of the past. It's an old belief system trying to exist in the 21st century. This is like a cave man trying to live amongst us now, he'll simply die out.

Zionism will die out as well.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


You're almost there....Zionism is already dead. All that is left is the state of Israel, going on to totally defeat two Arab Muslim armies.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
Zionism will become a thing of the past. It's an old belief system trying to exist in the 21st century. This is like a cave man trying to live amongst us now, he'll simply die out.

Zionism will die out as well.


Although Founding may not realise it and may have purchased the idea that there is no such thing as 'zionism' from a a zionist forum, unilaterally declaring the death of a word in the midst of a discourse is a ploy to complicate and sabotage debate.

While most interested parties know what zionism is, finding it a word that is suddenly made obsolete is a forced change in processes. It is a bit like a forced abortion for the mind. These forms of mental gymnastics are usually employed by the morally bankrupt, the sophist and practised liars.

Even though unilaterally declaring a word banished is not necessarily an act of deception as long as it is a natural and consensual process, the motives behind employing these tactics unilaterally and habitually is indicative of a proficient liar trying to wreck the playing field.

In effect this is a technique used to control an environment for reconditioning the inhabitants as alluded to in George Orwell's 1984 with 'newspeak'. I am not suggesting that Founding necessarily is consciously employing this tactic but it is quite possible that this particular meme was transferred to him from his peers elsewhere.

An excellent example of this ploy being used to manipulate the mind of an opposition was in full display on PressTV's Islam and Life program. The subject matter and title of the discussion was the Ethics of Resistance. On the program was Faisal Dawjee a journalist during the struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa, Prof Jonathan Rosenhead of BRICUP (academic boycott group) and Yshay Mor an Israeli peace activist.

Prof Rosenhead and the journalist from South Africa discuss the ethics of resistance and its successes in defeating apartheid with boycotts, anti military conscription campaigns, publicities and demonstrations abroad and at home, both peaceful and violent resistance, the Israeli 'peace activist' declares all such activities hopeless and the arguments of despair. The guest responded by saying it worked to which Mor then said he is not an expert on South Africa and that none of these approaches would work in Israel because it would make Israelis paranoid and fearful and refuse to stop the support for the killing of Palestinians!

The guest then ask what people abroad should do. He responded that they should do nothing and let Israeli peace activists do all the work. The professor pointed out that in 1982, 200, 000 Israeli peace demonstrators came out at one go and the recent siege in Gaza struggled to bring out less than 10,000 throughout Israel.

I suggest that the Israeli peace movement is dead and what that's left over are state sanctioned operators occupying the peace movement territory and are there to kill the last vestiges with disruption tactics similar to the banishing of words. Israel does not want peace.

The link to the program;


www.presstv.ir...


[edit on 112828p://pm2823 by masonwatcher]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


What are you talking about. You make more accusations then a bad lawyer.

Right now, lets start a debate on Zionism and whether or not it is a relative term? I will be waiting for your response as will the rest of the forum.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Founding
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


What are you talking about. You make more accusations then a bad lawyer.

Right now, lets start a debate on Zionism and whether or not it is a relative term? I will be waiting for your response as will the rest of the forum.


Hey founding, dont make out that the rest of this forum is with you on this - far from it as most of us can see Israel for what it is.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


I have asked mason to debate a number of times. And each time he has always refused. So why does he get the right to make false statements and attacks and not back them up?

I like to think the rational side of the forum is with me, the side that sees both sides of the story. Like they say every story has two sides, so before you condemn me out right try to read around. Also, don't put words in my mouth.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join