It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The solution to the "palesitinian problem"

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by dontreally

Dude, Grand island is big and still not completely developed,but very expensive housing and very exclusive place to live .Look at a map of Western New York It's above Niagara Falls.Couple of beautiful State parks there now.Really nice place to live.It's not a small river the Niagara Is almost a mile wide in spots.Hence the name The Mighty Niagara.Big powerful river.After all it created the Niagara gorge and Niagara Falls.The land of the wild hoser on the other side.They were offered a wonderful place to live.Western New York is referred to as the best kept secret in America.
edit on 2/19/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by lonegurkha

I wasnt deriding the quality of Grand Island. The niagara region is very beautiful and i have spent many summers at the water parks (that existed than) and nowadays lots of friends of mine go to the casino. And the vinyards on the canadian side are gorgeous.

I wasnt trashing it. However, when that offer was made it was towards a world Jewish population that exceeded 14 million. On that little island, that isnt practical.

Israels current borders are somewhat small. Compare the size of Israel to grand island and you will get a picture.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:34 AM
reply to post by dontreally

We will never forget what Israel did to Palestine, You can never defend a monster. To this day your country still steals the Palestinian land.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:46 AM
I always thought it was the Jews that were the problem. History tells us the Jews had nowhere to call their own so somebody decided to give them some land. The thing is there was already some people living there who were forced to shift out of the road to make way for the Jews. I don't see how those who were shifted have become the problem.

I still don't understand why there needs to be a Jewish state at all. Jews lived in the area along with other semetic tribes. Sure if your a semite go and live there if you want. Live alongside other semites who are various sorts of christian or muslim. Even Jews have variations of beliefs who squabble about what being Jewish is.

Give me a description of who the ideal Israeli should be.

edit on 20-2-2011 by bigyin because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by bigyin

Language, national holidays, no antisemitism, etc..

Most Israelis can't talk English for #.

History is very subjective, and it seems everyone is very selective in their choosing of what history to believe in.
I'm not sure that at the time it seemed like such a tyrannical/oppressive idea as we see it today, 100 years later, nor is it fair to judge history in such a manner.

Neither is it fair to blame the Jews three or four generations later for the insensitivity of the colonial nations.

And it is equally unfair to suggest that an agreement disregarded 90 years ago would still somehow be valid today. The Palestinians were never moved into Jordan, and they have made their home in the West Bank and Gaza, and there's no changing that.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by Serizawa

This is why there will never be peace.Too much hate and no organization.In the rare event that the palestinians get organized,they follow some nitwit like Yasser Arafat who just took all the aid money that was for the people and put it in his pocket.If you think he didn't then how did he go from being a poor man to being worth millions with out working a day.As long as the palestinians can't get their **** together they will have nothing.The organizations who claim to care about them like hamas are just like Yasser. They only care about themselves not the people and the people get led around like the good little sheep they are.The problem is they have no leaders that can be trusted.Judging from all the unrest in the region I'd say that is a common problem.Of coarse that's a problem here too.Oh and by the way dude America is a big place we don't need any more land.
edit on 2/20/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:55 AM
Fair points.

However do you think with hindsight that it was the right way to go ?

Perhaps somewhere in USA would have been a more peaceful place to set up a Jewish zone/country. Jews could still go and live in Palestine or visit the holy lands, just like they (and people from other religions) do now but it would not have created so much confrontation and the anti semitism that we are seeing now.

After all Jews live all around the world even in Iran with very little problems. No more than any other ethnic or religious group would encounter.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by dontreally
Whats wrong with my timeline? Im talking about the Belafour Declation of 1917 which dealt with the league of Nations desire to create a Jewish state. The previous 'agreements', although i know very little of them, had no bearing on Palestine after 1917.

I asked for clarity because your timeline wasn't making sense to me, it wasn't a criticism, I apologise if it came across that way but you could be a little less prickly, if you like.

