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 Foreign minister slams international community for failing to intervene in Syria, Iran like i

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Well, did Wikileaks discuss how Arafat personally authorized suicide attacks against civilians? did it say that in 1999 Barak basically agreed to most of their "demands" except that "right of return" crap? the same in 2008 (Olmert) and still they refuse...

And no, Jews and Muslims did not live in peace under Muslim rule... there are numerous sources for that... I will refer you to a book called "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters... it gives a ton of evidence... Actually, up until the beginning of Islam, Jews lived relatively peacefully in the area, when the Muslim conquest began in the 7th century AD, so did persecution of non-Muslims... basically, you either converted (and were still considered a 2nd class Muslim not to be trusted), or you didn't convert and lived as a "dhimmi" which is a 2nd class citizen.. as one you had to pay a special tax, wear a specific garment to denote the fact that you're not a muslim (some claim the Europeans adopted this from the Muslims) etc...

Also, a non-muslim dhimmi couldn't testify against a Muslim, and if a Muslim killed a non-Muslim, he wasn't obliged to pay blood money to the family of the person killed...

Those are just a few examples... Jews (and other non-Muslim) were subject to periodic massacres... Jews were relegated to live in separate areas, a kind of "ghetto" (they had various names for it such as "Hara" - which actually means "#")..

So, nope... no peace and love... Jews often fled these persecutions to other places, such as Jerusalem... and other places...


As for operation cast lead... I'm not sure where you live in, but I live in Israel... and you are just plain mis-informed... The last operation in Gaza before cast lead yielded a "Hudna" which in Arabic means "truce" if I am not mistaken, but sporadic firing continued... that "Hudna" was for two years... and when those two years were up, Hamas started firing again... Olmert (the prime minister at the time) BEGGED Hamas to keep the Hudna... or Israel would be forced to retaliate... and actually in the two weeks leading up to the beginning of cast lead, they fired dozens if not hundreds of rockets and mortar shells daily... and no land was annexed or grabbed... the soldiers went in, and after a week or so, left...

So, as for moral high-ground, if someone would have fired rockets at you, from a place you do not control, would have you had sone anything different? if Canada or Mexico (where Arizona, California and Texas are conquered land from Mexico BTW) would have fired rockets into the US, do you honestly believe the US wouldn't wipe them off the map? the same goes for any country that has a border with any other country...




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Trader Joe says whatever anyone tells him to say, if the price is right.
I'd better do some digging, and follow the money. It always seems to be the guiding light in these sort of things.
Who would want him to say those things?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ender_shadow
reply to post by UcDat
 


Well, did Wikileaks discuss how Arafat personally authorized suicide attacks against civilians? did it say that in 1999 Barak basically agreed to most of their "demands" except that "right of return" crap? the same in 2008 (Olmert) and still they refuse...

And no, Jews and Muslims did not live in peace under Muslim rule... there are numerous sources for that... I will refer you to a book called "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters... it gives a ton of evidence... Actually, up until the beginning of Islam, Jews lived relatively peacefully in the area, when the Muslim conquest began in the 7th century AD, so did persecution of non-Muslims... basically, you either converted (and were still considered a 2nd class Muslim not to be trusted), or you didn't convert and lived as a "dhimmi" which is a 2nd class citizen.. as one you had to pay a special tax, wear a specific garment to denote the fact that you're not a muslim (some claim the Europeans adopted this from the Muslims) etc...

Also, a non-muslim dhimmi couldn't testify against a Muslim, and if a Muslim killed a non-Muslim, he wasn't obliged to pay blood money to the family of the person killed...

Those are just a few examples... Jews (and other non-Muslim) were subject to periodic massacres... Jews were relegated to live in separate areas, a kind of "ghetto" (they had various names for it such as "Hara" - which actually means "#")..

So, nope... no peace and love... Jews often fled these persecutions to other places, such as Jerusalem... and other places...


Not exactly the whole truth I mean for all that Jews enjoyed far greater freedom then the Palestinians do now. They could come and go as they pleased they ran their own schools and many enjoyed great wealth under Palestinian rule. At least in modern post Israel times.


Originally posted by ender_shadow
As for operation cast lead... I'm not sure where you live in, but I live in Israel... and you are just plain mis-informed... The last operation in Gaza before cast lead yielded a "Hudna" which in Arabic means "truce" if I am not mistaken, but sporadic firing continued... that "Hudna" was for two years... and when those two years were up, Hamas started firing again... Olmert (the prime minister at the time) BEGGED Hamas to keep the Hudna... or Israel would be forced to retaliate... and actually in the two weeks leading up to the beginning of cast lead, they fired dozens if not hundreds of rockets and mortar shells daily... and no land was annexed or grabbed... the soldiers went in, and after a week or so, left...


But much land has been anex prior to and after non? Didn't they just say their building another 700 complexes a couple months ago. Also while we're on the topic why don't we talk numbers. How many Jews killed in those rocket attacks? I don't think there was a one but hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians were killed by Israel forces non?


