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.

 

Bush Sells Out The Palestinians.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
It's early morning here in the UK and I'll be honest I haven't got the stomache to answer your bigotted reply with a reasonable response.

This will not make the Middle East,Israeli's,Americans,or anybody safe.

This is reward for an aggressive expansionist policy.


Ok first, the Israel and Palestinian situation has nothing to do with events in Iraq or with Al Qada other than it is used as an EXCUSE for violence and hating the west.
By the same logic anyone who says Israel should give the land back that they fought for should also be saying the US belongs to England and we should give it back, or we should give texas back etc..




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by harap.alb
You should think though that for many simple "Palestinian" Arabs what matters most is that they have been forced to move from were some were living for hundreds of years, without a right of return. From their point of view they have been deceived by the world powers (mainly the British) who promissed they will stay were they were as independent states after the Ottoman Rule and even now when they barely have any territories left they lose them gradually to Jewish settlements.


It's important to remember that a large number of these Palestinian-Arabs who have been living on their land for hundreds of years in the area that is now Isreal still are. They are the 1.2 million Israeli-Arabs who now live as Israeli citizens.

It's also worth remembering that the majority of the Palestinian-Arabs who have "refugee" status today are not descended from Arabs who have been living on land in Israel for generations, the UN definition of "refugee" in this case only requires that they lived there for the two years preceding Israeli independence.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware
It is hard to stomach the zionist bs this early in the morning isnt it?
Im baffled by them, the zionists. Do they honestly believe the recent agreement is fair and just?


When every attempt at a bilateral agreement is torpedoed by Arafat or Hamas, I dont think its rational to condemn a unilateral solution. If they want to negotiate a better deal, then they need to reign in the bombers and come to the table.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
This is going to be a bit beyond norm for me on this matter, but maybe there will never be a real viable diplomatic solution? As such, perhaps with US giving agreement to Israel on this issue, that this is a symbolic message....one that pretty much indicates that with no diplomatic recourse available, that both sides will ever agree with or abide by, that its time to pick sides and prepare for a decisive war on this.

There have been three offers made to Palestinians, each time rejected. The dogmatic beliefs and teachings of both sides go back many, many generations. Maybe Peace is an elusive dream and the reality is that one or the other will have to be crushed or made to submit, which pretty much amounts to utter destruction for the Arab world, in regards to another Israeli+allies versus Palestinians+Arab World+allies.....true WWIII (IV)?


Even with a two-state solution, there will be no peace between them?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mycroft

Originally posted by aware
It is hard to stomach the zionist bs this early in the morning isnt it?
Im baffled by them, the zionists. Do they honestly believe the recent agreement is fair and just?


When every attempt at a bilateral agreement is torpedoed by Arafat or Hamas, I dont think its rational to condemn a unilateral solution. If they want to negotiate a better deal, then they need to reign in the bombers and come to the table.


Just as they were sometimes "torpedoed" by the construction, just before talks, of new Jewish settlements.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by harap.alb
Just as they were sometimes "torpedoed" by the construction, just before talks, of new Jewish settlements.


Of course, Israel is expected to live up to agreements before they are made, while the Palestinian-Arabs are not expected to live up to agreements after they are made.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mycroft

Originally posted by harap.alb
Just as they were sometimes "torpedoed" by the construction, just before talks, of new Jewish settlements.


Of course, Israel is expected to live up to agreements before they are made, while the Palestinian-Arabs are not expected to live up to agreements after they are made.


Which is the "civilized" side? Which is the democracy, the organized state that can lead by example?

The truth is that there was always harldy any genuine good will on either side.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by harap.alb
Which is the "civilized" side? Which is the democracy, the organized state that can lead by example?

The truth is that there was always harldy any genuine good will on either side.