The Balfour Declaration was superceded by the Sykes-Picot agreement, and is really just a letter giving lip service. That it was instituted by the League of Nations as the preferred agreement after the war, following the Paris peace conference, is because it suited British foreign policy to favour that agreement. There were later ratifications that granted France some of the territories that had been agreed by Sykes-Picot in 1916. Additionally, on two fronts, we, the British, had negotiated deals, which included support for Arab self-determination, with the bin Sauds and the bin Alis if they united the tribes to overcome the Ottomans. Which they did. The bin Sauds were courted by Harry St John Philby of the India Office, who were keen to secure access to Basra, the Navy's key oil supply, while TE Lawrence organised bin Ali. Both were promised pretty much the same territory. In the end, following a deal with SOCAL (Standard Oil) and a new job with them for Philby, the bin Sauds were given the deal, and Palestine, Israel, Syria etc, which formed the traditional lands of the tribes that bin Ali represented, were considered too strategic to give back over to the natives, and they had already got what they wanted, so why bother. Churchill, and the Milner Group favoured the Zionists because they thought that Jews would be more favourable to British diplomacy and rather foolhardily, Churchill in particular thought it would 'Anglocise' the region, but more importantly, it would serve as safe post from which to be able to defend the Suez.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:26 PM
From wikipedia page on St John Philby....

In May 1932, Standard Oil of California (Socal) sought out Philby in its quest to obtain an oil concession in Saudi Arabia, ultimately signing Philby as a paid advisor to Socal. Philby, in turn, recognizing that competition by foreign interests would get a better deal for his friend, the Saudi King, made contact with Dr. George Lees, Chief Geologist of the Anglo Persian Oil Company, in order to alert him to Socal's interest in gaining oil exploration rights in Saudi Arabia. Anglo Persian was one of five international partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), through which it pursued its interest in the Saudi concession. In March 1933, IPC sent a representative, Stephen Longrigg, to join negotiations with the Saudi government in Jeddah. However, Philby's primary loyalty was to the Saudi King and, although he was being paid by Socal, he kept the arrangement a secret from Longrigg. In May 1933, IPC instructed Longrigg to withdraw from Jeddah, leaving Socal free to conclude negotiations with the Saudi Arabia for a 60-year contract to obtain the exclusive concession for exploration and extraction of oil in the al-Hasa region along the Persian Gulf.[5]

Meanwhile, at Cambridge, Philby's son, Kim, was being recruited by the OGPU of the Soviet Union. In recent years the theory has been propounded that Kim was recruited in particular to spy on his father, who had such powerful influence over the founder of the Saudi state and its connections with Britain and with American oil interests. By 1934, in an effort to safeguard the port of Aden, Britain had no fewer than 1,400 "peace treaties" with the various tribal rulers of the hinterlands of what became Yemen. Philby undermined British influence in the region, however, by facilitating the entry of United States commercial interests, followed by a political alliance between the United States and the Saud dynasty.

In 1936 SOCAL and Texaco pooled their assets together "East of Suez" into what later became ARAMCO (Arabian–American Oil Company). The United States State Department describes ARAMCO as the richest commercial prize in the history of the planet. Philby represented Saudi interests. In 1937 when the Spanish Civil War broke out, Philby arranged for his son, Kim Philby, to become a war correspondent for The Times.

Later Philby began secret negotiations with Germany and Spain, concerning Saudi Arabia's role in the event of a general European war. These discussions would allow neutral Saudi Arabia to sell oil to neutral Spain, which then would be transported to Germany. John Loftus, who worked in the United States Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations Nazi-hunting unit, claims Adolf Eichmann, while on a mission to the Middle East, met with Philby "during the mid-1930s"

The thing to remember about Britain, and why her greatest enemy has always been the Jesuits. They work on the same principle, the end justifies the means. Pointless going back and forth about who did what, behaviour on both sides is encouraged, supported and financed by those who profit.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
I love this, it is so true...

