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 logical fallacy on your part is that you are equating being critical of the Israeli government policies and clearly seeing how destructive and damaging they are for the Palestinian and the Israeli population, with being supportive of Hamas or radical Islam.
In the last decades the Palestinians have suffered the most in this conflict and this has started long before Hamas seized control of Gaza. You are constantly trying to justify any actions of the Israeli government as a means of self defense.
It is either the Palestinians own fault and they should suffer for electing the Islamists or it is a simple necessity for Israels' self-preservation.
WikiLeaks: Israel aimed to keep Gaza economy on brink of collapse
They are "equal" in that they are denying a large portion of their societies the right to live as they choose.
Originally posted by MDDoxs
You use the terms Arab, palestinian, Muslim, Islamist And hamas interchangeably....
You do know there are Arab Christians.
This whole post smells of discrimination.edit on 19-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
Rabbi Shaul Brach of Kashoa once said:
"Before thinking up the idea of Zionism, Herzl wanted all Jews to convert to Christianity. When he was laughed at, he developed the second idea which was able to have more effect, since thousands of Jews began to believe they could be Jews without the Torah of Judaism."
"I am also surprised at the leaders of the Agudah who want thousands of Jews to move to Eretz Israel.
How can they ignore the welfare of their children, since there is no other place on earth where there is so much heresy and sectarianism as in the Holy Land in our day."
The Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Israel Meir Hakohen once said:
"In my opinion it is clear that the Zionists are from the offspring of AMALEK."
Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman once said:
"It is certain as the sun shines that the Land will vomit the Zionists out, because the Land is the Palace of the King....I don't say this either to curse or to bless, but because these are things which are written in the Torah and which will take place."
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MDDoxs
I'm honestly asking. Will you please, for those of us who are learning, point out which of his statements are false?
Would you also offer facts which are necessary for understanding the historical situation?
You Sir are spot on. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are prime examples of Arab Christian diversity.
Well, Islam doesn't have an issue with Jews to start with. Remember, roughly 15-20,000 Jews live in Iran, they are not persecuted, live normal lives and truthfully love their home. From what I remember, they were also offered around $10,000 to move to Israel which most declined. Do those Jews count?
The Jews were 'wanderers' not of their free will, but due to religious persecution by the dominant population - whether Christians or Muslims.
Hamas' ideology is an impasse for liberals. Do you have a problem with it? Its either their way or our way - neither can coexist when the latter - the Islamists - refuse to tolerate difference.
The first premise of your statement is that there is something wrong with Israels policies with regard to the Palestinians.
No, you guys are running around without offering a solution - aside of course from siding with Islamists against Israel.
First, any approach to this subject has to be based on characterological features of the party in question, which can be had by analyzing their ideology and their history.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole".
Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability".
The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags".
Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened.
According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate.
The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
source
The Dahiya doctrine is a military strategy put forth by the Israeli general Gadi Eizenkot that pertains to asymmetric warfare in an urban setting, in which the army deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, as a means of inducing suffering for the civilian population, thereby establishing deterrence.
...
The doctrine is defined in a 2009 report by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel as follows: "The military approach expressed in the Dahiye Doctrine deals with asymmetrical combat against an enemy that is not a regular army and is embedded within civilian population; its objective is to avoid a protracted guerilla war. According to this approach Israel has to employ tremendous force disproportionate to the magnitude of the enemy’s actions." The report further argues that the doctrine was fully implemented during Operation Cast Lead
Richard Falk wrote that under the doctrine, "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, which is not only an overt violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war and of universal morality, but an avowal of a doctrine of violence that needs to be called by its proper name: state terrorism."
source
273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
source
So whats the history of the Palestinians and the Israelis? We have to go far back, back to the decades of the late 19th century, in order to get at the root of how Zionism came to be.
Herzl’s strategy, which he was not to live to see fulfilled, was to appeal to the statesmen and rulers of Europe for an imperial alliance with the fledgling Zionist movement. In the course of his travels, he met with the German emperor, tsarist ministers counts Witte and von Plehve, the Ottoman sultan, Lord Cromer, Joseph Chamberlain, King Victor Emmanuel and even the pope! His message was always the same – help the Zionist movement and you are helping the Jewish opponents of socialism and revolution.
It is not surprising that the main supporters of political Zionism, which began towards the end of the 19th century, were in fact the anti-semites. And the most vociferous and bitter of Zionism’s opponents were, and remain, Jewish. When Theodore Herzl wanted to hold the first Zionist Congress in Munich in 1897, he was forced to move it from Germany to Basle in Switzerland because of the opposition of the local Jewish community.
