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.

 

Israel re-1967 borders ask the Native Americans

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I’m a non-Jew who is sympathetic to Israel and who used to simply believe the standard Zionist account of Israeli history, putting most of the blame on the Arabs. Lately, I have come to realize that the situation is far more ambiguous. I have just one simple (or simplistic) idea to offer: the idea that no one is really to blame and that the situation is a tragedy, like so much of life. Would not liberalizing the treatment of Palestinians - e.g. allowing them to drive on the highways of their choice - endanger Israelis? Freeing Gaza has led to rocket attacks. Etc. As for settlers, I point out the truism that we Americans ‘took’ America from the Indians, and we didn’t even have a prior historical presence. At the same time, I do not feel guilty about it and do not wish to give the country back, and I especially don’t want to give up my home. Perhaps simple survival condemns us to conflict. I am inclined to think that the ’solution’ for Israel is a unilateral two-state system implemented by a wall along the pre-1967 border, but would that really guarantee Israel’s security?




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
Perhaps simple survival condemns us to conflict.


The statement you made there pretty much sums it all up in my opinion.

We are merely acting out our primeval desires and following our survival instinct where ever it may lead us.

The rest is just details.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I'm to the opinion that no matter how much Israel gives up, there will still be no peace.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
First a quick background so those who don't know what we're talking about can keep up
From Wiki

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine was a resolution adopted by the General Assembly. It was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.[1][2] The resolution recommended the division of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area being under special international protection, belonging to neither of the two states, and an accompanying framework for overall economic union. The resolution sought to give partial satisfaction to two competing nationalist movements, Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and Arab nationalism, as well as to resolve the plight of Jews displaced as a result of the Holocaust. A transitional period under United Nations auspices was to begin with the adoption of the resolution, and was scheduled to last until the two states were established. The resolution also called for the withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by 1 August 1948, and establishment of the new independent states by 1 October 1948.

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency.[3][4] However, the plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.),[5][3] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League, resulting in a civil war in Palestine.[6]

With no plan for a smooth transition of authority to a new administration, Britain announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by 15 May 1948. During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor. On the day before Britain was to complete its withdrawal, (i.e. 14 May 1948) the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence as the State of Israel, and five Arab armies crossed into the former Mandate as the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.


So what we really had here was this huge European displaced base of Jews and this idea of a promised land... The transition wasn't as smooth as a simple vote for sometime British troop struggled to keep the flood of Jews out but that first trickle soon turned to a flood... millions on the move all seeking a home land...

I can understand, after the atrocities the Jewish people went through in Europe they would seek to rebuild in a safer place, but I do wounder if a Jewish state could have been established for them within Europe itself? without need of such a long dangerous crossing... If they had we might not have an Israel as we see her today...

I'm kind of struggling with the Native American connection, Before this Palestine was a British colony what they did was partition it to create a Jewish state and at first Palestine agreed... they just changed their minds at the last minute...Dont remember anyone asking we red skins if we wanted to share?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Palestine was a British colony what they did was partition it to create a Jewish state and at first Palestine agreed... they just changed their minds at the last minute...Dont remember anyone asking we red skins if we wanted to share?



Even with a "strong leader" the Palestinians cannot act as a nation-state. They have become undone on a grass-roots basis and cannot protect themselves from other opportunistic Arab/Islamic groups who choose to take advantage of their distress. They can't control their own land.

Forget morality. It's a trap. It would be better if the Palestinians could take their beach state and turn it into a resort economy. They can't. They are a destroyed and minimalized peopel.

Israel gave them land back with all the Israeli industries/settlements/buildings created by Israel. The Palestinians did nothing with them. They have been usurped by other Arabs and Iran.

Israel is going to have to appropriate the Palestinians in order to control the land they occupy.

You would be surprised at how much contempt other Arabs have for Palestinians. No one is innocent there and Palestinian land is more valuable for agendas against Israel than as land for Palestinians to develop. The Egyptians that I work for call the Palestinians "Arabian pawns" Not brother as they would with other Arabians.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Loken68]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Hypothetical questions:

What would the government and the people do if the Cherokee Indians started using suicide bombing and using rockets to take their lands back?

Would we bow to foreign pressure from allies and the United nations and give them their demands?

Would we be willing to give up 50% or more of the country.

What would happen if American born hispanics laid claim to land taken from Mexico during the Spanish American war?

The answer should be: No. Defeated nations don't win there stuff back. If this rule had been applied prior to Hitler there would have been no WW2.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Funny how people ignore the stuff that really matters. I think most people here would like for something to be a conspiracy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join