It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The role of Zionism during the Holocaust.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I never stated that these to statements from Ben Gourin and Ze-ev Jabotinsky was the reason for Arab rejection of Israel. The reason for Arab rejection of Israel was it placed a Jewish state in the middle of a bunch of Arab states. It's like making South Carolina a Jewish state seperate from the US.

The statements show that they knew the founding of Israel was going to be violent and the statements made by Ben Gouring show him for what he was: Both a realist and an expansionist. The founding of the Jewish state was poorly planned and destined to be embroiled in violence: However, Arab rejection does not justify the failure to adhere to internatonal law. Infact, the Arabs have been rather accepting of Israel: First Egypt, then the PLO (Oslo accords and Oslo II agreements which Netanyahu failed to implement on his part in 1996) and Jordan. The reality is the Arabs have accepted Jewish existence- throughout their entire history Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and the PLO have all negotiated with Israel. There has always been a person to talk to on the other side and it is now up to Israel to open up to being talked to like they did under Rabin and Peres.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Iam neither pro zionist 100% nor anti Zionist 100%, nor do I believe Germany was used a convenient scapegoat for the deths of millions by the Soviets 100%.

But I would like some truthful person to tell me if its true or not that the first President ot Prime minister of the newly created nation Israel, was executed by hanging late in life for being a Nazi collaborator/

I actually believed this because I read it on the net years ago, but I recently googled it got onto wikpedia and I couldn't find any reference to it.

Did it happen? or is it just another anti Jewish/zionist piece of propaganda?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 





80% of the land of Israel was never given to the Arabs. The Jews would have 52% under the partition plan and the Arabs/Palestinians 48% under the partition plan. The current borders recognized under international law give Israel 79% and and the arabs 21% of Palestine. The Arabs never accepted a Jewish state in 1948 and I have highlighted why. Would you accept a Italian state made of New Jersey?


And why is that?? I would think it would have to do with a Jewish state existing in the middleast of ANY size.




It is evident you are not all for a United Nations type deal, as you believe Israel should not be bound by international law. No one is ignoring the rights of the Jews. Under International law, the Jewish state would recieve 79% of Palestine.


80% of Palestine was already GIVEN to the Arabs. They already have their Palestinian state! If you havent noticed. The state that the PA wants to create in the West Bank and Gaza (and if they want it to be contiguous, as they have been demanding, also a portion in between) would reduce the Jewish state even further. From the original Palestinian Mandate, the Jews would have been given less then 10%. And the biggest concern of all is Israels economic center being reduced to a 9 km strip of land; with the mountainous westbank overlooking it.

And theyre supposed to trust them?? Oh please. As they say. lie to me once, shame on you. lie to me twice, shame on me.




The Palestinian Refugee problem was not created by the Arabs as you say, the Israeli forced exodus of the Palestinians is the root cause.
WHAT?




If I kick you out of your home, it is not the fault of your neighbour for not taking you into his home, but my fault for kicking you out.
It was the ARABS who called for the Arabs living in Israel to leave. Do you get that? No Arabs were kicked out by Israel. Arab leaders suggested that Arabs living in the Westbank, Galilee, and the interior of Israel leave so as not to get killed during their offensive.




The Jordanian economy was never and would never be able to incoporate the Palestinians unless this included incoporating the terrotories of the West Bank.
Are you aware that Jordan took in foreign workers from syria and elsewhere - to develop the land - after 1947 when they became a state? Instead of making use of the Palestinians who lived nextdoor, which of course official arab league policy requires them to languish in refugee camps to generate sympathy for the arabs/palestinians.




I assure you this as a student of economics: I suggest you research or just logically look at the economic complexeties of accepting refugee's.


No need. A historical precedant has already been set. Israel took in 700,000 refugees from Arab countries between 1948 and 1970. Why couldnt Jordan do that? Or atleast have a composite of nations share the burden. Nope. Put them in camps. Have the world cry tears for a problem created by the Arabs themselves.

Link




Palestinians don't want to join Jordan and that they want their own state?




This entire subject is being treated by you as some intellectual exercise. Whether right or wrong, you will scower for logical/rational proofs to justify your position. It doesnt matter that the Jews have been dealt a miniscule state; you want more, because for some strange reason, you accept the premises of the Arabs. The Arabs are right. And when they get their state 2nd state in Palestine, and the final stage in the "strategy of stages in Israels destruction" takes effect, you'll be supporting them again. Because you do not respect truth, or justice. You bow before the alter of international opinion. If the government said blue was black, youd be here justifying it.

We have a word for such a person. A sycophant: A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage.




If you have taken care in reading the works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky you would realise that while resistance to the Jewish state will always exist, Israel has itself established an Iron Wall and shown it's military superiority and its regional power status to all the Arabs.


I own every book by Ze'ev Jabonisky. I own books by Israel Eldad, Herzl, Ehad Ha'am, Abraham Isaac Kook many other early and later zionist thinkers. I am a zionist. Youre not teaching me anything by mentioning this over and over again.




Tell me what secuirty purpose do the settlements serve?

I flat out reject the two state solution. It is an Arab snare. The fact that the HAVE STILL NOT TO THIS VERY DAY ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF A jewish state - PLEASE digest this fact - shows that their attitude towards the "two state solution", is not a solution, but a means to an end. It effectively wins back lands that the Arabs lost in 1967.

"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."

- Zuheir mohsen

What else can i say??? The Arabs wont take advantage of a westbank that overlooks a Jewish state?? Arabs DISALLOW berbers from speaking berber languages in north Africa. They prevent kurds from expressing their own unique culture in Syria and Iraq...and Jews are supposed to think that Arabs will accept a Jewish state, when their most economically prosperous region is exposed and vulnerable? A slew of rocket attacks would wipe out the entire nation!!! What the hell do you mean im not acting logically??

