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.

 

Although it's a side issue: let's focus on Israel for a second

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The more I learn about the middle east issue, the more I am convinced it is a distraction from events at home, as well as a way of drawing the line and dividing the nation. But it does show the mentality of the elite.

Obama's message about Israel going back to the 1967 border was leaked online to the Israeli media, giving Israel plenty of time to build remarks and rebuttle. Netanyahu came to America, as all awaited Obama's silent bowing to Israel like all American presidents. The one thing both Jew and Anti-Jew can agree on is America obeys Israel. Netanyahu says the 1967 border resolution is unacceptable.

Here's the thing:

1. A president of America was just told what to believe by a foreign prime minister and congress applauds. That right there should let you know that American congressman don't care about Americans but only about Israel. The fact that this is nothing new simply proves this paradigm even further.

The second thing to think about comes from an incident that occurred while Netanyahu was delivering a speech. A lady, whom we are told was Jewish, shouted at him, "heckled" the prime minister, and told him to stop Israeli war crimes. She was quickly carted off by goons off camera, and the crowd of people in Congress began to cheer.

This was disgusting enough, but Netanyahu hammered it home by saying "this is democracy" where you are allowed to protest against the president, unlike in Iran.

Here is the video
www.rawstory.com...

Take note of the tremendous irony of what he says, that they want this kind of democracy in Iran.

What this means is, Netanyahu and the people of congress want protesters to get

1. Booed off stage
2. Applauded when arrested by officers
3. Beaten up backstage by goons
4. sent to the hospital

All this while they are cheering this going on.

Now here's the thing, Netanyahu could have said "yes, applaud how great our country is by removing hecklers immediately when they begin to protest, and applaud yourselves for cheering the silencing of whistleblowers."

This would be more truthful, but Netanyahu doesn't say this, instead, he says "yes, this is democracy, where a woman can do something like this."

Hello?! Did you catch that? This is how brainwashed the elite are. They are removing a protester and having them arrested, and will later deny they had anything to do with the beating but their patriotism certainly led to it, and yet they are cheering the fact that the system allows this...

...even though it doesn't.

They are saying yes, this is democracy, this protester proves it

yet...

She was removed immediately and booed.

So this means, in Netanyahu's own words, and in the congress' own body language, that this isn't democracy, it's no where close to a democracy. You can't say "Here in America we're free because of democracy," and then you say this while showing a picture of a jail cell. The message is clear: we're not free, this isn't democracy.

Yet, congress claps. Are they even aware of what they are clapping for?

It's called brainwashing. It's being done right in front of your eyes.
edit on 26-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 





Obama's message about Israel going back to the 1967 border was leaked online to the Israeli media,


Obama never asked them to return to the pre 1967 border. What he said was a 2 state solution must START at those borders with mutually agreed land swaps for security (security of the Israeli settlers). Why? Well, because Israel refuses to define their borders and the pre 1967 lines are the last official ones, best to start there.

That said, I agree, you nailed it on the head. but I'd go one step further.

It's not democracy, it's fascism



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 

I don't agree or disagree with what you are saying. I watched the entire speech and the thing that popped into my mind was 1. Shouldn't be surprised- they cart off legitimate protestors from nearly ALL televised political events and 2. I think the difference is that in Iran there is a pretty good chance that the woman protesting would have been dragged outside and beheaded on the spot!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I'm getting some huge vibrations from this video I posted. It's an example of some extreme double think, not just in words but in action.

The question is, did they set up this protester? It almost seems like this did, but if she really was beaten up, that is either way too far to take a planned op, if she is a mossad agent lets say, or if she was just a protester, first of all it should be noted that she was Jewish, so this could be called "jewish oppression" and secondly if she was beaten up, it shows the system will destroy even those who help, i.e. the controlled opposition, they may control them, but they have no sympathy for them, they will get destroyed if it suits their plans.

or, she could just have a general hatred against the war crimes and say this knowing she will be hated for it.