The reason we had a First World War was because the Germans, seemingly quite out of the blue, developed an interest in Empire building, and were working with the Ottomans to build a Baghdad to Berlin railway, which would have realised Britain's greatest fear, a single unified European power, moreover, one that had every intention of realising Halford MacKinder's vision of a Eurasian Heartland which would destroy sea trade, and therefore Britain (and the US if they were encouraged to focus their military on sea power and create an industrial centre that would flood the world with manufactured goods). The reason Lawrence and Woolley were excavating ancient civilisations in Iraq was because they had been given the money to do so in order to spy on the Germans. Such 'digs' were set up all over the near East to ensure that British supply lines were protected and that most importantly, the route to India was not severed. Germany, having 'lost' the First war, had to pay reparations and take full responsibility for that war when in fact they were forced into it by a paranoidly pre-emptive Britain. The Second World War was a continuation of the First, there being no real break in the Great Patriotic War, the rest of the world jumped in when the Near East and the Eurasian heartland once again became a factor. And we're still fighting for control for the same reasons, the games has just narrowed, and all in between are civilians, dragged into the equation because they voted for their leadership and that, therefore, makes them legitimate targets.

When everyone is shoved in a barrel and then poked with sticks on top of all that, it doesn't matter what is going on inside that barrel, it is not going to stop until those holding the sticks are taken out of the equation.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by bigyin

Settling the Jews anywhere would require moving out indigenous population, the thing about Palestine at the time is that it wasn't regarded as a populated area, but rather a mostly inhabitated land, full of nomadic tribes which roamed the whole area of Palestine, Jordan, Syria, etc (talking about the 19th century here)...

Whether that was completely true or not is something no one can tell with certainty today, but be sure that pro Israelis will paint it one color, and anti Israelis will paint it another.

Would I say it's right in hindsight? Yes, Palestine is the place where the Jews should be. Should things have gone the way they did? Definitely not, major errors have been made by all sides involved, on so many levels.

Basically this place is one big # up. Full of good intentions, but still a # up.

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

A very very small number of British politicans were zionists, and even than, when the Jews needed the mandate most, when they needed the British to honor the basic premise of their even being granted authority in palestine, from 1939 - 46, only 70,000 Jews entered Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were rejected and many others, literally on the verge of death, deported, naked, hungry and destined for extermination, were callously kicked out of their own homeland, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands (and this doesnt even take into account the evian or bermuda conferences, or Inter-governmental committe, or the later war refugee board which the british made every effort to hinder in its purpose). The sinking of the struma (killing 800 Jews, 200 of whom were children) is another sadistic example of British indifference to the sufferrings of Europes Jews. (they torpedoed the ship)

Anthony Eden, the foreign minister at the time said "If i had to chose, i prefer arabs over Jews". Another British politician said "9/10s of British officials are against the zionist cause"

Iraqs foreign minister with regards to the 1936-39 arab revolts said concerning the british

"...the arabs ought not to be afraid of the british. I can assure you that the british forces in palestine would not try to oppose or fight the Arabs, because Britain is a real friend of the Arabs"

The british were not friends of the Jews, and indeed they left and abandoned their claim to palestine BECAUSE of anti-british revolts from Jews, and threats against British officials from the Irgun (underground Jewish militia).

It took the holocaust for the Jews to say enough is enough. The British ignored arab immigration, taking the very lands that Jewish settlers had worked day and night clearing, transforming swamp and arid land into becoming serviceable, only to be usurped by the Arabs. Throughout the war the Jews of Palestine protested, mostly peacefully and civilly despite the treacherous deeds of the British.
edit on 20-2-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by dontreally

You can argue until you are blue in the face, I have no interest in defending either the Arabs or the Jews, or who started what, it doesn't matter. I don't cry over dead people, there are plenty who are living right now and suffering every second of the day, and of them, I only give a damn about the children, they have no choice, if the rest want to kill until the last man standing, let them get on with it, no skin off my nose. Now you obviously do care, about Israel, and because of that you seem unwilling to see the wider picture or to see that everyone has got an axe to grind and everyone deserves a place at the decision making table. You are entitled to your bias, but I'm not going to waste my energy trying to discuss what is a much deeper and complex issue that you are capable of perceiving without it threatening your belief system. You clearly have myopia on this issue and your sources are limited and or cherry picked to reflect your bias. You are content to maintain a position of 'right' and good for you, your choice, but pointless proposing solutions to a problem you are very much a part of.

