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.

 

Netanyahu says will accept demilitarized Palestinian state

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 




Yeah very tough to swallow how anyone can condone driving people off of land they have been on for hundreds of years just to put other people in their place who have absolutely no respect for the original inhabitants.


'...they have been on for hundreds of years...'

You KNOW this how?



[edit on 15-6-2009 by golemina]




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Just because the land has no formal or centralized government does not mean they are not a nation...being ruled by tribes in certain areas or sects of a country does not forfeit their legitimacy to that land simply because it doesn't adhere to european standards of what is accepted as a *nation*.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Well, I just tried to pull in some references that might be acceptable, but nothing hard and fast exists that would be convincing to a zealot. I will concede the point. Obviously, it is perfectly acceptable to drive people from their homes and make them second class citizens. We did it to the Native Americans and we have done it to the people who resided in the area once anecdotally known as Palestine.

So who's next? Um, let's drive the people out of some of these African regions and setup camp there. Any ethno-religious groups out there need a home? I know of a spot of land in Africa that would be perfect. Don't worry about the natives, they have no more claim to it than you do, since they can't prove how long they have been there.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


So pretty much... you've got NOTHING.

>'a zealot'?



I AM flattered.

You're wrong on this point also my friend.


You MIGHT want to go read the rhetoric that the Arabs advance... the so called Nakba.

The Arabs are SO out of touch, they thought they were just going to extinguish those vile blood drinking Jews...

But here we are a few years later...

They're still here!



I can save you a LOT of time...

The Arab position... it's all lies.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

Even the 'history' they made up about their third most sacred religious site.

They destroyed the Jewish temple and built the Dome on it's ruins.

Maybe you understand why they riot so easily when excavations are attempted at the Jewish temple ruins...

It exposes once and for all the bed of lies the Arabs (and Islams) views are ALL based on...

Irrefutably.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


There is one thing that is the big sticking point for me. I don't accept the actions of the Arabs anymore than I accept the actions of the Isrealis. I think both sides are acting like spoiled brats. But again, one sticking point...

Justify the existence of Isreal. Explain why it is the right and proper thing to do to run people off of the land they were inhabiting at the time to create a state that had long since gone the way of the dodo.

If you can show me that there was ANYTHING other than a religious reason for the creation of Isreal in 1949, I will review my position.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 




There is one thing that is the big sticking point for me. I don't accept the actions of the Arabs anymore than I accept the actions of the Isrealis. I think both sides are acting like spoiled brats. But again, one sticking point...


This is just a rhetorical device...

(Not to mention something you don't believe, so WHY pretend?
)



Justify the existence of Isreal. Explain why it is the right and proper thing to do to run people off of the land they were inhabiting at the time to create a state that had long since gone the way of the dodo.


For a guy that is supposed interested in Peace, this point is totally irrelevant.



See... someone REALLY interested in Peace, would start from a position where things just ARE. (Israel is.
) And go from there.

You seem to want to bring up the past, lay blame, yada yada yada.

You have no interest in Peace.

You only want to justify... Whatever.



If you can show me that there was ANYTHING other than a religious reason for the creation of Isreal in 1949, I will review my position.


Again relevance?

>'I will review my position'



Why would I possibly care?

We're just two fools yakking AT each other.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Yeah, we are just two fools yakking.
I guess I forgot my audience there for a second.


The reason I bring up the past is that the only way to resolve this issue is to discuss how it started. Obviously the biggest sticking point on the part of the arabs is that Isreal shouldn't be there in the first place. Yeah, it has mutated and changed and got twisted all out of proportion since then, but that's where it started. If they can start there, they MIGHT be able to work out all the kinks and knots in the rope, so to speak.

And actually, yeah, I *do* believe that both sides are acting like idiots. I have many a time called the people firing rockets into Isreal a bunch of idiots. The *simplest* way for the situation to be resolved, as I said before, is for everyone to agree to stop fighting, start respecting each other and just accept things the way they are right now. But I don't actually think that would happen. Just too many angry, hateful people on both sides.

So, I apologize for any apparent attitude on my part.
I have long since resigned myself to the fact that this will all just end in someone getting totally destroyed. No winners here, really. I guess I just wanted to spar a bit *guilty look*



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Dear golemina,

The Temple was not destroyed by Arabs. The Romans destroyed the Temple.
It is not the Dome that is built on the former Temple place but the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Both were built centuries after the Temple was destroyed.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Just because the land has no formal or centralized government does not mean they are not a nation...being ruled by tribes in certain areas or sects of a country does not forfeit their legitimacy to that land simply because it doesn't adhere to european standards of what is accepted as a *nation*.


Palestine was a region just like Asia is today. If that is your theory then Iraq, Jordan and Israel among others belong to the Palestinians.

I rest my case.

"Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak blasted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech on Sunday saying "Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the chance for peace," Egyptian news agencies reported on Monday."

www.jpost.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 





You seem to want to bring up the past, lay blame, yada yada yada.



It appears that you are bringing up the past...



They destroyed the Jewish temple and built the Dome on it's ruins.


You think the Palestinians who live there now destroyed the Temple?



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Oatmeal
 


Dude... pretty much the WORST misquote (I've) ever seen (at ATS
)!



I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you...

But you HAVE to try to pretend to be making an effort at x-sation.




posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 




The Temple was not destroyed by Arabs. The Romans destroyed the Temple.

It is not the Dome that is built on the former Temple place but the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Both were built centuries after the Temple was destroyed.


You are, of course, correct.

The Arabs DO riot any time any excavations are attempted at the Temple Mount.

Fair enough?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join