I also want to add that Alex Jones is covering this. I'm thinking of even starting a new thread entirely based on Alex Jones coming around to the Zionist issue. This is the most I've heard him on the Israel issue since I've been listening to him, so I'm thinking this whole issue is something to be watching out for.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by filosophia
 

I don't agree or disagree with what you are saying. I watched the entire speech and the thing that popped into my mind was 1. Shouldn't be surprised- they cart off legitimate protestors from nearly ALL televised political events and 2. I think the difference is that in Iran there is a pretty good chance that the woman protesting would have been dragged outside and beheaded on the spot!


So we have two choices in this world,

1. get beheaded for speaking the truth
2. get arrested for speaking the truth

Which country is the truth celebrated and honored? Oh, right, that's America, where protesters are given peace prizes...oh wait, more double think.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
If Israel has to give back the land they won AFTER they were attacked, then I suppose we should give the United States back to the Native Americans and the Mexicans. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

If you don't agree with that, then what would be the logic of giving a GROSS military advantage to the nations that have sworn to destroy Israel and kill every living Jew?

Maybe it's just a bad case of antisemitism running unabated in the media and those who claim to eschew that same media.

If Israel retreats to the 1967 borders, the Islaamic states would have the military high ground and the ability to shut off ALL the water running into Israel. Since those same Islaamic countries have sworn to destroy Israel and every living Jew, I DOUBT Israel would ever agree to that ridiculous proposal. Giving that land back would lead to a genocide of unbelievable proportions.

Of course, if one is antisimitic, I guess another holocaust wouldn't matter...
edit on 26-5-2011 by RealAmericanPatriot because: grammar



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
If Israel has to give back the land they won AFTER they were attacked, then I suppose we should give the United States back to the Native Americans and the Mexicans. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

If you don't agree with that, then what would be the logic of giving a GROSS military advantage to the nations that have sworn to destroy Israel and kill every living Jew?

Maybe it's just a bad case of antisemitism running unabated in the media and those who claim to eschew that same media.

If Israel retreats to the 1967 borders, the Islaamic states would have the military high ground and the ability to shut off ALL the water running into Israel. Since those same Islaamic countries have sworn to destroy Israel and every living Jew, I DOUBT Israel would ever agree to that ridiculous proposal. Giving that land back would lead to a genocide of unbelievable proportions.

Of course, if one is antisimitic, I guess another holocaust wouldn't matter...
edit on 26-5-2011 by RealAmericanPatriot because: grammar


hmm...I'm wondering if I should actually address your points or just point out that this protester who was arrested and beaten up for protesting was Jewish. So...I'll just let that speak for itself.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Everything I posted is true. I could care less about the protestor. I did not post ANYTHING about the protestor.

Perhaps those members of Congress who applauded clapped because a loud and boisterous source of ignorance was removed from a room of serious discussion.

I stand by everything I put forth in my previous post and the geographical logistics bear it out.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Nitwityahoo says, "This is real democracy", well he is wrong this is a republik.
Real democracy is 4 wolves and a sheep discussing what will be for dinner.
Sometimes it works sometimes it does not.
At least the Palestinians will soon have an open border to Egypt.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


Give the land back after they were attacked, which attack please.
I just wanna know to see if you know the regions history, see I'm pretty sure you're not a paid schill, as they make a logical point and hope the people they are arguing against do not know their history.
So, I must assume you actually believe the propaganda that has been put forth by the media.
We are focusing on israel right?
You said "Maybe it's just a bad case of antisemitism running unabated in the media".
That is a silly idea, first off we speak of israel, a state. Not the jews, a religion.
the state israel is not all jews by the way.
Secondly, all of the media that you see is zionist, you can go and see who either owns media companies or who holds the lions share of stock in said companies, a google search greatly benefits this.
You also said, "Since those same Islamic countries have sworn to destroy Israel and every living Jew".
Do you believe this, and if you do and are sure, why would everyone in their region want this?
That is a question worth answering, really.
It is not jealousy, what could it be?
Antisemitic, antisemitic, that is the battlecry of the uneducated, remember not all israelis are jews, and the "holocaust" is old inflated news, it doesn't work anymore.
There is a holocaust happening inside of israel right now on the Palestinians.

