Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Renegade Jewish Settlers

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Jewish settlers in Palestine: the most notorious squatters in the world.


This is a great 5 part documentary hosted by Simon Ostrovsky about the extremist Israeli settlers and there illegal encampments and how Israel is secretly giving support and security to these illegal settlements, and gives a great insight into whats really taking place on the ground in Israel and palestine.


Israeli settlers have been slowly nibbling away at Palestine's West Bank territory for four decades.
300,000 settlers now occupy outposts that range in size from plywood shacks to full-blown suburban housing complexes. Their abundance has grounded the much-ballyhooed two-state solution to a halt.

Correspondent Simon Ostrovsky travels from Tel Aviv to the remote West Bank outposts where young Israelis squat for the sake of their heritage.

But first, Simon pops in for some quick counter-terrorism training with a member of Israel's Special Forces, just in case.



In part two you see how the jewish settlers steal the land from palestinians, by turning up with soldiers and claiming it's a archaeological dig without even asking the palestinian land owner, and then commence building new settlements.

Israeli settlers justify their expansion into the West Bank by digging up ancient artifacts that supposedly prove that they've occupied that patch of land for longer than the Palestinians.

The twist is that the settlers have the Palestinians do the actual digging under the "supervision" of the Israeli army.
Simon stumbles upon one of these infamous archaeological digs and finds that the Israelis are less than eager for their operation to be caught on camera.




In part 3 you meet some of the young extreme Israeli settlers building camps inside Palestinian land. In what we would call blatant land grabbing, these young settlers call it reclaiming land promise by god.

Meet Simcha and Yosef, a pair of teenage settlers at the Havat Gilad outpost in the West Bank doing what Israeli settlers do best: building and re-building houses without a permit.



In part 4, we get a look at the west bank land day protests at the Kalandia checkpoint were Palestinians protest over the shrinking of its land by Israel,

Simon gets mixed up in the West Bank Land Day protests, where Palestinians annually clash with the Israeli army.



In part 5 we travel to Asira al-Qibliya, a Palestinian town that is learning how to defend itself against attacks from the Israeli settlers one hill away, were Palestinians say the IDF does nothing about it, and shows video evidence of these attacks by Israeli settlers and are attacked by the IDF if they retaliate.



So in conclusion, you will see that infact the Israeli's settlers are the aggressors in this conflict, and Palestinians face a permanent regime of occupation and oppression from Israel.
edit on 6-11-2012 by TheMaverick because: Grammar Mistake




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Ok, first of all, Judea and Samaria, aka west bank, is of course an ancient Jewish area. It's a fact of history. No single area of Palestine is more historically Jewish than Judea, i.e. the eastern Jerusalem area and it's suburbs.

That's a basic fact of archeology. Pretty much indisputable.

So if your argument is gonna rest on an attack on the 'supposed' Jewish historicity of Judea, you are on very unstable ground.

Other than that, this is a tricky area indeed.

I'm rather disgusted however with the comparisons between the gun wielding settlers - who carry guns for self defense - with the terrorists in Gaza who indoctrinate their children into the most irrational and virulent anti-semitic propaganda.

They are two very different types of people.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Now as much as i agree with you that Iran are a problem that needs fixing, i cannot accept the blatant land grabbing taking place in palestine, and we had this dispute many times, and i doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this subject.

But with the lastest news of Israel advances plans for 1,213 new West Bank settlement homes, i feel it's a good time to remind people of whats really taking place, that the western media refuse's to pick up on.

You also missed the point or avoided what happens once these supposed innocent archaeological digs take place.

Even the Israeli government think these extreme zionist settlers are crossing the line, it's pretty hard to defend these actions.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



I'm rather disgusted however with the comparisons between the gun wielding settlers - who carry guns for self defense - with the terrorists in Gaza who indoctrinate their children into the most irrational and virulent anti-semitic propaganda.


