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, the cause of all Arab terrorism...

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
you know, when i was in sydney earlier this year. i met a palestinian for the first time. he told me he had emigrated to australia some 10 years ago.

i met him when he came over to install a closet for my brothers home. we talked and when i asked him where he was from since he didnt speak with an aussie accent, he said he was someone without a country previously.

that got me interested (also i was oblivious to the israeli-patestinian conflict) sure i has heard of bombings and whatever you read in the papers but that was it. anyway, i asked him why he left palestine, and he told me that all he wanted was a peaceful land where he could earn a living and raise a family without the violence of war.

anyway, he was a really nice bloke and still had relatives back in palestine but i reckon he ll never go back there.


[edit on 29/6/04 by agent]

[edit on 29/6/04 by agent]




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Yes, I am sure there are Palestinians, as there are Israelis, that only want to live in peace. If it was only that easy, this problem would have been solved a long time ago.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you disregard the religion, then you are ignoring an important part of this conflict, you are actually ignoring the conflict as Sharia is the law of the Muslim world.


muaddib, sharia is not the only law that can govern the muslim community. take for example malaysia that is predominantly moslem. they have sharia for the moslems and a rule of law based on the english legal system. it works well but why?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I don't understand what you are asking exactly Agent, but yes I am also aware of some countries that do this.

This site explains this situation and i think it might anwser your question.

" Background

Sharia controls the family and property interests of Muslims in countries where personal law is determined by religion, and it is the law referred to in such matters concerning Muslim citizens of such countries by courts in jurisdictions where nationality is the criterion for personal law. In addition to some modern cases dealing with it, there is a substantial case law from Western courts of the colonial era applying Sharia including notably cases arising in India and Algeria. Some predominantly Muslim countries apply Sharia at least in part in matters of criminal and commercial law; Islamists argue that Sharia is a complete set of laws and that no man-made laws have a place in the Muslim State. Many Muslims who live in Western countries attempt to live by Sharia rules insofar as possible; this has created a niche for lawyers in experienced in Islamic dispute resolution and able to offer trusts and other arrangements that follow Sharia rules of succession. Financial organizations have developed Islamic financial packages that substitute equity for interest.

Excerpted from.
www.llrx.com...

[edit on 29-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes, I am sure there are Palestinians, as there are Israelis, that only want to live in peace. If it was only that easy, this problem would have been solved a long time ago.


agreed. but is it bcoz people make it difficult intentionally, not wanting to come to a compromise. is it bcoz noone is strong enough to say enough is enough. this is how its going to be from now on...i want you all to quit acting like kids and start living with one another and respecting one another. i will have no more of these fights or else...

no one would dare say this to these guys for fear of repatriation.
we solve conflicts almost daily in this manner but not for them, why?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It's not because no one can say "enough is enough" it's because no one can agree on what they want. Particularly the Palestinians who are completely in a "feudal" system. In which all the lords would tear down anyone trying to be king because they wanted to maintain a balance of power in their society. Palestinians tear down anyone trying to create one group representing Palestine because they all have differing agendas and don't want them to be lost.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Is because the religions of both the Palestinians and the Israelis play an important part in this, this makes it personal for all of them. I do understand in "some parts" both sides of the issue, but neither side is going to give in. This conflict did not start yesterday, and its also true that western intervention in the past screwed up the situation even more.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Since you are hell-bent on speaking pre-conceived, non-factual statements, I will leave you with at least this list of HISTORICAL REFERENCE DOCUMENTS...maybe you'll take the time to read what really happened.



nah!

You call THAT a list of historical reference documents?

Go and get the propaganda sites out of your list - if done that, you can call it a list of some of the HISTORCAL FACTS.


And: please THINK :


What do you THINK...... how did they call Jewish families which have lived in for many many many (!) decades, mainly in Jerusalem, Tiberias, Safed and Hebron among other places?

Jewish Palestinian of course, what else?

Mixing facts and fiction and rewriting the history of the Holy Land is part of the Palestinians' struggle against Israel and part of their negotiating tactics.

(In fact, quite recently, during the July 2000 Camp David summit, Arafat, who during the summit failed to put on the table a single constructive plan for peace, did come up with an interesting suggestion. U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who was present when Arafat spoke, explained that Arafat "did offer one new idea, which was that the Temple didn't stand in Jerusalem but in Nablus.")

But Arab and Palestinian propaganda does not stop there, for it goes on to challenge not only Jewish and Israeli rights to the ancient parts of Palestine but also to the more modern parts of it.

Thus, in school textbooks and other publications it is often claimed that the land of modern Israel was in fact "stolen" from the Arabs and that the Palestinians were effectively "robbed" by the Jews.

This, of course, is nonsense. They bought it from them.

Although Palestinians have legitimate grievances, there is absolutely no historical basis to their claims - some of which are utterly ridiculous - that Palestine is exclusively theirs and that the Jews "stole" their land.