As for your next post, you should care about that protester, she is your voice protecting you.
Remember, if it can happen there it can and will happen here if unchecked.
I totally understand you stand by what you say and admire that, it is conviction.
But, learn the region and pay no attention to the propaganda, do not be angry when your opinion sways as that is your conscience telling you that you were lied to.
Anger is understandable, and the best revenge is to spread the truth about your enemy.
Remember the USS Liberty.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot


Perhaps those members of Congress who applauded clapped because a loud and boisterous source of ignorance was removed from a room of serious discussion.


Yet Netanyahu was praising the actions of the protestor or at least praising the system that "allows" her to protest, even though she isn't allowed to protest. So it's not democracy, it's double speak.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, the Palestinians, or their little problem.

It's ALL about China. We need to take over IRan to cut off China from that crude oil supply.

Iran isn't a threat to anyone. The REAL threat is their oil goes to CHINA and our military wants to cut their fuel supply.

The American populace will think what happens next is all about the Palestinians and Israel...the Palestinians couldn't do squat to anyone and are essentially DEAD. IRan doesn't have a military capable of anything, has no air force, no real navy, no nothing.

Time will tell if China allows themselves to be cut off of Iran as a fuel source. If they do, they are DEAD. They won't be able to fuel those thousands of shiny new fighter aircraft all over their country.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, the Palestinians, or their little problem.

It's ALL about China. We need to take over IRan to cut off China from that crude oil supply.

Iran isn't a threat to anyone. The REAL threat is their oil goes to CHINA and our military wants to cut their fuel supply.

The American populace will think what happens next is all about the Palestinians and Israel...the Palestinians couldn't do squat to anyone and are essentially DEAD. IRan doesn't have a military capable of anything, has no air force, no real navy, no nothing.

Time will tell if China allows themselves to be cut off of Iran as a fuel source. If they do, they are DEAD. They won't be able to fuel those thousands of shiny new fighter aircraft all over their country.


I agree that Palestine is a side issue. The hoax that Palestinians are terrorists is starting to fall apart, and crying wolf is not going to work for too much longer with Iran trying to "wipe Israel off the map"
edit on 26-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I too read that Obama's speech had been leaked online. But I read something else too. Haaretz reported that Netanyahu was planning to address Congress "in a month," meaning the end of June, and I read that while he was actually addressing Congress. Obama's G-8 visit preceded by Ireland and England had to be planned ahead of time because of security. The media commented that Netanyahu's visit was rushed, bla bla. Obama made it quite clear to even little old me sitting at home that the 67 borders were a point of departure for negotiations. He used the word 'swaps' a few times. Now how could anyone in Bibi's office miss that especially if leaked ahead of time? I'm quite confident that they didn't.

Our Cdn media showed the clip of the POTUS' beast getting stuck on an Irish road, then went straight to Bibi's speech, so who could not miss the point? It was one huge gotcha, IMO, especially as isn't it highly unusual for the POTUS to be out of the country while another head of state addresses his own Congress? So someone somewhere may have pulled a preplanned gotcha. How disrespectul to the American people to do that. I truly felt embarrassed for all you Americans

Link to blog I find the Tony Kushner and the Isreal -democracy debate interesting, because he calls them to task on that very point.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
The second thing to think about comes from an incident that occurred while Netanyahu was delivering a speech. A lady, whom we are told was Jewish, shouted at him, "heckled" the prime minister, and told him to stop Israeli war crimes. She was quickly carted off by goons off camera, and the crowd of people in Congress began to cheer.

This was disgusting enough, but Netanyahu hammered it home by saying "this is democracy" where you are allowed to protest against the president, unlike in Iran.


I remember watching this during Netanyahu's speech.

After Netanyahu said "This is democracy, and those kinds of things can happen in a democracy, that's the wonder of it ect"

I said out loud..."She was just escorted away by security...Democracy? Is that democracy? Being escorted out by guards just for speaking out?"


