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.

 

The solution to the "palesitinian problem"

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok



For Israel to try and claim it as their own I find quite offensive and an affront to other religions who regard it as a holy place.


It's in their territory, so they could theoretically make that call.



But what is the point ? all their main structures are in Tel Aviv. The only reason can be to noise up the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims not to mention Christians. It's pathetic.

Oh and to say Jerusalem is inside Israeli territory is debateable. The territory was grabbed by Israel thorugh war and violence. The original territory granted to establish Israel did not include Jerusalem.
edit on 23-2-2011 by bigyin because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Not saying it would be a GOOD idea, only that they could do so.

As for seizing it through war and violence...well, that's true for most land...when you think about it. To try and go back and say "Oh, this land belongs to so and so because they used to live here...vs. someone who came in and took it by war", is a bit ludicrous when you think about it. The "ownership" of land has always been a pretty transient thing, held by whomever can hold on to it and defend it. It's like saying Washington D.C. isn't technically in the U.S. because we killed Native Americans for it.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


It's not acceptable or legal under modern internationally agreed laws. Land captured through war is occupied and must be returned.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


But the 49' borders are agreed upon by international law- The 1949 armistice. West Jerusalem is Israel's..

What do you mean pushing hard? It's always been the capital of Israel, hasn't it? I mean from Israel's viewpoint..

And why wouldn't it be? It's one of the most important cities in the world, it's been the center of the kingdom of Israel in old times, only makes sense that it would be the capital city of Israel...

This was hardly done to piss off anyone, it's been the capital of Israel since before there were even Palestinians, back when Jordan controlled the whole area.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


If I am to assume correctly, you are Jewish? If not, you have Jewish blood somewhere in your family, or sympathies to the Jewish people? Failing that, you are a Christian Zionist.
Please don't be offended, I am in no way mocking, just attempting to ascertain the situation.

You are saying that the Jewish people have a uniquely intertwined connection to the land of Israel? A land (according to the Bible) that GOD gave them as a covenant (covenants are conditional). According to the bible, GOD threw them out of the Bible once (After the Babylonian invasion) for their unfaithfulness to Him and they dwelled in exile for 70 years. According to the Christian bible (New Testament) GOD threw them out of the land a second time (around 70AD) for failing to recognize Jesus/Yeshuah as their Messiah.
The Jews are now back in the land of Israel, which has mixed feelings and opinions throughout the world.
Their presence/being in that land is based on a spiritual covenant and their faithfulness to that covenant.
Therefore, for the Jews to live in and occupy the land of Israel, they must be obeservant to the Torah. That is their condition to living in a land they can only lay claim to because GOD gave it to them by covenant.
The argument for Jewish occupation and presence in Israel is observanceof Judaism on a nationwide scale.
If the Jewish people are not observing the covenant commands GOD gave them to observe, they are therefore unfaithful to Him and playing the harlot, the very reason He threw them out of His land in the first place.
THEREFORE:
They have no legitimate claim to occupy the land (which is based on a spiritual covenant only).
Discuss



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eliad
reply to post by bigyin
 


But the 49' borders are agreed upon by international law- The 1949 armistice. West Jerusalem is Israel's..

What do you mean pushing hard? It's always been the capital of Israel, hasn't it? I mean from Israel's viewpoint..

And why wouldn't it be? It's one of the most important cities in the world, it's been the center of the kingdom of Israel in old times, only makes sense that it would be the capital city of Israel...

This was hardly done to piss off anyone, it's been the capital of Israel since before there were even Palestinians, back when Jordan controlled the whole area.




So if we agree that west Jerusalem is Israeli, then presumably East is not. So Israel claims half a city as it's capital. That doesn't really make any sense.

Anyway if your arguement is true, then how come it's only Israel who acknowledges it. No one outside if Israel acknowledges Jerusalem as capital of Israel, therefore there must be a difference of opinion somewhere.

