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.

 

How to make the case for Israel and win

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
If it were only just Israel.

The same problem is going on in Kashmir, and soon will be going on in Europe if people don't start taking the hard look at reality.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


Apparently you didn't read my whole post i answered your question i suggest you go re read it again. But let me say this the Palestinians have just as much control over the conflict as the Israelis.To try to play it off that the poor Palestinians are being picked on is silly. I agree that Israel goes in kills innocent people this happens in war. And don't kid yourself Hamas is at war with Israel. To try to make them out as a defender for the people is a joke.

And you want to point out all these organizations that say how bad Israel is well guess what Hamas doesn't fair any better in fact id say worse. Israelis has nothing to gain by continuing this fight. In truth Hamas doesn't either Israel isn't going anywhere and they all ready run there country. This is nothing more than futile struggle to evict the Israelis from the holy land.

In a way i wish they would leave all and all it would help the United States but since that isn't going to happen. Then that leaves only one option the Palestinians need to throw the PLO and Hamas out (neither group is really Palestinian just another play thing for Syria) And take all that foreign aid and build a country they can be proud of.Trust me Israel wont bother them if they were not being attacked by terrorists and rockets, Not because of the goodness of the hearts but because provocation wont be there thus giving them no excuse. Theres so much bad blood and death on both sides that until all excuses cease there is no stopping this fight its a pattern played out over and over.


It is wrong Palestinian do not have any control at all, let alone the control over the whole area they don't even have control of their own houses, lands which are "illegally" being stolen from them with threat of force and force. If they had any control at all they would have first stopped the stealing of their land. And that is the ground reality:

From Israel's own Military Defense report who it is illegally stealing more and more land from Wikileaks

Secret Israeli Defence Millitary database shows full extent of illegal settlements

From the Major Creator of Israel:
EU report says Israel illegally annexing east Jerusalem

and more

Israel closes sole oil and gas terminal on Gaza border

Banning lawmakers from entering the area to see for themselves the illegal occupation

Israel bars EU lawmakers from entering Gaza

It is very easy to say they should throw out their democratically elected government wonder why Israel does not throw out their elected government who have been accused of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by December_Rain]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Guy do you bother to do any research the settlements have nothing to do with the plight of Gaza or the west bank.If your going to try to get your point across at least know what your talking about.

Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities in the Israeli-occupied territories that were captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War.The only reason this ares is in dispute at all is because The Israelis have never reimbursed the other countries for this property.The issue is do the Israelis have to abide by land deeds issued by other countries.

Now if your trying to say a country cant take land in a war there isn't a country on the planet that hasn't done that. Do i think they should return the land yes i do as well as several Israelis feel the same way. The problem is there is military hawks there that argue these positions are needed for defense.In the case of th Golan Heights for example there right the Jordanians had this position and pounded the Israelis.The only reason these settlements are illegal in Israel is because these areas were supposed to remain barren as a no mans land. This would be like the DMZ in Korea.

.There called illegal settlements because Israeli law doesn't recognize them. Not because these lands are owned by Palestinians (guess Syrians are Palestinians?) as any syrians Jordanians or Egyptians deeds mean nothing until Israel returns them to there respective countries.


Ps don't try to rewrite history because if you do you'll never understand the true causes of a conflict and no resolution becomes possible.

[edit on 1/6/10 by dragonridr]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain

But all this does not even start here...it started on November 2, 1917

Balfour Declaration 1917: British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour sends a letter to Lord Rothschild, President of the Zionist Federation, declaring his government would "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish"
[edit on 2-1-2010 by December_Rain]


You see this is what I still cannot understand. Any time somebody says "look what happened in the past" you are only willing to look at it selectively. If you look at the history of the conflict, both sides have made promises that they have broken. Both sides have broken ceasefires. Both sides have had people in charge of the leadership that have harmed chances for peace.

Let's go back to the year 2000. I don't care about the past, I care about how the Palestinians are treating Israelis! They must stop these suicide bombings or there will never be peace! (Would you accept these demands from me? Or would you question events in the past? Can you understand where I am coming from?)

The 2nd Intifada should have served as a strong deterrent for Palestinian terrorists. Israel was sending a clear message that terrorism against its civilians would not be tolerated and would result in harsh repercussions. The small faction of Palestinian extremists did not heed this warning and continued to provoke and provoke an enemy that was militarily stronger and mentally tougher. What did they expect would be the consequences of these actions?

What you see today is a failed situation in the ME where the average Palestinian suffers and lives in duress largely due to the actions of the extremist elements of the Palestinian people.

[edit on 6/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Guy do you bother to do any research the settlements have nothing to do with the plight of Gaza or the west bank.If your going to try to get your point across at least know what your talking about.

Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities in the Israeli-occupied territories that were captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War.The only reason this ares is in dispute at all is because The Israelis have never reimbursed the other countries for this property.The issue is do the Israelis have to abide by land deeds issued by other countries.