Try standing on a table, or a chair, or on your head even, see how the view changes?

Step outside yourself once in while, test your perspective.

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

You clearly have myopia on this issue and your sources are limited and or cherry picked to reflect your bias.

If youre going to call me myopic, please show me where.

Isnt the origins of the palestinian conflict the most important aspect of figuring out todays dilemma? What do people complain about when it comes to palestinians? They call the Jews invaders, or colonialists, or Nazis, and they regard the palestinians, all 4 million of them displaced, and oppressed.

If in the beginning before this struggle began, the Jews settled areas of western palestine that were sparsely populated:

1. Mikvah Israel in 1870
2. Rishon L'Tzion in 1882
3. Ness Tzionah in 1882
4. Rehobot in 1890
5. Ekron in 1884
6. Katrah in 1885

Among many others, these places as the early british census confirmed along wth many other individual census' made, were thinnly populated.

Arab Settlement within main Jewish Settled areas in 1893 was 92,300. By 1947, thanks to unchecked illegal immigration from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt mainly, this number balooned to 462,900. Thats an unprecedented increase of 400% which defenders have claimed to be 'natural'.

And thus today we have this contrived conflict.

And im myopic? Im pretty sure youre own personal, moral relativism gets in the way of choosing or siding with the side that has been clearly wronged - in this case the Jews, because you would prefer not to get emotionally involved in this issue. The facts speak for themselves.

The fact that between 1948 and 1951, 800,000 Jews were expelled from muslim lands, their property confiscated by the government without compensation, were taken in by Israel despite the strain such a vast immigration would put on the economy, while the arabs, the muslims from the transjordan (which originally was 75% of 1917 Palestine) Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Aden, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, not ONE of those nations were willing to take in the commensurate arab palestinian population of around 1,000,000... not even a portion of the numbers, but instead chose to make political capital of the landless arabs.Therefore all blame of their supposed 'oppression' and dhimmitude within Israel should be put on the Arab worlds shoulders. They kicked Jews out and the Jews took them in. They didnt compensate them. They took everything they had despite having lived in those lands longer than Islams existence, while they ignored their own people, who they shared a religion, language and culture with, despite of the fact that Israel was willing to compensate them for their property.. And yet today the world still blames the Jews!? Forgive me for being upset at the injustice of this. I should probably do as you do; only care about the children.

The knowledge of what really happened is distorted thanks to the extremely succesful orwellian rewriting of history by Arab and British propaganda. Were Palestinian Arabs there from Time immemorial?. No, only around 92,000 Arabs lived in Jewish Settled areas. A Sharp difference from the 4,000,000 today. The Jews would have become a majority and todays issue wouldnt have occurred, if the facts were known. So what shall we make of this issue today? Do Arabs deserve a state, despite having rejected one in 1948? Is this monopoly? Do they get to go back to GO? Despite having started wars with Jews and killing thousands of them? Despite threatening to throw them into the sea and everyday threating to destroy their state?. Forgive me once again for noting the situation and making use of relevant facts to understand todays situation better (that is, your points and the earlier agreements have absolutely no bearing on todays situation, so i cant understand why you mentioned them)

The REAL bigots are the arabs, not the Jews who wont even allow a sliver of land in a region that is historically Hebrew, to be developed and lived on by the Jews. They are the antisemites, and hatemongerers and the only ones committing terrorist attacks against an enemy that in its entire existance has showed remarkable self restraint. In comparison, look at how America responded to September 11th. If you add up all the Israeli civilian victims of arab terror attacks from 1980, you get a number around 8000, almost triple that of americans killed in 2001. And yet how many wars have Israel fought. Have they invaded the gaza strip or carpet bombed it?. Nope. Just selective attacks that have so far accomplished nothing. They have been forced by international opinion to tolerate a terror state despite the obvious fact that Arab extremism and despotism is the culprit. Do not tell me that palestinians are teh victims. They are victimized only by the Arabs who refused to take care of them. Jews arent allowed in Jordan (not even to visit!), Not even allowed to step foot in Saudi Arabia, yet the Arab world clamors and protests at the Palestinian peoples oppression in the JEWISH state. Forgive me again at being upset with the injustice.