For the sake of peace with Palestinians it does not help for Israel to push such policies.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I am sure, as i am sure that i am alive, you are a smart person.
But please dont make here islam hatred speech. I am not muslim, but muslims can not reach the killing statistics of jewish people as germans did. They cant even in the next 100 years. Am i right? Yes i am.
So now please stop such prejudices, it only harms Israel.
There are jews in turkey (mostly in most prestigous status), and there are more jews in iran than in turkey, there are jews in all islamic countries.
Now, let us focus on the future. Future lies now partly in the hands of israeli governement. Every arabic country are sick of their opressive governement and seeking for a brighter future and trust me, there is nothing like a fight with Israel in their agenda. Dont fall to the hate-traps of any western country who are seeking only their benefits in that region and let us built an exemplary future for all of us.


edit on 23-2-2011 by deccal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 





Nope. They didn't. There are still jews EVEN IN IRAN!


And they are whats left of the much larger population before 1948. 800,000 Jews fled or were expelled from muslim countries.




all the while ignoring the history of the time, EVEN FROM THE JEWS THEMSELVES, like Maimonides (and Jacob bin Joab for another example).


Could you calm down buddy. Im sensing alot of animosity from you. You can read this in the first part of "from time immemorial",by Joan Peters as well "In Ishmaels house" by Martin Gilbert, or you can read Judeophobia.

Do not tell me that im lying when everything i say, is backed up by facts. It would be nice for you to atleast trust that I dont lie about these things. You could if you passionately think im lying, buy the above books all of which can be found at Amazon, or you can read some reviews of those books to see what theyre about. But dont be unreasonable and argue for the sake of being right. If you dont know enough about a subject, while the person speaking to you keeps bringing up cases of massacres (like 7 above, in palestine alone; 6 of which occurred in the 30 years betweenn 1917 and 1947) and the general climate in muslim lands for Jews to live under, and the fact that the badge worn by Jews in Christian Europe was actually invented in Morocco 100 years earlier.




Even the jews who were critical of the muslims (all the while living under muslim rule) agreed that they were better than the christians!


Thats a very fair example. Thats like giving me the option "shall i cut your hand, or 2 fingers off". both are bad, but one is obviously better than the other. Jews in Europe were worst off mainly because of the crusades, inquisitions and isolated attacks from libels which were very harsh. But that doesnt mean living in muslim lands was peachy. You were stll 2nd class and treated as subhuman, a pig by most muslims. There is testimony in that above book "from time immemorial" and ill take the time to write it out for you:

This is from Moshe, a Jew who was born in Syria and who fled from the country in the 70s.

"in my Jewish school is one course in Arabic studies. A book said that the Jews were "craven" and so on, and "murderers" and "barbarians" and that they had a God who preached that "they must drink the blood of non-jews". This book, this official teaching, talked only of Jews - no other minorities, only Jews. Only Jews had to have this!"




And I suppose jewish massacres of muslims in Palestine before it was made a state (and after) never happened, right?


Why dont you posrt evidence of these massacres. One happened, one reprisal occurred and that was in 1948 by the Irgun And Lehi against militants hiding out in a village. one case, vs 8 or 9, where everytime the aggressors were Arabs.

How can you even defend Islam, when this religion is notorious for its violence. Which other people, christians or Jews, commit terror attacks? 9/10 its arabs. There arent Jewish terror attacks because frankly Jews are decent, law abiding people. But if it were up to me, i would agree with kahanes thesis that terror can only be countered by Terror. If youre going to send people to blow yourselves up in my town, i will send people to yuor town (who unlike you, take precious care of the life that G-d gave them, and wont blow themselves up).

Anyone with a brain knows the general preponderance of Islamic extremism in the world. It doesnt mean all muslims are like this, but a very large number of them are, and thi Jihad manifests over and over again in Terror attacks.




Ah. I understand. So it is your assumptions and misperceptions that somehow create and insert "murder and exodus" into somewhere it never was. Nice. I suppose the US policy involving the elimination of Communism in the 50s also actually meant they wanted to murderise them if they resisted expulsion.


Well thats what it implies. In law for instance, every exact word in a contract, or charter is relevant. If the context of the clause implies anything, it is thus deemed to be indirectly present in the law itself.



Many, many, many jews would disagree with you.