If you were to take over someones farm and keep the original owners locked up in a barn.... and then when they start lashing out at you and your family, are you going to claim its your right to carry a gun in self defense?
And what about the rights of the original people who owned the farm?



edit on 6-11-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Ok, first of all, Judea and Samaria, aka west bank, is of course an ancient Jewish area. It's a fact of history. No single area of Palestine is more historically Jewish than Judea, i.e. the eastern Jerusalem area and it's suburbs.

That's a basic fact of archeology. Pretty much indisputable.


Out of curiosity, If what's left of the Native American tribes in America began taking their land back; how would you feel?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 





Out of curiosity, If what's left of the Native American tribes in America began taking their land back; how would you feel?


How would you feel? Why does your sense of justice have a time limit?

All I'm saying is, those Jews are mostly religious. They are not nearly as radical as the terrorists in Gaza and the west bank (like Al quds brigade) who try to kill innocent civilians.

Do they use force? Are they nice? I wouldn't be surprised. They have a lot of anger for the Arabs. In their minds, Palestinians are a made-up idea. They are Arabs. And Arabs control 98% of the middle East/North Africa. The original palestinian mandate provided a homeland for the Arabs of Palestine in Jordan. Now these Arabs want the 'westbank' too?? It's frustrating for them. They feel they're being conned into accepting smaller and smaller plots of land.

If there is one, unrecognized injustice, it is the exodus of 800,000 sephardic Jews from Arab lands between 1948 and 1967. 50 billion dollars worth of property were pilfered from them by Arab governments. At that time, Jews were clamoring for retribution. For a people exchange similar to what went on between the Greek/Turkish cypriots or the muslims/Hindus of Pakistan and India. But nothing has happened. These Jews have still go unrecompensed. And nobody cares or even knows! Think of the outrage of that.

Arabs are not the only peoples of the middle east/north africa. They are not entitled to every piece of land. Jews - sephardic Jews, in particular (since they are indigenous to the region), Kurds, Berbs, have been slighted far worse and far longer than anything that has been done to the Palestinian Arabs. But, unfortunately, oil politics manages to wield a great deal of political authority. Hence, your viewpoints.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


An excellent job of avoiding the question; but from the sounds of it, it seems you would not mind if those that "archeologically" "owned" this land began taking it back.
edit on 11/7/2012 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Do they use force? Are they nice? I wouldn't be surprised. They have a lot of anger for the Arabs. In their minds, Palestinians are a made-up idea. They are Arabs. And Arabs control 98% of the middle East/North Africa.


Doesn't matter how much land is controlled by Arabs in the middle east.

Just because your people control 100% of the land in your home town..... doesn't mean your people are somehow obliged to give up 1% of the land to Arabs to establish a little UN backed Islamic state..... complete with its own flag and army.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


I didn't avoid the question. I reframed it. The premise you work from is myopic and limited in scope.

The real issue is, why are Arabs - which is what the Palestinians are - entitled to so large a portion of middle east/north african lands? They already occupy 98% of it. They have 22 states. Yet we hear such a loud clamor (mainly due to the oil power of the Arab league) against the Israelis/Jews.

As the situation currently stands, I would actually prefer a one state solution. Give Arabs full citizenship (as Arabs in Israel have), and let them have a say in the direction of the country. The 2 state solution is a gambit of the Arabs and all political scientists who would like to maintain the existence of a Jewish state knows it. You give them one inch, and they'll take two! is the philosophy they have. Every time Israel capitulates, they ask for more. Example: Israel leaves Gaza, and Hamas comes in and begins shooting rockets from Gaza. Who's to say something similar wouldn't happen in the west bank?

Thus, the only democratic solution is full citizenship in a one state. And before you start throwing libels about 'apartheid', notice that Arabs have full democrat rights: they can vote (Unlike the blacks in south africa), they have mks (unlike the blacks in south africa), their language is a co-official language of the country (with Hebrew). Of course, Israel should do a better job subsidizing Arab interests, but that will come when the political mechanisms are in place.

That is the only just solution to this problem.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





Doesn't matter how much land is controlled by Arabs in the middle east.


Sure it does. Arabs aren't the only residents there. But up till now, no other people have been granted a nation state of their own. Only the Arabs. The Kurds, Berbs, don't have one, although their both fighting for one, and the Jews are being demonized for having one.