Originally posted by ender_shadow
So, as for moral high-ground, if someone would have fired rockets at you, from a place you do not control, would have you had sone anything different? if Canada or Mexico (where Arizona, California and Texas are conquered land from Mexico BTW) would have fired rockets into the US, do you honestly believe the US wouldn't wipe them off the map? the same goes for any country that has a border with any other country...


I cant say what I would do not having lived it but I would want peace with my neighbours and that my government honour the borders to which they agreed.
I hope you don't think I have anything against the Jewish people I do want them to stay in Israel and to be safe but they need to step up and give peace a real chance. Even if it means no more land grabs and letting Palestine rule itself.


edit on 12-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Never thought anything of the sort - just wanted to make sure you have all of the info...

Most, if not all Jews that were forced to flee from their homes in Arab lands don't trust Arabs, but don't want them dead... if you'll look at polls in Israel you'd see an overwhelming support for peace... but peace is a two-sided thing, Arab education teaches their children to hate Jews, while the education my son gets in school is the opposite (they are taught to get along).

As for "agreed" borders... the 1967 borders, were not the agreed borders, they were the armistice lines between Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Those armistice lines were signed in 1949 and held until 1967 when Israel fought with Egypt Syria and Jordan. What amazes me is that between 1949 and 1967 there was no "occupation" and still there was no palestinian state... this whole thing only started after 1967 (although the PLO was founded in 1964), after 1967, Israel offerred to negotiate with the Arabs, but they replied with the three "No's" after the Khartum conference... (look that up).

Some more history for you:

1947 - UN Partition, Jews accepted, Arabs Rejected.
1967 - Israel suggests negotiations for land gained in 1967, Arabs reply with the three No's
1999 - Barak suggests Arafat basically everything, except the "right of return" (which means the end of Israel), Arafat rejects and starts a war.
2000 - Another round with Barak - same results (what is known as the "Taba" negotiations)
2005 - Israel leaves Gaza, we all know how that turned out.
2008 - Olmert offers basically everything they want (again), again, they stop with "right of return"

Now you tell me, what else can Israel do? it offerred everything the other side wants, and is rejected every time...

But again, this derails the thread... and is off-topic. I am completely willing to provide you with all information you would like...

[EDIT]
OK - I saw you edited... so I will relate to those new edits, one at a time...

First of all, there was no such thing as "Palestinian" rule... the land was ruled by Romans, then a host of other peoples such as Mamluks, Turks, Mongols, Crusaders etc... there was never a "Palestinian" state... (actually Arabs can't pronounce "P"... it comes out as "B"...) "Palestine" is the name the Romans gave this area after the Jewish revolt of 135 AD. And while there were times that Jews could amass some wealth under more tolerant rulers, these times were really few and far in-between...

No new land was annexed. Actually, the entire west bank is not annexed to Israel, it is under military law, not Israeli law itself (I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be sure of the meaning). But Israel hasn't taken any land out of Gaza, not before or after "Cast Lead". There is a narrow strip of a couple of hundred meters next to the fence which is a "no man's" land... meaning, Israel will shoot anyone approaching the border, because the only people approaching the border between Gaza and Israel either want to plant IED's or attack border patrols. The building of apartments is in Jerusalem... not anywhere else.
As for numbers, the towns next to the Gaza border have a lot of fortifications, and that's the only reason there are less casualties on the Israeli side. Also, I wouldn't equate the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians as opposed to UN-INTENTIONAL death of civilians as a result of whatever the sovereign does...




edit on 12-5-2011 by ender_shadow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ender_shadow
 


not off topic at all imo and even if it is its much appreciated feedback.

You've given us a lot of information and its always a good thing to have someone living it to give there perspective. I don't doubt the accuracy of your facts about Palestine and the history of the region. But I still feel Palestine is on the short end of the stick here. Like I alluded the death toll alone speaks volumes as to who holds the real power.
If I may beg of you to go even further off topic here and ask what in your opinion it would take for peace between your nations?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Well, I don't believe the number of deaths is the number you should be looking at... and I'll explain why... the Israel security services manage to stop about 99% of terror attacks (a combination of good intelligence with a lot of experience and the security fence) so, had these 99% of prevented attacks would not have been prevented, then the death toll on the Israeli side would have been far greater... Just look at the past couple of months: 5 family members murdered in their sleep and one tourist murdered in Jerusalem by a bomb... (would have been more if someone didn't notice the bag and cleared everyone), in this case, in my opinion, it's the intent that counts... just like criminal law, killing someone with the intent of killing him (what is referred to as "premeditated murder") is far worse (morally speaking) than accidental killing of someone (gun goes off by mistake, car accident etc)...

They are kinda in the short end of the stick, I agree, but not all of the blame can be laid at Israel's feet... there have been numerous opportunities for them to have what they claim they want, but they rejected them... (as one noted Israeli statesmen said: "The Arabs don't miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity").

Actually the economic status of the west bank is very good these days, they have a burgeoning high-tech industry, they are building their first city etc... the only place that's under any "pressure" is the Gaza strip, and for obvious reasons... (and even they have their own border with Egypt, so if they want, they can pressure Egypt to open it for them... not Israel).