The REAL displacers, are in fact the Arabs, not the Jews. Between 1923 and 1947 the land cleared by Jews and jobs created through Jewish investment in JEWISH SETTLED areas were infact taken by Arab immigrants, thus limiting the labor quota which the British invoked in curtailing Jewish immigration. Despite the fact that Arabs were immigrating, and inmigrating (that is, they came from other parts of palestine and settled in Jewish areas) at an estimated count of 240,000 by 1947. Those jobs stolen from Jews, and those Jews who were prohibited from migrating to Palestine during this period, especially during WWII, were doomed to extermination by what appears to be an obvious British and Arab plot against the Jews.

I would recommend you read 'from time immemorial'. Theres much information that is completely irrefutable in that book that blows the lid off of todays common perception.
edit on 21-2-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by Eliad

I gave you a star for a reasonable reply.

Thats a first

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by bigyin

I knew we'd get along eventually..

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by Eliad

As long as youre willing to temper your views to get along with everyone, it will be fine.

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:04 AM
Recognize and relinquish the 1967 border agreement that maps out the modern day Palestine and reinforce the edict by placing and leveraging economical, supportial, militarial, sanctions against Israel if they violate said agreement and recognize Palestine as an independent Sovereign Nation and recognize her people as human beings and not animals and once Israel does that Palestine has already said it will most definately and gladly reciprocaite the courtesy and respect.

That is all Palestine is asking for, why can that not be had? This will end most of the problems there I guarandamntee it. This is the No. 1 Real Reson for Islamic Extremitism. Get rid of this Islamic Extremitism will die along with it once and for all effectively erasing this problem from our world once and for flipping all.

TPTB however, cannot and will have none of it because that would effectively cut them off solidly and firmly at the knees from trying to continually exploit both sides of the situation while turning others against them while laughing at all of us for being so dumb and gullible.

This and the fact of The 2005 NYC Confrenece Edict and demand to TPTB of ending all petrolchemical powered transportation produced new done by 2030 ending the reasons for the 2 recent quadmieres that were Iraq and Afghanistan continuing the same old "Wars Over Energy" nonsense that detroys nations, livelyhoods, families, communities, the planet that keeps everyone hating everyone else.

Everything ties back to this in regards for oil dependance, terrorism.
edit on 22-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by dontreally

Heh, he said it's reasonable, not that he agrees.. Why, is there anything in my posts that you don't agree with?

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by Eliad

I think you need to read up more on the palestinian/Israel situation.

Youre one of those Jews who feels 'guilt' about nothing. Your people have every right to be in Israel, and every excuse given by the Arabs, of a displaced indiginous population is propaganda; exaggeration of numbers, or, in the case of Palestines displaced population, only 15% of it was living in Jewish settled palestine. The other 85% were immigrants from Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the Hedjaz, Iraq and as far away as Alegeria and Sudan, aswell as inmigrants from other parts of palestine. This anecdote explains the psychology of liberal Israelis (aside from being manipulated by the state run Israeli media) who try to justify the palestinians, despite the many injustices committed against you, by both the Arabs and the UN (America and Britain especially)

In an exchange between two Jewish concentration camp prisoners, Leduc, a psychiatrist, and Lebeau, a painter:

Leduc: You feel guilty, then?
Lebeau: A little, i guess. Not for anything ive done....I don't know why.
Leduc: For being a Jew, perhaps?
Lebeau: Im not ashamed of being a Jew
Leduc: Then why feel guilty?
Lebeau: I don't know. Maybe its that they keep saying such terrible things about us, and you can't answer. After years of it, you... I wouldnt say you believe it, do, a little.

As long as you fail to educate yourself and read the pertinent books, you will be doing an injustice to all Jews, while helping and enabling their enemies, who regardless what you think are pitiless conmen who say what they need to say to defeat the enemy (an actual tenet of Islam, and a saying of Muhommads in the Quran "War is deception"
edit on 22-2-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in