As mentioned before, when two peoples live in the same general region, a solution must be found to accommodate both peoples. This was done with India; the Hindus were given India, while the Muslims were given Pakistan. Hindus living in Pakistan were transferred to India, while a few million Muslims living in India were transferred to Pakistan.

You seem to be suggesting that all peoples living under Arabs have no choice but to live under Arabs. That they aren't entitled to the same measures which the UN took in creating Muslim Pakistan.

The Arabs have an incredibly imperious attitude. And this is mostly a trait derived from the arrogant tone of Islamic jurisprudence with regard to 'dhimmis'.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by eNumbra
 

The premise you work from is myopic and limited in scope.

Hardly, your argument that Arabs have 22 states and your dismissal of how the Jewish settlers are obtaining some land is little different that the notion that Americans have 50 states after long ago kicking the natives off what they first occupied.

The notion that you even think this is my argument for or against these settlers is hilarious as the real problem exists in the notions of borders and states and the fact that we still argue over which imaginary friend can beat up the other.

Regardless of that fact, Israel was set up(legally or no) with borders and they have been expanding ever since.

We don't live in the 1600's any more. This isn't the colonial era. If you're going to invade occupied lands, you can't get all uppity when the current residents get angry; and whatever claim you may have had in the past, regardless of source or age of the claim was made null and void when the world began to find it uncouth to invade one another. With the one obvious exception of trying to force a Jewish state into an area where everyone should have known it wouldn't go over well.


It's 2012 and we're still fighting over magic relics and sand.

We call this civilization.
edit on 11/7/2012 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 





Hardly, your argument that Arabs have 22 states and your dismissal of how the Jewish settlers are obtaining some land is little different that the notion that Americans have 50 states after long ago kicking the natives off what they first occupied.


My argument can be made without mentioning Ashkenazi Jews. Sephardic Jews are 3.5 million large. They are indigenous to North Africa, Iraq, Palestine, Yemen.




Regardless of that fact, Israel was set up(legally or no) with borders and they have been expanding ever since.


Expanding ever since?? I'd hate to go into it again, but read this

Attacking someone who then defends themselves and conquers your lands in a defensive battle is not synonymous with the idea of 'aggressive expansion'. It is incidental. In fact, it only happens because the other party in question refuses to accept your existence. And you only hold those lands because if you were to leave them, one, the other party learns nothing, and is given a fresh round to attack you again; and two, because these lands add to your defense.

I find it hilarious that you don't seem to see a continuity in the arrogance of Islamic expansionism with the arrogance of Arab hegemony.




We don't live in the 1600's any more. This isn't the colonial era. If you're going to invade occupied lands, you can't get all uppity when the current residents get angry; and whatever claim you may have had in the past, regardless of source or age of the claim was made null and void when the world began to find it uncouth to invade one another. With the one obvious exception of trying to force a Jewish state into an area where everyone should have known it wouldn't go over well.


Ah, so the old and long standing double standard. Jews should be expected to be civil and not 'invade' other countries. But Arabs can be excused for their incivility in not accepting the presence of a Jewish state in their historical and spiritual homeland.

And you wonder why we have a conflict.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Ah, so the old and long standing double standard. Jews should be expected to be civil and not 'invade' other countries. But Arabs can be excused for their incivility in not accepting the presence of a Jewish state in their historical and spiritual homeland.

And you wonder why we have a conflict.


We have conflict because everyone refuses to grow up. Everyone has been wronged at some point in history and we're at the point where everyone has some ability to stand on historical injustices and until someone just accepts that history is just that, we will ever be faced with more injustices and double-standards on generations far removed from the perpetrators.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 




As mentioned before, when two peoples live in the same general region, a solution must be found to accommodate both peoples.

It doesn't have to be a foreign power that needs to come up with the "solution".


This was done with India; the Hindus were given India, while the Muslims were given Pakistan.

Hindus were "given" India?
Ummm.... the Hindus have always had that geographical region we know as India for thousands of years.
India has always been the land of hindu culture.