Originally posted by littled16
2. I think the difference is that in Iran there is a pretty good chance that the woman protesting would have been dragged outside and beheaded on the spot!


Don't be so naive.
edit on 27-5-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
This man has a right to give his speech also which you seem to be forgetting. This woman violated that right by heckling him, he didn't do anything to her right to protest in a different way so the fault lies with her.

And the above poster is correct when he mentioned that Obama's words are not everything he said. People are taking it out of context for political reasons.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
reply to post by filosophia
 


Everything I posted is true. I could care less about the protestor. I did not post ANYTHING about the protestor.

Perhaps those members of Congress who applauded clapped because a loud and boisterous source of ignorance was removed from a room of serious discussion.

I stand by everything I put forth in my previous post and the geographical logistics bear it out.


If you are going to say that everything you claim is true and factually correct then please provide evidence. The fact that Israel wasn't ATACKED during the June 1967 war already shows the legitamacy of your claimss. It was a preventive strike by Israel.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
If Israel has to give back the land they won AFTER they were attacked, then I suppose we should give the United States back to the Native Americans and the Mexicans. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?


Interesting choice of examples, friend! Also very telling about your grasp on history. or perhaps your grasp on irony.

The United States gained territory from the Natives in a combination of three ways. The first and most common was simply deceit. The messengers from the United States would ride up, round up the leaders of the tribe (or the closest thing the tribe may have had) and gave them an agreement that the United States would honor their territorial claims, so long as they agreed to conditions X, Y, and X (usually cessation of some territory to settlement, an agreement to end hostilities against America, and trade agreements, in that order.) The US would then completely fail to hold up any of its promises; every single treaty made between the United States and native peoples has been broken, and in every single case, it was broken by the United States.

The second way was warfare. The main tactic in this was to pit native nations against one another (The Absaroka vs. Cheyenne and Lakota, the Huron Confederacy vs. the Iroquois League, the Nassangesseret vs. the Pequots, the Comanche vs. the Dineh, etc). A pretty simple "divide and conquer" method that left both tribes involved vulnerable to the US military marching in and shooting them all down "for peace." The third way was genocide; this was most prevalent towards the layer years of the Indian wars - entire villages and families massacred, children carted off for slavery or just to get killed, women raped to "breed the Indian out", you name it. For a period of forty years in North America, conditions resembled modern Darfur.

Now, as for the Mexican territories; these were gained by a war begun by the United States. We attacked Mexico. There weren't even really any claims of Mexico "starting it" it was pretty bald-faced. we wanted Mexican land (particularly California) and we aimed to take it by shooting the hell out of lots of Mexicans. This was at least slightly more civil than what went on with the Natives; though the invading soldiers did commit atrocities such as rapes and massacres, the Mexican-American war was in most respects your "typical" war of the era. There was no real effort to drive the Mexicans out of the conquered territory, though.

So. You're comparing Israel to America, in America's role in the war with Mexico and with the Natives. Yes, I think this is pretty adequate; Israel is, in every instance except 1973, the aggressor in its wars. You might try to hem and haw about "pre-emptive strikes" but even then, Israel was the aggressor. even in 1948, Israel started the war by attempting to ethnically cleanse Israel of Arabs. before Egypt or Jordan or anyone put a single bullet in a rifle, Israel was shooting Arabs and burning towns.

To answer your question of whether all that territory should be given back? well, I can't speak for the Mexicans, but as an Indian, I'd like to see the treaties honored. An important thing though is that in the 19th century, there were no Geneva Conventions; the United States was not a signatory to the international treaties and agreements that forbid the conquest of land through military action. In 1967, however, Israel was signatory to such a treaty.


If you don't agree with that, then what would be the logic of giving a GROSS military advantage to the nations that have sworn to destroy Israel and kill every living Jew?