Actually, Israel doesn't hold the "power" in this conflict, since as you can see, Syria butchers people left and right without them being stopped, Iran killed many people - no reaction, China and Tibet?, Russia and Chechnia? and many other conflicts (BTW, the Turks are illegally occupying Cyprus... I don't see any Greek blowing themselves up at Turkish restaurants), but when Israel defended itself in 2009 (and many times before) the entire world riled up against it... it's the only country that has boycotts arranged against it etc... so, while, Israel has a stronger military, it can't use it...

You know, there are people who claim that Israel is committing "Genocide", these people have never seen a Nazi concentration camp... if Israel wanted to kill all of the people in Gaza, the air-force would need about 15 minutes to make Gaza into a parking lot... without losing a single Israeli soldier... think of it...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Really? Think very carefully, Mr. Lieberman. Speaking as an Israeli politician, do you really want the United States to make a sweeping policy of bombing the crap out of governments that are oppressing Arab protestors? 'Cause, well, you know...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
You hear that international community. Israel needs more handouts and wants you to send a bunch more young and able bodies to the region to die for Israel's CAUSE and Israel's AGENDA. So hop to it!

It doesn't matter if you piss off the entire world doing so, because Israel is the only country (or whatever it is) which matters. Screw everyone else.
edit on 12-5-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ender_shadow
 


You need to stop reading the Israeli version of history and find other sources..



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry, don't like fiction all that much....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ender_shadow
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry, don't like fiction all that much....


But you read Israel written history??
How does that work?
They've been trying to convince people for years that Israel was attacked in 1967...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Again with the BS?

No one says Israel was attacked militarily in 1967, let alone Israel...

Egypt closed the tiran straits, which constitutes a "casus belli" according to international law (look up international law, you like to use it against Israel when it suits you), Egypt threw away the UN forces that buffered between it in Israel... wait... those UN forces were in Gaza... wasn't there a "Palestinian" state?! I get confused...

Syria bombed Israeli towns (civilian towns) from the Golan heights...

Jordan was warned to stay away.

Israel attacked Egypt and Syria first, Jordan attacked Israel, and Israel retaliated.

Thus ends the history lesson.

But again - you will just deflect the facts with your usual "BS", "Joke" and other deflections.

As for history - it's not Israel's version of the history, it's the world history, your comments just show you as ignorant, and arrogant... I am stopping this stupid argument with you, since I will obviously never convince you. But if you want to have the last word in every argument (like my children do), feel free to have it... I know the truth, and your version isn't it...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ender_shadow
 


Funny, I feel the same way about your view of events..
Though mostly the international community agrees with me, not you..


As for your kids, yeah my grandchildren are the same.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Again you are playing the deflection game, and derailing the thread and moving it off-topic. I will not play that game. Have a good day BiB, enjoy the grandchildren...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ender_shadow
 


I'm derailing nothing..

Israel should mind their own frickin business especially with their own atrocious human rights record..



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ender_shadow
Some more history for you:


I always giggle when Israeli apologists start trying to talk about history.


1947 - UN Partition, Jews accepted, Arabs Rejected.


Appallingly FALSE. The Jews involved rejected the partition plan out of hand because they felt it did not grant them enough land. The Arabs rejected it because they were seeking a single state that encompassed both Jews and Arabs. The Partition plan was voted on in the UN - neither Arabs nor Jews had any real say in the matter (seriously? Ecuador's voice had more weight than the people who lived there.)

Second, the plan was merely a suggestion of what Britain should do when it withdrew from the territory. Ultimately, the entire thing went unresolved, Great Britain withdrew, and Israel declared itself a state immediately after, and began purging its territory of Arabs.


1967 - Israel suggests negotiations for land gained in 1967, Arabs reply with the three No's


Well, legally there was no need for negotiations over the land. You see, Israel did not have any legal claim to any of that land. it could hold it while a state of war persisted as a defensive buffer, but once peace was declared, international law required a full withdrawal and return of the territory to the former owner. International law also forbids the expulsion of natives or the introduction of settlers by the occupying power - Israel has broken both of those.


1999 - Barak suggests Arafat basically everything, except the "right of return" (which means the end of Israel), Arafat rejects and starts a war.


This is not just factually wrong, it is a blatant lie.

First, let's deal with that "Arafat started a war" deal. No, he didn't. If it could be laid at any one man's feet, that would be Ariel Sharon, when he marched up to the Al Aqsa mosque with over a thousand armed police, and declared it to be "an eternal part o an undivided Israel." Arafat was caught with his pants down by the Second Intifada - in the beginning, it was as much against him and his apparatchiks as it was against Israel - he did manage to capitalize on it, but to say he "started it" would be, well... a lie.

Now, the neat of the matter, the notion that Barak offered Arafat "everything." No, he certainly didn't. Israel was willing to grant "nearly full autonomy" to sixty-four percent of the twenty-two percent of Palestinian territory that Israel was even willing to talk about. In other words, Barak sort of offered Arafat control of 14% of Palestine. "Sort of?" Yes - The PLO would have no control over that 14%'s airspace, roads, economy, water, security forces, or education facilities; all would be controlled by Israel. However, they would get to vote for Mayors and such. In return, Barak demanded that Arafat cede all of Jerusalem, allow continued settlements, and, weirdly enough, Israeli authority over Muslim and christian holy sites in "Arab" territory.