The problem isnt Jews, but non Jews. Non Jews dont understand the difference between zionism and a Jew. If lets say Israel were to start WW3, and the nations of the world started ramping up the anti-zionist theme, would any of the ignorant masses who are so easily enflamed be able to distinguish a Jew from a zionist? One assumes Zionist is a Jew because its a Jewish movement. Zionism is part and parcel to having a Jewish identity. an anti-zionist is really a closet anti-semite, who has been told to hate zuionism, without knowing a thing about what it is. To them it means a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and dont think that mentality wont leak into a murderous rage against all Jews - Whether Barabara Streisand, Howard Stern, or the Chassidic Jewish community in crown heights. Idiots dont know or care about the difference, and that is the secret of recreating anti-semitism, but under a faceless hate. This time its not so much a hate of Jews because of religion, or as a lesser race, but as a people who many people are made to genuinely believe, have a plan to take over the world. That essentially is the essence of the elitist agenda against the Jews.

The victims of the holocaust didnt suffer because they were bolshevists, or 'rich'. Many were poor orthodx people. hundreds of thousands of these types were killed. hundreds of thousands of others were normal, middle class civilians, and yet more, the bourgoise who thought that assimilated sufficiently to avoid being Jews, but German Jews, faced the real music. Youre a Jew first, regardless of what you think. The gentiles are always the first ones to remind a Jew about that. Even non-zionists are targets and potential victims of anti-zionist propaganda, and thats what the strategy is.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict 101


The CORE issues of the Palestinian-Israeli are the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing (compulsory population transfer to achieve political objectives) of the Palestinian people for the past six decades. In our opinion, the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity even if both parties had been Jewish, Muslims, or Christians.

We have compiled the following articles to introduce the reader to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:



lots of information, documentations, images, videos about palestine on this website:

palestineremembered.com



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Gazrok
 



What people fail to understand is that there is no moderate Islam.


I invite you immedieatly to have a couple of drinks in my neighboorhood, which is 20m away from a huge and active mosque



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Originally posted by dontreally
And they are whats left of the much larger population before 1948. 800,000 Jews fled or were expelled from muslim countries.

Again, not that I agree with your numbers, but assuming they are correct, 800,000 jews fled (I see no historicity in the claim that they were forcibly expelled), yet many stayed behind? They certainly didn't "all flee".



Originally posted by dontreally
Could you calm down buddy. Im sensing alot of animosity from you. You can read this in the first part of "from time immemorial",by Joan Peters as well "In Ishmaels house" by Martin Gilbert, or you can read Judeophobia.

Don't worry, I am perfectly calm. I used capitalisation for emphasis, which you did too, so it's strange to call me out on that. And why on earth would I accept anything from "From Times Immemorial", a book that every serious academic and critic (even in Israel) has condemned as being "seriously weak" or "unbalanced at the least, and "fraudulent" and "sheer forgery" at the most. And while Martin Gilbert may have been an okay political biographer, I'm not so sure about his credentials in this area...I mean... to write a book about jews in islam, and not to have any arabic (even arabic written by jews) sources is a bit weird. Anyhow, even Gilbert agrees that Jews under Islam never had it as bad as those under Christianity, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. As for Judeophobia, if I remember right, it dealt with the ancient world, and wasn't written about the Islamic period.

Since we're recommending books, why not try Bernard Lewis's famous "The Jews of Islam" or Mark Cohen's "Under Crescent and Cross".

I didn't say you were lying, but I see no facts backing anything up. For example, your claim that the wearing of yellow badges was taken from Morocco 100 years earlier? Errr...that law was in Christian Europe in 1215, and there is no evidence that any muslim rulers ever had any such law for jews.



Originally posted by dontreally
Thats a very fair example. Thats like giving me the option "shall i cut your hand, or 2 fingers off". both are bad, but one is obviously better than the other. Jews in Europe were worst off mainly because of the crusades, inquisitions and isolated attacks from libels which were very harsh. But that doesnt mean living in muslim lands was peachy. You were stll 2nd class and treated as subhuman, a pig by most muslims.