You seem to be suggesting that all peoples living under Arabs have no choice but to live under Arabs. That they aren't entitled to the same measures which the UN took in creating Muslim Pakistan.


I am only suggesting what I had mentioned in my previous post....

Just because your people control 100% of the land in your home town..... doesn't mean your people are somehow obliged to give up 1% of the land to Arabs to establish a little UN backed Islamic state..... complete with its own flag and army.

Unless you are 100% ok with the UN carving out a muslim state in your hometown.... don't argue for a jewish state in a muslim neighbourhood.


edit on 7-11-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





Hindus were "given" India? Ummm.... the Hindus have always had that geographical region we know as India for thousands of years. India has always been the land of hindu culture.


You took that statement far too literally.



Unless you are 100% ok with the UN carving out a muslim state in your hometown.... don't argue for a jewish state in a muslim neighbourhood.


Oh, ok. So no Jewish state period then, not even for the 3.5 million sephardic Jews. And even though these Jews are indigenous to the region, and everywhere they are 'dhimmis' subject to discriminatory practices, still, they cannot call any place home. They're just an unfortunate brood who happened to be born in the Muslim world. And the Muslims want it their way, or no way.

And since you're opposed to international arbitration, I guess you'll shut your mouth if Israel ever decides to annex the westbank/gaza and grant the Arabs living their full democratic citizenship.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I like you to answer a couple of question i have, firstly do you think the blatant illegal land grabbing by these young Israeli zionist in the name of god is just ?

And secondly do you think it's right that Israeli settlers can make claims of possible archaeological sites mostly based in Palestinians farms and get the support and security of the IDF, without the land owners permission, and then start building settlements a week later on the supposed archaeological sites with armed security?

And finally do you believe Netanyahu really supports a 2 state system, as i know you don't.

See, now being a Englishmen, in our culture our home is our castle, and this kind of behaviour only results in violence in my country, and this is why we have strict land laws in the UK, we have many murders in the UK over neighbours stealing just inches of land from one another.

This is why most of the UK and europe find it hard to sympathize when this behaviour takes place in Israel.

PS, keep religion out of it and lets talk common sense on basic human morals.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





So if your argument is gonna rest on an attack on the 'supposed' Jewish historicity of Judea, you are on very unstable ground.


My Argument ?
Look if everybody had the right to go back 1000's of years to were there ancestors lived, can you imagine the type of world we would be living in.

End of the day, the base of the matter is the zionists believe they have a right to land jews lived on over 1700 years ago who were not actually zionists, and in turn you evict and expel people who were born in this land and confiscate there property because you believe it's god will, do you know how crazy this sounds to the rest of us non zionists.

Israel already has a massive underground prison that people go to and are never seen again.

You know that old saying "The abused adventurally become the abuser"



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Long ago the Indo-Europeans (or Aryans as they are sometimes known) lived in Southern Russia. Therefore, by Zionist logic (?) am I entitled to run modern southern Russians off their land and "reclaim" it for myself?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

. . . Judea and Samaria, aka west bank . . .
Also known by those names by people who are living in some hypothetical world long dead if it ever existed in the first place.
There is no proof that David and Solomon are anything other than fictional characters.
There were Judea and Samaria provinces as part of the Persian, and Greek, and then Roman rules.
There were always mixtures of different ethnicities in these areas, ad that is true even according to the old testament stories. They never were successful at creating a purely Israelite country.
How does the logic work that says because there were people who existed in Palestine two or three thousand years ago, who were what some people today mistakenly call "Jews", that everything that happened from this very day, and back to the last fifteen hundred years, means nothing?
The answer is, that it isn't logical and is a sort of indoctrination everyone is forced to undergo when accessing the mainstream media, for example because it is controlled by the very same people who turn a blind eye to these atrocities perpetuated against other human beings, for what? To have an exclusive club for one ethnicity over everyone else? That is not "American" and more than that, it is illegal by international law, and immoral by an normal standard of morality.
edit on 7-11-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19





new topics




 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join