Arafat rejected this offer out of hand, and it was probably the smartest thing he'd ever done in his career.


2000 - Another round with Barak - same results (what is known as the "Taba" negotiations)


If by "same results" you mean "Israel completely failed to uphold any of the agreements it made," then yes. Israel utterly failed to recognize the sovereignty of Palestinian Airspace that it had agreed to, Israel refused to follow through the 36-month timetable for full withdraw from the West bank that it had agreed to, and Israel refused to allow Palestine to have authority over its own borders, as they had agreed to.

In fact, ONE WEEK after talks concluded at Taba, the outgoing Israeli government negated then utterly:

Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.

Source: Israel ministry of Foreign Affairs


2005 - Israel leaves Gaza, we all know how that turned out.


Israel never left Gaza; it simply withdrew its civilian populace and declared Gaza to be a "free fire zone"


2008 - Olmert offers basically everything they want (again), again, they stop with "right of return"


Well, no, Olmert offered very little; it was in fact Abbas doing all the offering. More or less every Israeli settlement would have been ceded to Israel, along with all of East Jerusalem. In exchange? A couple square miles around Gaza and north of the west bank along with a promise of "eventual dismantlement" of the settlements in the interior of the West bank.

So why was it derailed? Israeli intractability. For starters, there was Tzipi Livni's stance that tens of thousands of Arab Israelis should be deported and accepted into Palestine. She also held that old agreements that had already been executed should be renegotiated. The Israelis also held the position that any Palestinian refugees outside palestinian borders be forbidden to vote in Palestinian matters. The Israelis also demanded a completely demilitarized state - no police, even.

Basically, Abbas was offering Israel whatever Israel wanted, and israel's response was "Not enough, give us more."

Now that the news has been broken about all this going on in secret, the palestinian Authority has had no choice but to start taking a much more intelligent, if harder approach; their other option is to end up swinging from lampposts in Jericho.


Now you tell me, what else can Israel do? it offerred everything the other side wants, and is rejected every time...


Israel could start acting in good faith when it negotiates, rather than simply using "negotiations" as an international fig leaf to cover for its continued war crimes. Israel can get serious about returning Israelis to Israel, and it can end its Aliya bonus of nearly-free land in the west bank. Israel can do lots of stuff. It can, for instance, stop lying to gullible persons such as yourself.


But again, this derails the thread... and is off-topic. I am completely willing to provide you with all information you would like...


My giggles would no doubt become full-throated laughter.


First of all, there was no such thing as "Palestinian" rule... the land was ruled by Romans, then a host of other peoples such as Mamluks, Turks, Mongols, Crusaders etc... there was never a "Palestinian" state... (actually Arabs can't pronounce "P"... it comes out as "B"...) "Palestine" is the name the Romans gave this area after the Jewish revolt of 135 AD.


Well, truth be told, the land was (As far as archaeology can tell) ruked by the Canaanites; this included a kingdom that came to be known as "philistia" (what they called themselves is lost to history, unfortunately). They were eventually conquered by the Macedonians, then the Romans, Persians, Arabs, etc etc.

While you are correct that there has not been a nation that goes "we're Palestine, rawr" in history, you miss the fact that this is completely irrelevant. The very concept of a state as we understand it in modern days arose while the entire swath of territory was still part of the Ottoman empire; and the same applies to Israel as well; while historically there was a kingdom named Israel (As well as Judah) nether of these were actual "kingdoms;" Like their Philistine neighbors, they were a tribal confederation that paid homage to whoever the head of the biggest ass-kicking tribe in their number was. Neither were comparable to say, Egypt as far as "kingdoms" go.

it is further irrelevant because of the way our international system works. In theory (that is, on paper) all people have the right to self-determination. if tomorrow I want to declare my house and hte land it sits on to be the nation of Funkadelphia, then I have that right (I may not be able to exercise it practically, but hey, "on paper.") More realistically though, the Arabs of Israel and the Palestinian territories could, tomorrow, say "Hey, we're a nation, these are our borders, deal with it." and be completely within their rights to do so. Wacky thing is, Israel's settlers can't do the same, since they're there in violation of international law



And while there were times that Jews could amass some wealth under more tolerant rulers, these times were really few and far in-between...


Well, considering that even under the strictest days of Roman rule, the Jews of hte region vastly outnumbered Romans, I'd have to wager that this is something else you're pulling out of a particularly deep orifice. In fact the biggest barriers to Jewish wealth in these days were the Jewish leaders - whether the "kings" the Romans appointed, or the crazy Rabbis who kept getting people killed en masse.


No new land was annexed. Actually, the entire west bank is not annexed to Israel, it is under military law, not Israeli law itself (I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be sure of the meaning). But Israel hasn't taken any land out of Gaza, not before or after "Cast Lead". There is a narrow strip of a couple of hundred meters next to the fence which is a "no man's" land... meaning, Israel will shoot anyone approaching the border, because the only people approaching the border between Gaza and Israel either want to plant IED's or attack border patrols. The building of apartments is in Jerusalem... not anywhere else.