Actually, you've got it a bit backwards. Jews in Europe were worse off not only because of crusades, inquisitions and "isolated attacks", but because of rampant, continuous and constant persecution. I suppose you've never heard of the doctrine of "Perpetual Servitude of the Jews" or "Doctrine of the Witness"? It said that Jews would have to remain in a condition of political servitude and humiliation until the Day of Judgement, as proof of Christianity's superiority. In real-world terms this meant what?

It meant that they were literally owned by the state (or king, technically), not allowed any job aside from money-lending (the real reason you'd never have heard of Maimonides in Christian Europe), free to be sold, traded, their possessions taken whenever they felt like it, supposedly (but not always in practice) only needing to let them keep the bare minimum to survive, and when they gave no more money in these "taxes", they could be expelled (unless they paid bribes "shohad"...in which case, they still had a 50-50 chance), and were restricted to the jewish ghettos unless on business, and their Talmud was censored or banned and burnt, and they were forced to listen to long christian sermons with people forcing them to stay awake during them.

Compare this to being allowed to own property, study their unexpurgated Talmud, being allowed to choose whatever job you wanted (including in many cases politics where you exercised control over muslim subjects), freedom to come and go as they willed (while Jews certainly did have a jewish quarter in most muslim towns and cities, they certainly weren't restricted to them), all the while, admittedly, having to pay a certain amount of tax only once every year (with women, children and infirm exempt, unlike the Christians), after which the muslim rulers had no claims or rights over them and could not enslave them. This might have been "second class citizen", but then in that case, Christian Europe treated jews as 500th-class citizens.



Originally posted by dontreally
Why dont you posrt evidence of these massacres. One happened, one reprisal occurred and that was in 1948 by the Irgun And Lehi against militants hiding out in a village. one case, vs 8 or 9, where everytime the aggressors were Arabs.

Errr... Irgun was responsible for the King David Hotel bombing, the killings in Jaffa and Jerusalem in '47, the Damascus Gate Café bombing, the Jaffa Gate bombing, the Ramla vegetable market bombing, not to mention all that Palmach/Haganah, Stern Gang/Lehi and jewish militants in general did.



Originally posted by dontreally
There arent Jewish terror attacks because frankly Jews are decent, law abiding people.

There aren't jewish terror attacks? Don't be absurd. Did you know that in a report by the FBI, detailing terrorism in the US from 1980 to the present, the Jewish groups were responsible for the 3rd highest number of terror attacks (following extreme left wing and latino groups)? And if you were to take the definition of "jewish" as "those who follow the hebrew bible", then the conquest of Canaan (especially the aftermath of the battles) can't be considered anything but "jewish terror attacks", and gives a startlingly clear understanding of many ultra-orthodox jews' behaviour against Palestinians today.



Originally posted by dontreally
Non Jews dont understand the difference between zionism and a Jew. If lets say Israel were to start WW3, and the nations of the world started ramping up the anti-zionist theme, would any of the ignorant masses who are so easily enflamed be able to distinguish a Jew from a zionist? One assumes Zionist is a Jew because its a Jewish movement. Zionism is part and parcel to having a Jewish identity. an anti-zionist is really a closet anti-semite, who has been told to hate zuionism, without knowing a thing about what it is.

More assumptions, this time attempting to "protect" immoral political ideologies by pretending they constitute racism. I know you are a zionist, but you are certainly not a jew.
edit on 24-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Why isn't it considered Israel's capital? I don't know, I'll google it..
lmgtfy.com...


middleeast.about.com...

On Aug. 20, 1980, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 478[...]

The resolution also called on any nation with an embassy in Jerusalem to withdraw it from there. Within days, the Netherlands, considered to be Israel’s best friend in Europe at the time, followed Haiti, Venezuela, Uruguay, Chile and Ecuador out of Jerusalem. A few other countries kept their embassies there for a while (Bolivia, Colombia, the Dominican Re3public, Guatemala and Panama), but eventually those relocated as well.


'twas the U.N.. But that doesn't really answer our question...

Maybe because it was only an armistice and not a final agreement? Don't know.. But in every atlas, and every source the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. This whole thing is just silly politics..

Jerusalem has always been its capital, it is where the parliament house is, where the supreme high court is, all the government buildings, etc, all in West Jerusalem, so why must it be an issue? Half a city is still a city, even if it was bigger before..