Now if your trying to say a country cant take land in a war there isn't a country on the planet that hasn't done that. Do i think they should return the land yes i do as well as several Israelis feel the same way. The problem is there is military hawks there that argue these positions are needed for defense.In the case of th Golan Heights for example there right the Jordanians had this position and pounded the Israelis.The only reason these settlements are illegal in Israel is because these areas were supposed to remain barren as a no mans land. This would be like the DMZ in Korea.

.There called illegal settlements because Israeli law doesn't recognize them. Not because these lands are owned by Palestinians (guess Syrians are Palestinians?) as any syrians Jordanians or Egyptians deeds mean nothing until Israel returns them to there respective countries.


Ps don't try to rewrite history because if you do you'll never understand the true causes of a conflict and no resolution becomes possible.

[edit on 1/6/10 by dragonridr]


Right!! so illegal stolen land, bulldozing houses, uprooting homes, farms has nothing to do with Gaza and peace there? You sure got your point across. But you know International law and community thinks otherwise.

These settlements are not illegal because Israel sees them as illegal. If it did it wouldn't have opened tender for 700 new houses as it did last month.

They are illegal because under International Law they are illegal.

The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal. The International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law.

Lets see what each resolution has to state regarding settlement:

Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979
1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

5. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission.

7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.



452, adopted July 20, 1979

It states that "the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949" and "calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem."



465, adopted March 1, 1980
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,


Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,



Resolution 471 (1980) of 5 June 1980
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Recalling also its resolutions 468 (1980) and 469 (1980),

Reaffirming its resolution 465 (1980), by which the Security Council determined "that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East" and strongly deplored the "continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices",

Shocked by the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh,

Deeply concerned that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms, thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian Arab population,

1. Condemns the assassination attempts against the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al Bireh and calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes;

2. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as the occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War;

3. Calls upon the Government of Israel to provide the victims with adequate compensation for the damages suffered as a result of these crimes;

4. Calls again upon the government of Israel to respect and to comply with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, as well as with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;


5. Calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

6. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;


7. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of the present resolution.


More resolutions regarding Israel can be found here:
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - 1980

[edit on 6-1-2010 by December_Rain]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


No you are mistaken I am not looking at it selectively, you will find my reply was to a post who was responding "selectively" highlighting past.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If the UN and the international community wants to apply these standards toward Israel, isn't it fair to expect the same from certain other countries in the world? In fact, within this definition it would not be hard to classify the actions of many countries over the last century as illegal.

What makes the country Israel so special?

[edit on 6/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


First let me tell you UN security council resolutions hold no weight in if an act is illegal or not. What is referenced as illegal is when a military occupies an area there is certain procedures set out by the Geneva convention on the way the military must treat civilian populations. Now here is the misleading part that area has been annexed into Israel until such time as they decide to return it.It is governed through civilian law right or wrong the Israelis argue there is no military occupation this is land they seized through conflict.

Now here comes the lie i was referring to.Since the war of 1967, Palestinians have come to accept the reality of Israel within the 1948 boundaries. The land dispute has increasingly focused on Israel's occupation of the remaining territories -- the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip on 12 September 2005. and has made offers in the past to return these territories. So the argument that this is the problem with middle east peace is a joke.

Lets look at history a minute!

From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.
In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.
One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.
In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.
Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

Think its about land if you do your only fooling yourself.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by December_Rain
 


First let me tell you UN security council resolutions hold no weight in if an act is illegal or not.


hahahahaha...really!! then it would mean the UN Security Council judging of Nazi Germany holds no meaning as well. Then it would also mean that creation of Israel as per UN resolutions would hold no weight either. Yep all the laws are farce and hold no weight only what is written in story book is real lol.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by December_Rain
 


First let me tell you UN security council resolutions hold no weight in if an act is illegal or not.


hahahahaha...really!! then it would mean the UN Security Council judging of Nazi Germany holds no meaning as well. Then it would also mean that creation of Israel as per UN resolutions would hold no weight either. Yep all the laws are farce and hold no weight only what is written in story book is real lol.



Let me get this straight you think the UN security council judged Nazi Germany???? Boy now i know you no nothing of history and i fully understand why you keep arguing the propaganda off some website. First The UN was not founded until 1945 prior to that there was the League of Nations which was really a joke. Considering even the United States Refused to Join.

Now For the UN creation Of Israel the reality is the British created Israel it was considered there property.All the UN did was acknowledge the Jewish state.

You show a sever lack of understanding in the middle east to understand something you have to put your hate aside and look at what was really happening.Im not a fan of Israel in fact could care less in truth.What i hate is when someone tries to rewrite history to prove there bias whatever that might be. Has Israel committed war crimes probably has Hamas probably but you know what war is ugly nasty and often times cruel.