Uh, sorry, no, Israel shoots anyone who comes near, not because everyone who comes near is up to no good, but because Israel just shoots people for coming near. In fact, there hasn't been a confirmed kill of a "terrorist" yet - it always turns out to be someone looking for their dog, two kids collecting gravel, a fruit picker having a smoke...

And, really? Why shoot someone who's putting an IED on their own side of the damn fence? Just make a note of where it is (if you can shoot 'em, you can see 'em, after all) and don't step on it. That way when some poor old lady looking for her dog trips it off, you can go "Aha! look at what those nasty terrorist bastards did to this poor lady!"


As for numbers, the towns next to the Gaza border have a lot of fortifications, and that's the only reason there are less casualties on the Israeli side. Also, I wouldn't equate the INTENTIONAL targeting of civilians as opposed to UN-INTENTIONAL death of civilians as a result of whatever the sovereign does...


Well, no, the lack of Israeli casualties is largely due to the fact that these rockets tend to hit absolutely nothing important. Every now and then someone does get hurt, sure, but your average citizen of Sderot has more to worry about from his own neighbors than he does rockets sailing over the fence (more Israelis die from being stabbed to death by Israelis than die in terrorist attacks, after all. Don't get me started on Israel's automotive death statistics.)

You make the assumption that Israel does not intentionally target civilians. Well, in my book, when you intentionally target hospitals, highways, schools, marketplaces, water treatment plants, apartment blocks, and residential neighborhoods, then you're also targeting the people who are in those areas. I suppose you could say "But there were Bad Guys™ in that ambulance!" and maybe you're right - but there's soldiers living and working in Ashkelon, too.
edit on 12/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


There are so much inconsistencies and inaccuracies and blatant lies in your post that I can hardly know where to begin to debunk most of what you wrote.

BUT - for all of those claims you make, you bring no sources... show me credible sources that state that the Jews rejected the 1947 UN partition...

I'm no lawyer, but are you sure you're understanding the legal aspect? weren't the sudet Germans booted out after WW2? what about the rights of the Jews that were forced out of the Arab lands in which they lived for hundreds of years? Also, international law does not require a country to vacate areas it has seized in a defensive war against an agressor (Egypt, Jordan and Syria were clear aggressor, with Jordan actually starting the war against Israel despite warnings and requests). Oh, and Israel would be fine with giving Gaza to Egypt... Jordan relinquished their claims to the west bank in 1988 I believe... so, no one to return the area to after we signed peace with them in 1995...

I am afraid you are misinformed on what happened in 1999, I served in military intelligence. I was common knowledge for us that Arafat was looking for an excuse to start a war. You see, he stated all over the place that in May 1999 he was going to announce the "free state of Palestine" (which he didn't), it is true that Sharon (stupidly enough) gave him that excuse... but he was neither surprised nor "caught off guard", he was ready, and so were the Israeli troops... As for what Barak suggested, read the Dennis Ross book... he was there - I'm guessing you weren't?

The "Taba" negotiations fizzled mainly because of the "right of return" the Arabs keep demanding (and know they won't get).

About Gaza, again, incorrect. Israel withdrew from Gaza, both civilian and military. Reorganized the military on the border and that's it. It is not a "free fire zone", actually quite the opposite, Israeli towns continued receiving more mortars and rockets... quite freely.

As for 2008 - Please provide sources - from what I've heard, no one is suggesting Arabs will be deported anywhere... Oh, and please bare in mind, in whatever solution there will be, the Palestinian state will have 0% Jews while Israel still retains 20% arab population... is Israel an apartheid state?!

Define war crimes? does defending your civilians constitutes a war crime? or does slaughtering a family in their beds constitutes a war crime? does firing rockets at civilians from within civilian population constitutes a war crime? check out the Geneva convention...

Wrong about the Philistines... they were an Aegean people... they tried invading Egypt in about 1200BC if memory served, but were pushed back, and then they settled in the southern region of what is known as Israel... they were Iron age people, and therefore had a military advantage over the native peoples in the area...
There are several theories that state that Jews as a people are in essence canaanites, there is archeological evidence that suggests that around that time, the city states that were the predominant form of government in the area went through a period of unrest, and the "commoners" revolted, and from that started the entire mono-theism etc... (which probably started in Egypt by Ahetanon)...

You are correct about self-determination, everyone has a right, and I believe that if the "Palestinians" (they can't actually pronounce the "P" which is funny), want a state, they should have it...

The comment about Jewish wealth was related to them living in Arab countries under Arab rule. Not Roman, which was much better at times than the Arabs later were... Now, based on history, the Romans lost about 600,000 soldier fighting against the Jews in the last great revolt of 135AD... and the population which was estimated in 3 million or so, was decimated, but the Jews never left... But again, that was not about the Romans... but about the Arabs... and there are ample historical evidence to support that there was no "golden age".