The occupation is one thing, and the capital of Israel is another thing, mixing those two together is, again, dirty politics, brought up by both sides to slow down the peace process.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 


I'm assuming from your U2U that your latest post is the one you want me to reply to:

The Jewish connection to the land of Israel is not religious, it's historical.. The desire to return to Israel came from the secular/"traditional", and the least orthodox of Jews...

Palestine was a good choice at the time (19th century)- It was nearly uninhabited and had a clear connection to the Jewish people.. Where else would they go?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Eliad
 


On 28 October 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine if peace is to be achieved. source

Where in your opinion is the capital of Palestine ?
edit on 24-2-2011 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
If i remember correctly i think Eliad actually agrees with the rest of the world in regards to Israel retreating back in to their pre june 1967 borders, which would make East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital. The Palestinians were even willing to concede much, much more than they needed to under international law and yet Israel still refused....why should they agree? America will just veto anything at the UN, send them aid and continue to sell them weapons, naturally the leaders don't see much incentive to change their policy.
edit on 24-2-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eliad
Palestine was a good choice at the time (19th century)- It was nearly uninhabited and had a clear connection to the Jewish people.. Where else would they go?


Y'know Eliad, I'm certain you know this statement is untrue. There were millions of people living there. It was one of the major agricultural producers of the Ottoman Empire. It was even one of the most westernized corners of the empire, full of British and American-built schools and universities.

Some portions were pretty empty; the Negev desert's kind of a bad place to live with 19th century technology. But even there, there were plenty of Bedouin making themselves at home. However, the initial immigrants didn't move to the Negev, or even to the sparsely-populated Dead Sea area. Like any sensible people, they moved where there were good resources; where there were already people.

The claim that it was "a land without a people" is just a frankly racist fairy tale, conjured out of absolute nothing in an effort to try to delegitimatize the claims of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs driven from their homes by Israel in 1948. And I'm certain you know this.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
meh, this whole thing just needs to come to a head already,
get it overwith



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I don't really know what to think of what is going on in the Middle East. I certainly try and focus on what people are saying and the history, but I just get more and more confused.

However, how can Israel even suggest for a moment that they are not in violation of multiple human rights laws? Israel makes out like everything is so complicated when if you just look at the facts, there is nothing really complicated about it other than Israel has been forcing Arabs out of their homelands since Israel took over after the British Mandate.

Furthermore, the Israelis have been taking advantage of something so egregious in the holocaust and indeed regurgitating it time and time again, but yet we are not to be upset or concerned about the blight of the Palestinians?

Moreover, why is it that Israelis seem to have a complete and utter monopoly on suffering? I am taking a graduate level history of genocide course and the professor, an Israeli citizen, doesn't even bother to pretend to care about other genocides that have occurred in the 20th century, i.e. Cambodia, Armenians, etc. It's really disgusting. The professor won't even really acknowledge any discussion other than his family and the holocaust.

Bottom line, why is something that is so black and white in regard to the Palestinians, turned completely upside down?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Habex70
 


You are quite right of course. It seems to me that Israel is such a new country it's really like a spoiled kid, with it's lovely Uncle Sam coming round with all sorts of goodies anytime it lets out a holler.

As with any child you really can't reason with them. They live in a fantasy world of their own imagination.

Like any spoiled child when it gets a bit older reality will set in and thats when the breakdown will occur. Probably it's citizens will take to drugs or alcohol before finally seeking counselling on how to get back to a state of normality.

That will be after they have incurred huge costs in resources and at the same time getting all the help, advice and guidance from everyone else who cares for them, all of which will be ignored.

Talking to them on ATS or any other forum is like being the parent of such a child, walking on eggshells, minding every word used in case we should upset them even more while at the same time receiving nothing but verbal abuse being called some unforgiveable things.

Your gut instinct is to take them round the back and give them a good slap, but in todays pc society thats not the done thing. You just hope that when something really bad happens to them which it will, it will wake them up and teach them a lesson before it's too late.

Anyone with a child beyond teenage years will know what I mean.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join