The reality of the situation is the only people that can change this is the Palestinians (really hate to use this word because it was an invention of Yasser Arafat to gain support). Yeah that history stuff again here im going to tell you the truth the Palestinians are pawns of Iraq and Syria nothing more.They get to do the dying while these two countries get to harass Israel since in reality there goal is to remove them from the middle east and neither country has the will or might to do so.

Before you try to claim one side or the other is evil you need to take the time to educate yourself on the causes.If you don't know why the conflict started then unfortunately you cant place blame can you?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


To Islam, none of the UN Security Council judgments mean anything.

Maybe you can explain why a descendant of Muhammad must rule over all the lands of the Middle East.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Let me get this straight you think the UN security council judged Nazi Germany???? Boy now i know you no nothing of history and i fully understand why you keep arguing the propaganda off some website. First The UN was not founded until 1945 prior to that there was the League of Nations which was really a joke. Considering even the United States Refused to Join.



The International Law Commission, acting on the request of the United Nations General Assembly, produced in 1950 the report Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II[36]). See Nuremberg Principles.

en.wikipedia.org...


The United Nations Charter of June 1945 expressed the determination “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Its Preamble spoke of the equality of nations, large and small, and called for enhanced social justice, tolerance and respect for international law. In August 1945, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France signed another Charter, creating the International Military Tribunal (IMT), to bring to justice some of the German leaders responsible for aggression, crimes against humanity and related atrocities. How far have we come and what more must be done before these noble goals can be achieved?

www.un.org...

Propaganda...interesting, I just posted "International Laws" using "official sources".. Now I understand why you think laws are propaganda.

Education is what I would suggest will improve a better discussion. Good luck!


Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by December_Rain
 


To Islam, none of the UN Security Council judgments mean anything.

Maybe you can explain why a descendant of Muhammad must rule over all the lands of the Middle East.


I am talking about International Laws here, kindly familairise yourself with them instead of bringing storybooks, which as far as I care you can shove it where the sun never shines.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain

Education is what I would suggest will improve a better discussion. Good luck!

I am talking about International Laws here, kindly familairise yourself with them instead of bringing storybooks, which as far as I care you can shove it where the sun never shines.



So the United Nations is an unquestionable source of justice?

That may be the opinion of the most of it's 192 members. The majority of which are countries run by dictators, warlords, despots, military strongmen, corrupt monarchs.

The endemic corruption and disregard for equitable treatment among it's members consistently displayed by the UN is a scandal of global proportions.

Civilized nations hold their noses every time the UN makes a human rights inquiry composed of representatives from some of the most criminal regimes on the planet.


www.usatoday.com...

The Scandal that is the United Nations

The U.N. scandals are not unfortunate accidents. They are not incidental blots on the reputation of an otherwise idealistic organization. The scandals are inherent in the very structure of the U.N. It could be said that the U.N. itself is the scandal.

Since the 1990s, the United Nations has aspired to larger and larger responsibilities. From Bosnia to Cambodia, from Iraq to the Congo, U.N. officials have administered vast aid programs — and sometimes even taken over the functions of governments.

But these officials don't answer to taxpayers or voters. They answer to the U.N. secretary-general — who, in turn, answers to dozens of different governments. Many of these governments are authoritarian, corrupt and unaccountable themselves.

And their dirty ways of doing business are almost inevitably absorbed by the world bodies in which they are given a decisive role.

As a result, the office of the U.N. secretary-general acts like the management of an old-fashioned corporation before the advent of shareholder activism. It uses other people's money for purposes of its own. Senior managers engage in profitable side ventures that top management may or may not know about. Questions are dismissed as irrelevant and impertinent. (It was not until January, for example — and then only under extreme pressure — that the U.N. made any of its internal audits of the oil-for-food program available to U.S. congressional investigators.)

The problem is not merely that the individuals in charge of the corporation are bad or dishonest, although of course many of them are. The problem is that they are presented with perverse incentives — with few or no controls on misconduct.

The U.N. can sometimes be a useful forum for the world's governments to exchange views. But the idea that the U.N. secretary-general can act somehow as a global representative — or that the U.N. staff can function as an honest and effective international civil service — should be discredited forever by the oil-for-food scandal.



[edit on 9-1-2010 by mmiichael]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Not unquestionable but universal law of justice as in International Laws.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 



as far as I care you can shove it where the sun never shines.


Really, and then you make this statement.


Not unquestionable but universal law of justice as in International Laws.


From my observation, universal law usually means you get what you wish to give. So BOHICA BB!

Edit to add

This is the problem with the Islamic world, they care nothing for justice, their only goal is to get what they want. They attack someone, and when they get their behinds kicked, the cry like a bioch. It has gotten to the point where we no longer care anymore about your crocodile tears.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by poet1b]




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join