I'll tell you exactly, because those IED's are close enough to kill the patrols on the Israeli side (which they have in the past), and usually, if someone comes close to a hostile border, they are not "looking for their dog"... If someone comes to my border and tries to do something nasty, they will be shot. But again, you cite no sources, while I have actually been there... and seen the way it works...

Again with the numbers game... if every attack the Arabs would have carried out against Israel would have succeeded would that have made it OK in your book?! I mean, the fact that they know that there are drones above them, that constantly look to see when they are about to fire, doesn't let them sit and aim well enough to kill civilians a bad thing? oh, and let's not compare crime... the murder rate in Israel is not as high as you might think... but yes, car accidents are a problem... some people don't know how to drive... but that is besides the point..

And yes, Israel does not intentionally target civilians... and when you fire from a hospital, you are responsible for endangering that hospital... (check out the Geneva convention).

But again, this derails the thread... the thread was about the Israeli foreign minister calling the world out on not doing anything in Syria as they are doing in other places in the Arab world... and you can't dispute that...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ender_shadow
 



BUT - for all of those claims you make, you bring no sources... show me credible sources that state that the Jews rejected the 1947 UN partition...


For someone demanding sources I must point out I see NONE in your post..
Funny that..



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Simple, because it would've directly benefited Israel if we invaded Syria or Iran the way we did Libya which is not going to happen.

I couldn't honestly give a toss what either Lierberman or the Foreign Minister thinks!
edit on 12-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ender_shadow
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


There are so much inconsistencies and inaccuracies and blatant lies in your post that I can hardly know where to begin to debunk most of what you wrote.


When you say this sort of thing, it's basically admitting that i'm correct and you're very flustered.


BUT - for all of those claims you make, you bring no sources... show me credible sources that state that the Jews rejected the 1947 UN partition...


Well, I know that by "credible" you mean "Jewish people who I agree with" so, here's a try.

Menachem Begin's Revolt, page 412, which states the opposition of Irgun and Lehi to the plan (these are, of course, the basis for the modern IDF).
Simha Flapan's "The Birth of Israel" covers the subject, as does Mehran Kamrava's "The Modern Middle East." Additionally Martin Gilbert's "Israel: a History" talks of the 20th Zionist Conference's rejection of the 1937 Peel Comission partition plan because it was "too small" Map )

Also worth mention; It was effectively all Arab land at the time. Any partition was, in effect, theft by an imperial power. Britain had all the "right" to Palestine that the United States had to the Louisiana territory; that is, absolutely none recognized by the people who actually owned the territory.

That the Arabs were talking about it rather than just shooting everyone in the face and pissing in the mouth of the corpses shows that they were much more gracious about this affair than my ancestors were under similar conditions



I'm no lawyer, but are you sure you're understanding the legal aspect? weren't the sudet Germans booted out after WW2?


Yes they were. However, this expulsion was undertaken four years prior to the 4th Geneva conventions that would have protected their rights against such transfers.


what about the rights of the Jews that were forced out of the Arab lands in which they lived for hundreds of years?


They have the same right to return or compensation that the Palestinians do. Duh?


Also, international law does not require a country to vacate areas it has seized in a defensive war against an agressor (Egypt, Jordan and Syria were clear aggressor, with Jordan actually starting the war against Israel despite warnings and requests).


Actually it does, once peace is arranged. Like I said, if a state of war still exists, the land can be held by whoever has the power to hold it (defensive or offensive doesn't matter) but once accords are signed, it goes back to the proper owner, all refugees are re-established, and any of the occupiers people who, ahem, snuck in are expelled to their own nation of origin.

Also worth mention is that just because a nation claims casus belli, doesn't mean that such a claim is valid. Any nation can make the claim over anything it wants (nonexistent weapons of mass destruction or a government's wish to use a third party to transfer a prisoner, to cite two American-specific examples of such) and it falls to the UN to decide if the case is valid or not.

Which in this specific case, means that so long as the US has permanent veto power on the UN security council, Israel can declare casus belli over a Palestinian-grown grapefruit squirting the prime minister in the eye, and there's nothing the UN can do about it.


Oh, and Israel would be fine with giving Gaza to Egypt... Jordan relinquished their claims to the west bank in 1988 I believe... so, no one to return the area to after we signed peace with them in 1995...


This may come as a surprise, but... it's actually not at all important what Israel wants. Israel's desires do not matter when discussing a Palestinian state, for the same reason that what Guatemala wants does not matter when Russia makes decisions about Russia.


I am afraid you are misinformed on what happened in 1999, I served in military intelligence.


You and everyone else on ATS. Do you guys get together on weekends with the hundreds of thousands of Navy SEALS that populate the internet?


I was common knowledge for us that Arafat was looking for an excuse to start a war.


Yes, of course it was; it was Yassir Arafat. Much as how the CIA had a pavlovian response to see Soviet fingers in everything that happened anywhere in the world, Israeli military intelligence had an extremely narrow focus on this one guy; they simply failed to consider that this twit was no sort of "mastermind" at all, and simply got caught up in a tide of popular revolt.


