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 approves 1,500 settler homes in east Jerusalem following Obama's speech

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


I hope you learn some history also..

The Jews smartly were given some of their land back and took the rest only AFTER being attacked by the Arabs.


Israel stole the land when ISRAEL attacked the Arabs in 1967..Fact..

edit on 23-5-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Here, I'll help you learn some history:

Palestine. Palestine. Is this about Philistia? That region on the coast of the Mediterranean that was populated by Myceneans? Yeah, the Romans named it "Palestine" because, as Romans usually did, they renamed a place according to Greek nomenclature as a matter of course. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", which was everything in his path!

This current "Palestine" place doesn't really exist because it was swallowed by Nebuchadnezzar II around 600 B.C. The people that call themselves Palestinians are mostly Arabs and Jordanians that moved into the area after the Israelites were forcefully removed from the Kingdom of Israel in 70 A.D. (the Diaspora). One thing that is absolutely certain, is that they are not descended from Myceneans.

Interestingly enough, one of the leaders of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Zuheir Muhsein, proclaimed in 1977 that Palestine didn't exist, except as a way to maintain the "struggle" between Arabs and Israel:


The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.


I hate quoting Wikipedia, but it's the least biased of the sites where one can actually perform research and find this statement.

While I am somewhat pro-Israel, I am 100% pro-historical accuracy. This site is about denying ignorance, and the existence of Palestine is one of the topics that people seem to not want to learn their history about. They like what's spoon-fed to them by anti-Semites, Zionists, Arab propagandists or what have you.

/TOA




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
So if Panama decided to block the panama canal to lets say China, that wouldnt be a provocation of war? Even though China would be 'attacked' economically front such an act?


There is no "even though" - it is not an attack at all. China would have no valid reasons to go to war with panama over this. Depending on treaties, trade agreements, etc, they could seek diplomatic redress, but it is not considered an act of war.

Read that - act of war. That's what you need to go to war - you have to actually come under attack in some fashion. And Panama telling you to take the long way around is not such an act.


Listen. and please dont bother citing latin expressions.


...Really? Look, cassus belli is a legal term, applicable to the discussion at hand - it essentially means "cause of war." if you're confused by terms such as this, maybe you should go back to eating kosher salt and pretending it makes you more of a Jew?


Words can cause fights, just as much as a physical action..


Yep. And people who engage in fights over words are, in nearly every society on earth, viewed as childish, savage, barbaric, and criminal. Really, try this; next time someone gives you lip, bust them in the face. What do you think the response would be? Here in the United States, we consider battery to be a criminal offense.


If i use a particular street to get to work and getting to work, getting paid, and providing for my family depends on me getting to work on time, and thus me using this route, and some 'nemesis' of mine decides to park his car in front of the street where his house is... this wouldnt be very fair, would it?


Well, in this example, it'd be more like if you were used to cutting through a neighbor's hard to get to work, and then one week he puts up a fence. It's his hard; you have no right to it. That fence might not be "fair" to you, but that's not your neighbor's problem; you'll just have to learn to live with it. Get out the door earlier and take the long way around.

However, in your example, you still have non-combative options. Rather than going up to his door and murdering him and his entire family (that's the "war" option to solve the problem) you can call the police, tell them "hey, this douchebag is parked in the middle of the road" and they can come handle it - this is the "international diplomacy" option.

To the situation at hand, the decision to war was the first thing Israel tried. That is, when confronted with a fence, their first thought was to kill everyone they found on the other side.


Egypt may consider the suez canal its 'territory' but nonetheless, many many countries depend on their ships going through this canal in order to participate in international commerce.


The Suez Canal is a different place than the Straits of Tiran.

However, while we're talking Suez, wanna know something funny? When Nasser nationalized the Canal in 1956, he kept the Constantinople Convention of the Suez Canal of 2 March 1888 valid. Specifically, the provision that it may be used "in time of war as in time of peace, by every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag." Nobody's shipping was threatened by nationalization.

Back to the Straits, this is Egyptian-Saudi territorial waters. Egypt, at the time, had no obligation to anyone else to let anyone's ships go through its waters. Those that did so did so under agreement with Egypt (or perhaps Saudi Arabia, if they were passing through the Eastward strait).


So Israels warning very much was a valid warning. This wasnt just some "any nation can declare anything to be cassus belli"..