Im the logical one. You are the university student sycophant trying to get ahead in the world. Youre political interests in 'defending international law' and UN opinion (which is vociferously biased against Israel) makes you partial. You side where the power is, which is why you keep repeating that nauseating mantra "international law"



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


For all your large talk, your position on this subject could possibly mark you as a mental midget.

You support the sustaining of a state that CANNOT exist without killing its neighbors in regular intervals. You simply cannot make a case for Israel, and that was apparent in all of your posts.

I do not care which Zionist literature you may own of course. That really just tells the rest of us you have a lessened ability to resist Zionist rhetoric, and that is becoming more and more common..... SAD


Alas dontreally.....WHY CANT YOU WAKE THE F*** UP!!!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I assure you, you are in no sense logical: You justifications are always the same.
a) Historical connections to Israel
b) The Palestinians aren't a nation
c) Arabs are evil
d) Security, yet I won't define to you what security entails
e) Everyone who dosen't live in Israel want to destroy it
f) Oh look at those fat greedy Arabs
g) International Law is stupid unless it dosen't give Israel everything it wants




They already have their Palestinian state! If you havent noticed.

WHAT? Where? I haven't seen one. Are you that daft that you would say a Palestinian state exists.

Why are you discussing the Palestinian mandate as if it is bound by international law and as if that is the design around which final status talks should follow? The fact is that Israel has internationaly legal borders- the pre-June 1967 borders.




It was the ARABS who called for the Arabs living in Israel to leave. Do you get that? No Arabs were kicked out by Israel. Arab leaders suggested that Arabs living in the Westbank, Galilee, and the interior of Israel leave so as not to get killed during their offensive.

Yep, so how is that the Arabs fault? Protecting civillians which Israel would not take back.




Are you aware that Jordan took in foreign workers from syria and elsewhere - to develop the land - after 1947 when they became a state? Instead of making use of the Palestinians who lived nextdoor, which of course official arab league policy requires them to languish in refugee camps to generate sympathy for the arabs/palestinians.

It is obvious you know little about imigration. Are you aware that there is a difference between skilled and unskilled migrants? I live in Australia and people act as if refugees come here and take our jobs. This is complete BS, infact 70% of imigrants are skilled migrants with most coming from England, China, Germany and New Zealand. Economically a country cannot take in large portions of refugees who have few special skills.




Israel took in 700,000 refugees from Arab countries between 1948 and 1970.

Israel also took in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel also had a far stronger economy during this period although they also suffered from it. Remember the high inflation and unemployment under the Begin government. Currently Israel has a strong economy thanks to the post 9/11 world- as there economy is high tech based they export large quantities of high tech, anti terrorism equopment, intelligence services and so forth. Jordans economy is reasonable today but in terms of infastructure they cannot take in thousands of Palestinian refugees. There are already Iraqi's coming in illegaly which they are struggling to handle.

So no: Economically, thus politically it would be stupid for Jordan to absorb large numbers of Palestinian refugees over a period of less than say 100 years.




Whether right or wrong, you will scower for logical/rational proofs to justify your position. It doesnt matter that the Jews have been dealt a miniscule state;

Miniscule state? What do you want all the land from the Nile the the Eupharates and hey Libya can just absorb all those Arabs. Look at all that desert which they aren't using. Israel has been dealt a state, under international law, it has the right of sovereignty of everything within the pre-June 1967 borders.

There is a reason why the Jews weren't given Eretz Israel: There was only a small number of them wanting to live in Israel (around 1/3), and giving them control of anything more than the pre-June 1967 borders would mean either a) It would no longer be a Jewish state or b) It would have to be an authoritarian military dicatatorship towards the Arabs. Now imagine your vision of Eretz Israel: Giving Israel everything from the Nile to the Eupharates. Giving a Jewish minority control over an Arab majority. Do you really want your state to resemble Bahrain. In such a case there would be a few options: a) Create a bi-national state with a majority Arab representation, b) Create a military dictatorship or c) Kill a bunch of Arabs and expel some more.




and the final stage in the "strategy of stages in Israels destruction" takes effect, you'll be supporting them again. Because you do not respect truth, or justice.

Nope, I will be condeming the Arabs. Is this what you are going to base your argument on now? Assumptions?




In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese

So, in other words, because they are all brown people the Palestinians don't deserve a state?

You discuss security and rocket attacks: Firstly those rockets are hardly accurate weapons and for you to say they can wipe out the entire nation of Israel with them just shows how much you exagarate the situation
Secoundly when discussing security lets actually discuss security: The fact is that Israeli military officers told Benyamin Netanyahu when he was first elected in 1996 that the West Bank is not necassary for Israel security other than a few strategic areas close the international border. Infact they told him holding the West Bank poses a security risk for Israel. So if you want to discuss security actually rationalize your argument instead of exagarating small truths and making up random BS.

Yes I am the logical one: I believe we are at a historic crossroad where Israel has established its military superiority and its now the regional power. It has an estimated 300 nukes and the strongest and most decisive military in the Middle East. It has and can continue to humilate Arab armys in conventional warfare at will. Israel has established the Iron Wall. It must now establish peace with the Palestinians and accept that a Palestinian state next to the Jewish state is the only solution to finding a just and lasting peace. The world is changing and it has changed since 1948. It is time Israel changes with it.
edit on 2-7-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
This subject needs to get more attention




top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join