For the truth is that Jews have always lived in 'Palestine' and Jewish settlers did not, as it is often claimed by Arabs, seize land, but rather they bought it.

Critics and foes of Israel should recollect that the state of Israel was established by the Jews on Jewish and legitimately purchased land. And it was blessed by the United Nations and recognized by nations of the world, most notably the United States.


.....and......did you ever take a look at the

The Palestine National Charter?

maybe of interest is i.e.:




[...]

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21. The Palestinian Arab people, expressing themselves through the Palestinian armed revolution, reject all alternatives to the total liberation of Palestine. They also reject all proposals for the liquidation or internationalization of the Palestine problem.

[...]



That's the cause of Arab terrorism. It's the arab world. THEY do not want peace with Israel - They even deny the FACT that Israel exists.

The State of Israel is still committed to the peace process but - there is currently no partner on the Palestinian side with whom progress can be made on a bilateral process


.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
...Palestinians tear down anyone trying to create one group representing Palestine because they all have differing agendas and don't want them to be lost.



Originally posted by Muaddib
Is because the religions of both the Palestinians and the Israelis play an important part in this, this makes it personal for all of them. I do understand in "some parts" both sides of the issue, but neither side is going to give in...


there are always 2 sides to the coin in each and every conflict, otherwise it would not exist.

first rule in resolving a conflict is that both parties must be willing to come to a compromise, otherwise someone must be strong enough to force it and make them stick with it.

thats it. only thing is theres too much vested interest, conflict of interest that no one is willing to do it.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
No agent, you are misunderstanding.

The conflict in Israel-Palestine has become an "ethnic" conflict. The first rule of ethnic conflicts is it is not fought by the ethnic group, but by many small tiny groups within that ethnicity. You can't reason with the "Palestinians" because there are some 7 or more strong groups all with their own agenda, the only thing that unites them is that they do want to get rid of Israel, some want Palestinian statehood, others don't, some want it only when Israel is gone, others might be willing to compromise. But there is no "strong leader" to deal with, even Arafat who has much influence there, would have none if he were to try to compromise with Israel. He must always look like he is winning victories against Israel.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by agent

there are always 2 sides to the coin in each and every conflict, otherwise it would not exist.

first rule in resolving a conflict is that both parties must be willing to come to a compromise, otherwise someone must be strong enough to force it and make them stick with it.



Yes, a conflict has two sides.

...Imagine this two sides. A and B

A hates B. Why? B has black skin.

What sort of a compromise would you suggest?
There would be nothing B could do.

(Of course Israel / PA is not that simple black-and-white).


But...have you read the The Palestine National Charter or the The Charter of Hamas ?
The goal is to destroy Israel.

Do you think someone who wants to destroy Israel is looking for a compromise or a two-state solution?


According to Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre poll (JMCC was established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip and was the first institution to conduct public opinion polls in the West Bank and Gaza Strip)





over 65 percent of 1,200 participants in Gaza and the West Bank believe tthat militant action against Israeli targets represents "an appropriate response within the current political situation,"

while 39.5 percent see no difference between "militant activity" in the occupied territories and inside Israel.

45.5 percent believe that the final aim of the intifada is to "free all Palestinian land" (including Israel)



What compromise would you suggest to someone who wants fighting Israel until it is destroyed ?

.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
A hates B. Why? B has black skin.

What sort of a compromise would you suggest?
There would be nothing B could do.


yes but there is smthg A can do which is to accept that B has black skin.



Do you think someone who wants to destroy Israel is looking for a compromise or a two-state solution?


precisely, that is why someone needs to show them that they do not really have to destroy israel to live happily ever after. there is lack of strong leadership.

look at the US now



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Valhall you think that a country can be partitioned and thus "exist" if it is not excepted by the people of that to-be country?

Here is Palestine as the Palestinians view it.



FM...you are REALLY disappointing me here. You know damned well that to go find a biased web-site and then come back and publish a link to it is NOT research, and is NOT dealing in the historical record.

Don't u2u me again until you have tried looking at the facts.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

The problem Valhall is that you don't seem to want to acknowledge that even if religion for you is not important, it is important for the Arab world, and so it is for the Israelis because it affects them too. If you disregard the religion, then you are ignoring an important part of this conflict, you are actually ignoring the conflict as Sharia is the law of the Muslim world.


Muaddib,

With all due respect, I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging that theocractic societies cannot and do not remove their religion from the legal and cultural codes. I have no problem understanding that.

But what you are apparently unable to do is approach this issue on the legalities and the commitments. If you can't objectively look at a land map, and if you can't objectively review the commitments made by the U.N. because you're too blinded by one party's religion - you're always going to be part of the "global problem" that has facilitated the situation as it is now.

According to your thinking, we would have never handed-over Iraq because, by golly they just might live by Shariah.