I have long suspected that a great deal of sympathy towards the Palestinian-Arabs cause comes from a subtle anti-Arab racism. We dont expect civilized behavior from Arabs. We should, to do otherwise is patronizing.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I find it interesting that Arafat is demanding that Palestinians have a right to return to Israeli territory - not occupied lands but Israel itself. In the meantime he is outraged that some Jews are staying in the West Bank.

I also find it interesting that he stated today that he wants the whole of Jerusalem as his Palestinian capital.

It seems to me he has shown more of his true colours.

It doesn't matter what the Jews do. If it doesn't suit Arafat's personal agenda you can guarantee that he will keep using terrorism to get his way.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Interesting and enlightening article I just uncovered:
Pres. Reagan: No Palestinian State, No return to '67 borders, Undivided Jerusalem


Address to the Nation on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East
September 1, 1982
My fellow Americans:

Today has been a day that should make us proud. It marked the end of the
successful evacuation of PLO from Beirut, Lebanon. This peaceful step could
never have been taken without the good offices of the United States and
especially the truly heroic work of a great American diplomat, Ambassador
Philip Habib.
....
When our administration assumed office in January of 1981, I decided that
the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad
guidelines laid down by my predecessors.
....
The time has come for a new realism on the part of all the peoples of the
Middle East. The State of Israel is an accomplished fact; it deserves
unchallenged legitimacy within the community of nations. But Israel's
legitimacy has thus far been recognized by too few countries and has been
denied by every Arab State except Egypt. Israel exists; it has a right to
exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to
demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts.
I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for
survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In
the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point.
The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab
armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.


Is this indicative of the saying that it is irrational to expect or demand peace from an enemy that is sworn and ingrained with the goal of destroying anything not of itself?



seekerof


[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Seekerof]


dom

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Leveller, the point is that the Israelis in the West Bank have built there homes on occupied territory recieved during a war. No-one would say that the Germans should keep bits of Poland because during WW2 they built houses on it.

The Palestinians asking for a right to return to their land in Israel were evicted violently during the creation of the state of Israel. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to go back to living on their land. The solution isn't to destroy Israel, it's just to build a multi-cultural Israel with both Jewish and Arab/Christian/Palestinian citizens.

The area occupied since 1967 should now be allowed to set up it's own independent state with all of the land that was stolen from it for religious reasons (including all of the settlement blocks).

That has to be the eventual goal or you'll always end up with simmering tension in the Middle East.

Bush's current policy is to say "Actually, things have changed now (ie I don't like Arafat, but I'll have Sharron's babies), and we should let Israel do what it likes. Screw the Palestinians, they're terrorists anyway." Which is a little simplistic, although coming from GWB, that shouldn't be so surprising.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom
Leveller, the point is that the Israelis in the West Bank have built there homes on occupied territory recieved during a war. No-one would say that the Germans should keep bits of Poland because during WW2 they built houses on it.



WOA WOA WOA - self-defeating analogy! WHOOP WHOOP! You have to re-word it to get it right. The lands that Israel got after the war, were lands it got in DEFENDING ITS OWN LANDS. During the defense, the enemy was pushed back, and Israel advanced. Part of the result of the unfounded attack against them is they got to keep what they won. But this was defensive actions NOT offensive actions.

NOW, back to the Poland/Germany analogy. In order to twist it around and get your argument you have to say that no countries that fought back the Germans were allowed to keep any of the territories they backed the Germans from. ERRRRRR - wrong answer. They darned sure did. What's good for the Anglo's good for the Jew.

Nothing "exceptional" happened in Israel being allowed to keep the lands they advanced on during a defensive action against an attacker.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Wrong!!!!

Suez and the 6 day war were both started by Israel!

That is not defence that is aggression.

The Green Line (the accepted boundary) was drawn after the 6 day war.Started by Israel.

Therefore you are wrong Valhall.The land that is illegally occupied was gained in a war of aggression.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:44 AM
link   
WRONG WRONG WRONG. JB! what history books are you reading?