1) There are no such nations. None. Syria wants the Golan back, but could give a good goddamn less about Israel at this point. Lebanon just wants Israel to stop invading Lebanon. Jordan and Egypt have already fully accepted Israel and are diplomatic and trade partners with Israel. Iraq is a complete non-entity in this these days. Saudi Arabia has no military worth mention and is ruled by people who just go where the money is. Iran is too distant to pose a threat, and its actual leaders - the Islamic Council - have absolutely no interest in a confrontation with Israel. even Hamas - Crazy bastards to the core - have stated a willingness to discuss like rational human beings, and have stated they'd settle with a 1967 Israel. "Nations want to destroy Israel and kill all living Jews" has transcended the myth that it always was, and has simply become an outright lie.

2) Tough gefiltefisk. Israel is a signatory to a treaty that forbids the conquest of territory though military means. This means Israel is bound under international and Israeli law to rescind claims to all territory occupied in 1967. Every single speck of it. Once that is done, Israel is completely free to negotiate to gain the territory it wants that happens to be outside its borders - I doubt that the Palestinians want crazy murderous settler crazies in their country any more than those crazy murderous settlers want to be ruled by Palestinians.

3) Ceding this land offers no actual military advantage to Israel's fictitious enemies.


Maybe it's just a bad case of antisemitism running unabated in the media and those who claim to eschew that same media.


You can call me antisemitic all you want. At the end of the day, you're still the one pumping for a system designed to keep Jews in Israel living in constant fear and in a distorted state of mind that isolates them from everyone around them. A system that takes Jewish children, hands them a gun, trains them to hate and kill other people who are the "wrong race" and then puts these kids in a conflict zone, where they can get killed - despite the fact that it's only a conflict zone because the government keeps sending armed Israeli kids there. A system whereby any Jew who happens to dislike the system is instantly either "not really a Jew" or is dismissed as a "self-hating Jew." If said Jew dares to share any shred of sympathy with those people of the wrong race, they are labeled "nazis" and "kapos."

I guess what I'm saying is that you are the one standing in total, unquestioning defense of the strongest antisemitic organization currently existing in the world - the Israeli government and the Zionist philosophy.


If Israel retreats to the 1967 borders, the Islaamic states would have the military high ground and the ability to shut off ALL the water running into Israel. Since those same Islaamic countries have sworn to destroy Israel and every living Jew, I DOUBT Israel would ever agree to that ridiculous proposal. Giving that land back would lead to a genocide of unbelievable proportions.


Then what Israel does is cut a check to purchase some water rights from the owners of that water. Israel gets three billion a year from the United States; I'll bet that could buy a lot of Perrier, I can only imagine the fetid swampwater of the Galilee is a little cheaper. Maybe Israelis will have to learn the same "painful" lesson that people in Nevada are learning - if you live in an arid land, you're not entitled to swimming pools, fountains, and big, lush golf course lawns.

And again, no such Islamic country exists. Stop lying. I know it's easier than telling the truth, but rise to the challenge.


Of course, if one is antisimitic, I guess another holocaust wouldn't matter...


You're right, it wouldn't matter. Which is why antisemites such as the government of Israel and its fevered supporters - yourself included - continue their support and enforcement of policies that serve absolutely no purpose other than to cause Jews to get killed.
edit on 28/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 



Everything I posted is true. I could care less about the protestor. I did not post ANYTHING about the protestor.


BS..Israel was NOT attacked in 1967..

Israel attacked them...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
reply to post by filosophia
 


Everything I posted is true. I could care less about the protestor. I did not post ANYTHING about the protestor.

Perhaps those members of Congress who applauded clapped because a loud and boisterous source of ignorance was removed from a room of serious discussion.

I stand by everything I put forth in my previous post and the geographical logistics bear it out.


If you are going to say that everything you claim is true and factually correct then please provide evidence. The fact that Israel wasn't ATACKED during the June 1967 war already shows the legitamacy of your claimss. It was a preventive strike by Israel.


The Israeli preemptive strike was against Egypt, not against Jordan (west bank) who decided to join the war in a joint effort by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria to destroy Israel.

Second line.
edit on 28-5-2011 by gravitational because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join