You see, he stated all over the place that in May 1999 he was going to announce the "free state of Palestine" (which he didn't),


What a terrible act of war



it is true that Sharon (stupidly enough) gave him that excuse... but he was neither surprised nor "caught off guard", he was ready,


The palestinian Authority actually floundered around for the first few weeks; there was uncertainty whether they should try to crush the Intifada, or give it their support. In the end they chose the option that wouldn't end up with a lot of dead PA apparatchiks.


and so were the Israeli troops...


Well, to be fair, Israeli troops are always ready and willing to gun down arabushim cockroaches within Arabushim cockroach territory, just as Israel's politicians are always ready to put Israel's enlisted kids into deadly situations just so they can have some bloody shirts to wave on election day.


As for what Barak suggested, read the Dennis Ross book... he was there - I'm guessing you weren't?


I'll regard a Dennis Ross book about the Israel-Palestine peace process as being every bit as valid as you would consider a history of the Holocaust written by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


The "Taba" negotiations fizzled mainly because of the "right of return" the Arabs keep demanding (and know they won't get).


Let me try this again, just to see if it sinks in. I'm citing the Israel ministry of Foreign Affairs here. These are the guys who mail you your talking points checklist, we're not talking about some wild-eyed made-up corner of the interwebs here, this is the Israeli government. This source is citing Edhud Barak, who is saying that the Taba accords, quote, "are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel." Unquote.

The talks were suspended due to elections; both the US election and the upcoming Israeli election at the time. Both parties released the following joint statement;

“The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election.”


Barak lost, Sharon moved in, and having been freed from any responsibility to continue negotiations, and faced with an American government that would fellate for a nickel, opted to not continue talks, and upheld absolutely none of the parts that had been agreed upon.


About Gaza, again, incorrect. Israel withdrew from Gaza, both civilian and military. Reorganized the military on the border and that's it. It is not a "free fire zone", actually quite the opposite, Israeli towns continued receiving more mortars and rockets... quite freely.


Oh right, Israel only kills all those Gazans because it has to.


As for 2008 - Please provide sources - from what I've heard, no one is suggesting Arabs will be deported anywhere... Oh, and please bare in mind, in whatever solution there will be, the Palestinian state will have 0% Jews while Israel still retains 20% arab population... is Israel an apartheid state?!


Might I suggest researching the "Palestine papers"? Also I can't help but notice that for all your demands for sources, you have not scraped up a single shred of corroboration for anything you've posted on this thread. Hypocrisy much?

Poll: 75% favor deportation
Tzipi Livni; I will also be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Arab Israelis, and tell them: ‘your national aspirations lie elsewhere.’”
Also might want to try a google search of Avigdor Lieberman... You know, Israel's foreign minister who favors deporting Arabs? The douche this thread is about?

Is Israel an apartheid state? So long as it maintains one set of lawsand conditions for one part of its population and a different set of laws and conditions for another part of its population, yes. Id a palestinian state were to do the same, it too would be an apartheid state. Of course, this is ignoring the Israel-sanctionedl and theft going on in Palestinian land...


Define war crimes? does defending your civilians constitutes a war crime?


Nope. But knowingly provoking and prolonging a situation that puts your civilians at further risk while taking minimal possible effort to protect them very well might; Israel's government, if it were actually interested in the safety of its people, would actually address this issue in an adult, diplomatic fashion. Instead the nation's civilian and martial leadership sticks their collective heads up their asses and does their level best to keep the conflict rolling. Give me a pencil and a cocktail napkin, and i'll give you a functioning peace agreement; it's not hard, it's just that the Israeli government has no interest in such a thing, to the detriment of not just the Palestinian people, but the Israeli people as well.


or does slaughtering a family in their beds constitutes a war crime?


Nope. That's multiple homicide. You know, "regular" crime.


does firing rockets at civilians from within civilian population constitutes a war crime? check out the Geneva convention...


Does heavy artillery count


Wrong about the Philistines... they were an Aegean people...


Canaanite, Phoenecian, Aegean, it all gets stirred up in the same pot of "sea peoples"


they tried invading Egypt in about 1200BC if memory served, but were pushed back, and then they settled in the southern region of what is known as Israel...


More accurately Israelites settled in the Eastern regions of Philistia.


they were Iron age people, and therefore had a military advantage over the native peoples in the area...


You're thinking Hittites (they're also probably who you're thinking of with the Egyptian invasion stuff).


There are several theories that state that Jews as a people are in essence canaanites, there is archeological evidence that suggests that around that time, the city states that were the predominant form of government in the area went through a period of unrest, and the "commoners" revolted, and from that started the entire mono-theism etc... (which probably started in Egypt by Ahetanon)...


Jews come in all sorts of ethnicities; the term "Jew" only has any ethnic meaning in a eurocentrist context, since Europe was really the only place where one solitary ethnic group practiced Judaism. Saying "Jews are Canaanites" is sort of like saying "Wiccans are Irish" or something.

The Israelites were probably Egyptian, all the way through. They were culturally and linguistically distinct from the Canaanites they moved in on, and were also quite distinct from the Mesopotamians (though the religion was probably a third-generation handmedown). However, they were very similar in all regards to the Egyptians, and by accounts, lived as something of a colony or client state of Egypt.