Actually, it is. Of course, I'm talking about the international laws of warfare that Israel has agreed to follow as part and parcel to its membership in the United nations, while you are operating off the logic that says anyone who gives you lip should be shot dead.


No, this is something that if done, could have disastrous effects on the Israeli economy. On their standard of living.


I don't think so. Y'see, Eilat (the Red Sea port that would have been affected) was one of Israel's three major ports; the other two, Haifa and Ashdod, are on the Mediterranean. Who did Israel conduct most of its trade with in the 1960's? Europe and the Americas. Which ports would be used for this? Haifa and Ashdod.

Maybe Israel had more trade going on with South Asia and East Africa than I'm aware of. It's entirely possible. However, pretending that closing the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would have been an apocalyptic deathblow to Israel's economy is more than a little ludicrous.


And thus it is undoubtedly, and incontrovertibly a legitimate provocation of war.


Again, no, it's not. War is not something you just fly into on a whim based on a "gut feeling." Like the entirety of international interactions, it is covered by laws, rules, guidelines, and accepted forms. And what I am telling you is that this situation does not fall under any of these as a valid cause for war.


This is a stupid analogy. The west Bank has since time immemorial been called "Judea and Samaria"...Judea, in Hebrew ,Yehuda, like Yehudim, the Jews who were exiled from there. A land which bears copious witness to their connection with it. It is nothing at all like Quebec and New York .


What it was called in the Bronze Age doesn't actually matter, dontreally. Being Jewish gives no one any more right to anywhere in the middle east than being Buddhist gives you valid claim to territory in Nepal. The international system does not operate off of anyone's holy books; rather it works off an established system of nation-states that got its foundation in the 18th century or so.

Under this system, Jericho is no more part of Israel than Krakow is part of Mongolia. Borders were drawn in 1947. Israel accepted and then violated these borders. Israel's neighbors eventually ceded these violations, and those became the new borders of Israel. There has been no such cessation since. The internationally accepted boundaries of Israel are those that it had prior to the 1967 war, and any territory outside those boundaries does not belong to Israel.

It's not a very difficult concept, really. "What's inside your border is yours, and what is outside your border is not yours."

What those borders looked like in 4100 BC is inconsequential to our modern system.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Interestingly enough, one of the leaders of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Zuheir Muhsein, proclaimed in 1977 that Palestine didn't exist, except as a way to maintain the "struggle" between Arabs and Israel:


The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.


I hate quoting Wikipedia, but it's the least biased of the sites where one can actually perform research and find this statement.

While I am somewhat pro-Israel, I am 100% pro-historical accuracy. This site is about denying ignorance, and the existence of Palestine is one of the topics that people seem to not want to learn their history about. They like what's spoon-fed to them by anti-Semites, Zionists, Arab propagandists or what have you.

/TOA


Since you are pro-history, you might want to notice something else in your wikipedia source; in fact it's immediately prior to what you quoted. It's very important.


Mohsen essentially followed the line of as-Sa'iqa's Syrian-Baathist ideology, which interpreted the Palestinian question through a perspective of pan-Arab nationalism - despite the fact that in some respects this contravened the PLO charter, which affirms the existence of a Palestinian people with national rights. As such, he stated that there were "no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese", though Palestinian identity would be emphasised for political reasons. This originated in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw


You're citing the opinion of a guy who's political philosophy called for the dissolution of all distinct nationalities in favor of a singular Arab state.

His statement doesn't actually mean what you're trying to claim it means; it's not a repudiation of a historical basis for palestine, but rather the repudiation of the notion that there should be any divisions such as "Palestinian," or "Lebanese" or "Iraqi" among the Arab people. It's forward-facing, not backwards.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Israel approves 1,500 settler homes in east Jerusalem: NGO


So they're building another apartment complex. This could only be international news if it happens in Israel.

So go to apartmentsisrael.com and select the Jerusalem section. Now pick out a lovely new flat and Oy vey! You're an international criminal and will be hunted down by the U.N. security council. Personally I've been eying the Ben Yehuda apartment location.



Four floors above Ben Yehuda Street, this apartment offers a fabulous view from all directions. Here, you will be able to enjoy our quiet, comfortable, and fully equipped home, forgetting that you are right in the middle of the hustle and bustle




top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join