As far as the Suez, for Pete's sake, it was more Britain and France against Egypt than it was Israel...they just kind of brought up the rear. And had Nasser NOT taken the Suez canal from the Brits and French and had NOT blocked the maritime traffic...these countries would not have gotten into it with Egypt.

Concerning the 6 Day War: The armistice agreement (of 1949) allowed for the USE (not occupation) but USE (as cultivatable farmland) of the DMZ by Israel. Israel was well within its rights based on that agreement to start using the land in the DMZ. Syria started shelling the # out of the farmers (not to mention the prefacing attempt to squash the water works Israel had been developing).

Israel responded to these attacks and then Syria started attacking Israeli towns.

THAT's what happened and then all hell broke loose.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I maintain my position.

The Suez War was started by Israel,UK,and France.

The three powers had agreed that if Israel attacked Egypt then the two old colonial powers could control the Suez cana,which had recently been nationalised by President Nasser of Egypt, with the excuse that they were protecting the shipping lanes.

Are you trying to tell me that Egypt started that war and that Israel was defending itself ????

The first shots in the 6 day war were fired by Israel and not Syria as you claim.The excuse given at the time was that it was a pre-emptive attack for defence.

But a pre-emptive attack is an attack none the less.

The reason why I feel I had to correct you is that the myth that Israel only defends itself is all pervading.

The territory was gain by aggression though I will grant you that on other occasions(Yom Kipur for instance) Israel was attacked first.

This does not make your assertion any less false and misleading.

[Edited on 16-4-2004 by John bull 1]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
John, that is interesting. Your information is very askewed, but I still find it interesting.

Seeker, you know there will be no peace allowed. When the existence of one tiny nation in the middle of many nations that want nothing more than that one nation's destruction, no matter what concessions that one tiny nation might be willing to make, there can be no peace. It is no secret that the "Palestinian" problem was created by the Arab world, and even if that problem was resolved, another issue would be created. The Arabs have tried more than once to destroy Israel an always loses. There is a Divine reason for that.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Interesting? It is either correct or not.Skewed is not an alternative and you will find that the facts bear me out.

As for one tiny nation like a lamb amoungst the wolves........

My heart bleeds it really does.


A lamb with Nuclear,Biological,and Chemical weapons.Subsidised by billions of US dollars each year and illegally occupying another land.

The crux of the problem was that Israel was created in the first place without consultation or agreement.That Zionist terrorists had been committing atrocities against the British and the Palestinians and that these terrorist acts should be rewarded by statehood has set the standard for the region.

Terrorism doesn't pay ?

Your wrong! Look at Israel for the best example in history.

Over 50 years of violence because bigger nations arbitrarily took land from one people and gave it to another.

Israel exists now and everyone accepts that but to repeat the same mistake ?

And now the US President wants to repeat that historic mistake.

Roll on another 50 years of violence.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   

as quoted by John Bull 1
The crux of the problem was that Israel was created in the first place without consultation or agreement



You need to clarify your above statement JB.
As such, do these ring a bell: the 1915 McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, and the 1922 Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations, and in 1945-46, the British allowing Jewish refugees from Germany's Holocaust, to migrate to Palestine, and ending with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947?



seekerof



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   
At the tail end of the first World War, Britain's General Allenby marched into Jerusalem backed by the Balfour Declaration. That declaration, which recognized the right of the Jews to rebuild their ancient homeland in Palestine, was later endorsed by the League of Nations.

But the Balfour Declaration said nothing about the indigenous Arab population -- except a reference to respect for civil and religious rights -- and certainly gave no mention of any national aspirations the Arabs might have had.

The seeds of Palestinian national consciousness sprouted in response to the British colonial presence and the expanding Jewish population. And in November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of partitioning Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, a defining moment for Palestinians who rejected division of the contested Holy Land.
Palestinians and Israelis have battled since creation of Jewish state



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Thanks John Bull 1

Thanks for the information there Hoaks......got a link?

How about address this when you get a chance:
Arabs recognized Israel - 1919



seekerof




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join