Intriguing factoid; the people labeled today as "Palestinian Arabs" are in fact the descendants of the iron age's Israelite Jews.


You are correct about self-determination, everyone has a right, and I believe that if the "Palestinians" (they can't actually pronounce the "P" which is funny), want a state, they should have it...


Good, Then Israel can grab its nuts (by which, I mean the crazy people living in the colonies) go back to its side of the border, and everyone can make at least a momentary attempt at living happily ever after.


The comment about Jewish wealth was related to them living in Arab countries under Arab rule. Not Roman, which was much better at times than the Arabs later were...


Ah, thought you meant the Romans. Like I said, no one was actually "equal" in those days, anywhere you looked. If Jews were being over-taxed in Baghdad, they were being burned alive in Kiev, so, that's how it worked out in that period of history.


Now, based on history, the Romans lost about 600,000 soldier fighting against the Jews in the last great revolt of 135AD... and the population which was estimated in 3 million or so, was decimated, but the Jews never left...


There's a lot of reason to dispute numbers like this. Cultural norm for recording wars was basically to make up as big a number as you thought you could get away with, to make the battles seem bigger and more important. Hell, look in the bible, book of Judges; apparently the ancient Israelites killed somewhere around thirty million people while taking a territory roughly the size of Rhode Island. Yeah, sure they did, right?


But again, that was not about the Romans... but about the Arabs... and there are ample historical evidence to support that there was no "golden age".


"Golden age" is to history what "missing link" is to biology. it's an outdated cultural conceit with no real validity in the field. However, you'd have a really hard time arguing that life in Europe as a Jew was better than life in the middle east as a Jew, between the 7th and 17th centuries. Unless you cheat and count al-Andalus as Europe for this.


I'll tell you exactly, because those IED's are close enough to kill the patrols on the Israeli side (which they have in the past), and usually, if someone comes close to a hostile border, they are not "looking for their dog"... If someone comes to my border and tries to do something nasty, they will be shot. But again, you cite no sources, while I have actually been there... and seen the way it works...


You are about as far from a credible source as anyone can possibly get. Not only are you a gibbering propaganda faucet, but you're also Random Dude on The Internet™.

Let's try The Independent for the gravel one. Haarets tells of Israelis gunning down a dude who was probably drunk. Ynet graces us with hte story of Israelis killing each other here. Maan fills us in on how farming is apparently exactly like mass murder, according to the IDF. Want to protest the shootings of your friends at the border? Dailymotion shows it might not be the wisest move.

My thought? "Shoot on sight" is a really good way to give people a reason to want to kill you back.


Again with the numbers game... if every attack the Arabs would have carried out against Israel would have succeeded would that have made it OK in your book?! I mean, the fact that they know that there are drones above them, that constantly look to see when they are about to fire, doesn't let them sit and aim well enough to kill civilians a bad thing?


First off, you just spent a great deal of effort justifying each and every killing Israel has done on this border. According to your stance, ALL OF THEM are completely justified, ALL OF THEM needed to be killed. So really, you have no room to get at all upset here.

Second, you're taking instances of Gazan rockets blowing up dirt, and trying to pretend that this equates some sort of mass carnage against Israeli civilians; It doesn't. You also fail to realize that, perhaps if your slaves - er, enlisted men - stopped blasting holes in the back of kids' heads 'cause it's funny, there might be a few fewer rockets. Maybe not - but then a moratorium on rockets being fired didn't stop Israelis from killing Gazans.


oh, and let's not compare crime... the murder rate in Israel is not as high as you might think...


Oh, I never said the murder rate in Israel is high. In fact you guys are in like, the bottom 5% worldwide, last I checked. Something like ~300 murders a year in a bad year?

I simply said more israelis are killed by Israelis than are killed by Palestinain terrorists.

Hmmm. I think I can understand why you want to just gloss over this.


but yes, car accidents are a problem... some people don't know how to drive... but that is besides the point..


No, it's not in fact. You're going on like Hamas rockets blowing up dirt is a supreme existential threat to the whole of Israel, which justifies blowing the brains out of a kid's head 'cause he gets too close to your fence. When in fact, the Toyota corporation has more Israeli blood under its fenders than these crazy bastards in Gaza do.

But I suppose it's just more difficult to pop a chub over shooting a truck than shooting some kid with a bucket.


And yes, Israel does not intentionally target civilians... and when you fire from a hospital, you are responsible for endangering that hospital... (check out the Geneva convention).


An Israeli, trying to throw around the Geneva conventions. Heh. Might I suggest reading a little deeper? A hospital is never an acceptable military target. if someone is shooting at you from a hospital, you make a note of it, avoid that hospital and file a complaint with the UN or the leadership of the other belligerent. You do not go "What the hell, let 'er rip!" and bomb the hospital.


But again, this derails the thread... the thread was about the Israeli foreign minister calling the world out on not doing anything in Syria as they are doing in other places in the Arab world... and you can't dispute that...


And you can't deny that the Israel foreign minister asking the US to participate in overthrowing governments that are oppressive to Arabs who protest them is... just a little short-sighted.
edit on 12/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join