And might I add, that since the Israeli's documented claims of the land being given to them by God for all times was considered irrelevant in the decision of whether they received their homeland or not, the "other side's" religion must also be kept separate when dealing in this LAND ISSUE.

[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

FM...you are REALLY disappointing me here. You know damned well that to go find a biased web-site and then come back and publish a link to it is NOT research, and is NOT dealing in the historical record.

Don't u2u me again until you have tried looking at the facts.


Well, actually those maps (only without the english words) appear in official palestinian school books. It's a fact.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Trans...

I'm sure they do. And I'm not for one minute saying that the Paletinians aren't

1. wrong in their ideas
2. wrong in their actions
3. pretty much on my s***-list.

Again, their warped ideaologies and their disgusting propaganda, and hate-filled theocracy is not what is being discussed here...at least it's not by me, but I'm starting to think I"m the only one not discussing it.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   
About the 1947 UN Partition Plan: The fact is that most of the jews (almost all of them actually) actually agreed to accept this plan. It was the palestinian people who rejected it, and, I quote from wikipedia:



For their part, for two decades after the UN partition plan was first implemented, every leader of every neighboring country promised to destroy Israel.


The partition plan led to the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, who's main goal was to destroy Israel.

Israel won this war.

The only reson that the partition plan wasn't implimented was the fact that all of the neighboring countries, including the palestinians, decided to destroy Israel, and not becuase Israel "cheated" - as you might think withough knowing the facts.


As for the education, which is - at least for my opinion - one of the most improtant and fundemental problems in the area, or at least a problem which shows some of the most important differences between Palestine and Israel, here are some conclusions posted by CMIP, one is about Israeli teaching, and the other is about the Palestinian.

Israel:


In the Israeli Ministry of Education approved school textbooks there is a visible endeavor to promote the values of peace, improve the perception of the other side, and foster mutual respect and peaceful relations between parties to the conflict.


Palestine:


The struggle to end occupation, viewed by most international and Israeli circles as legitimate, is being used to teach a systematic rejection of Israel and to promote hatred towards it. It is disturbing that even the very young pupils of six and seven years are exposed to the rejection of mutual recognition, tolerance, respect and peace, in favor of glorifying martyrdom and Jihad. The terminology and style employed, particularly in the textbooks for higher grades, is more consistent with journalistic technique than with education.


I wonder how can you even start thinking about peace.




[edit on 30/6/04 by Transc3ndent]

[edit on 30/6/04 by Transc3ndent]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Transc3ndent
About the 1947 UN Partition Plan: The fact is that most of the jews (almost all of them actually) actually agreed to accept this plan. It was the palestinian people who rejected it, and, I quote from wikipedia:



For their part, for two decades after the UN partition plan was first implemented, every leader of every neighboring country promised to destroy Israel.


The partition plan led to the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, who's main goa was to destroy Israel.

Israel won this war.

The only reson that the partition plan wasn't implimented was the fact that all of the neighboring countries, including the palestinians, decided to destroy Israel, and not becuase Israel "cheated" - as you might think withough knowing the facts.





Had the U.N. CARED if this was going to work out, they most likely would have listened to the words of President Truman prior to termination of the mandate.

"This country vigorously supported the plan for partition with economic union recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine and by the General Assembly. We have explored every possibility consistent with the basic principles of the Charter for giving effect to that solution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means. We could not undertake to impose this solution on the people of Palestine by the use of American troops, both on Charter grounds and as a matter of national policy."

"The United Kingdom has announced its firm intention to abandon its mandate in Palestine on May 15. Unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result. Such fighting would infect the entire Middle East and could lead to consequences of the gravest sort involving the peace of this Nation and of the world.

These dangers are imminent. Responsible governments in the United Nations cannot face this prospect without acting promptly to prevent it. The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace."


"If we are to avert tragedy in Palestine, an immediate truce must be reached between the Arabs and Jews of that country. I am instructing Ambassador Austin to urge upon the Security Council in the strongest terms that representatives of the Arabs and Jews be called at once to the council table to arrange such a truce."

"The United States is prepared to lend every appropriate assistance to the United Nations in preventing bloodshed and in reaching a peaceful settlement. If the United Nations agrees to a temporary trusteeship, we must take our share of the necessary responsibility. Our regard for the United Nations, for the peace of the world, and for -our own self -interest does not permit us to do less."

But instead, the region was abandoned in the middle of a violent situation. - And though the violence was being perpetuated from BOTH SIDES, it was by majority the Arab-Palestinians.



[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]


Ok, I totally agree.

[edit on 30/6/04 by Transc3ndent]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Here's the UN partition plan from 1947:



"The Jewish state is demarcated by the green shading. The pink indicates the area allotted to the planned Arab state. Jerusalem was to be internationalized and separated from both states."


These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.


The site also has an audio file of the vote on the partition plan being cast:
Listen to the UN Vote on Partition

www.us-israel.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join