On 4 June, a Zionist student, Pincus Dashewski, tried to assassinate Krushevan, and Plehve decided to crack down on the movement. Herzl rushed to restore the status quo ante, journeying to St Petersburg to see Plehve on 8 and 13 August. The events are known from Herzl’s Diary. The Russians were concerned about the effect of Kishinev on Western opinion and he prepared a memo for the minister. If the Russians would intervene with the Turks on behalf of Zionism, and subsidize Jewish emigration, the announcement could be made at “Our Congress, which will meet at Basel from the 10th to the 23rd of August ... This would, at the same time, put an end to certain agitation.” Von Plehve explained his concern about the new directions he saw Zionism taking:[
"Lately the situation has grown even worse because the Jews have been joining the revolutionary parties. We used lobe sympathetic to your Zionist movement, as long as it worked toward emigration. You don’t have to justify the movement to me. Vous prêchez à un converti [You are preaching to a convert]. But ever since the Minsk conference we have noticed us changement des gros bonnets [a change of bigwigs]. There is less talk now of Palestinian Zionism than there is about culture, organization, and Jewish nationalism. This doesn’t suit us. We have noticed in particular that your leaders in Russia ... do not really obey your Vienna Committee."
The climax of Herzl’s search for anti-semitic allies came with his visit in August 1903 to the tsar’s interior minister, von Plehve, who had organised the pogroms at Kishinev barely four months previously. As Herzl was explaining Zionism, Plehve interrupted him: “You don’t have to justify the movement to me. Vous prêchez un converti” (You are preaching to a convert).
Herzl’s meeting with the Tsarists was not well received by the Jewish people. The left wing enemies of Zionism simply saw him as a traitor, but even in the WZO opinion was against the venture from the outset and at the Basel Congress it was agreed not to discuss the whole affair. Only one delegate rose in defence of their leader’s meeting with the butcher of Kishinev: Jabotinsky. He argued that it was vital to separate tactics and ethics and also defended Herzl’s line that there was no room in the movement for a socialist faction. Pandemonium broke loose and Herzl had to rush onto the stage to get him away from the podium.
Zhitlovsky, in 1915, said of Herzl:
[He] was, in general, too “loyal” to the ruling authorities – as is proper for a diplomat who has to deal with the powers that be – for him ever to be interested in revolutionists and involve them in his calculations... He made the journey, of course, not in order to intercede for the people of Israel and to awaken compassion for us in Plehve’s heart. He travelled as a politician who does not concern himself with sentiments, but interests ... Herzl’s “politics” is built on pure diplomacy, which seriously believes that the political history of humanity is made by a few people, a few leaders, and that what they arrange aamong themselves becomes the content of political history.
Born amidst a wave of defeats for the Jews, not only in backward Russia, but in the very centres of industrial Europe, modern Zionism's pretensions were the noblest conceivable: the redemption of the downtrodden Jewish people in their own land.
But from the very beginning the movement represented the conviction of a portion of the Jewish middle class that the future belonged to the Jew-haters, that anti-Semitism was inevitable, and natural. Firmly convinced that anti-Semitism could not be beaten, the new World Zionist Organisation never fought it.
Accommodation to anti-Semitism - and pragmatic utilisation of it for the purpose of obtaining a Jewish state - became the central stratagems of the movement, and it remained loyal to its earliest conceptions down to and through the Holocaust. In June l895, in his very first entry in his new Zionist Diary, Herzl laid down this fixed axiom of Zionism:
In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to "combat" anti-Semitism.
His universal pessimism caused him to misjudge totally the political environment of late-nineteenth-century Western Europe. In particular, Herzl misunderstood the Dreyfus case. The secrecy of the trial, and Dreyfus's soldierly insistence on his innocence, convinced many that an injustice was done.
The case aroused a huge surge of Gentile support. Kings discussed it and feared for the sanity of France; Jews in remote hamlets in the Pripet Marches prayed for Emile Zola. The intellectuals of France rallied to Dreyfus's side. The socialist movement brought over the working people. The right wing of French society was discredited, the army stained, the Church disestablished.
Anti-Semitism in France was driven into isolation lasting until Hitler's conquest. Yet Herzl, the most famous journalist in Vienna, did nothing to mobilise even one demonstration on behalf of Dreyfus. When he discussed the matter, it was always as a horrible example and never as a rallying cause. In 1899 the outcry compelled a retrial. A court martial affirmed the captain's guilt, 5 to 2, but found extenuating circumstances and reduced his sentence to ten years. But Herzl saw only defeat and depreciated the significance of the vast Gentile sympathy for the Jewish victim.
The French government understood realities better than Herzl and acted to head off further agitation by reducing the balance of the sentence. Given the success of the struggle for Dreyfus, French Jewry - right and left - saw Zionism as irrelevant. Herzl savaged them in his Diary:
"They seek protection from the Socialists and the destroyers of the present civil order ... Truly they are not Jews any more. To be sure, they are no Frenchmen either. They will probably become the leaders of European anarchism."
The founders of the Zionism movement at the turn of the 20th century argued that the Jewish "question" in Europe could only be solved by the Jewwish people leaving the continent and creating a homeland in Palestine.
It would be the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930's and the Holocaust that would see the Bund destroyed as a political movement and its place as a representative of the Jewish people of Eastern and Central Europe taken by the Zionists.
It is clear that there is much evdience that the Zionists took this opportunity not to help the Jewish people as they were being slowly led to the death camps, or alert the world about the plans of the Nazis, but to collaborate with them and use their position to save their own, and not the bulk of Jewry who being exterminated towards the end of the war.
During the Second World War, the main non-Zionist organization in Europe was the Socialist Bund. Although equipped with few resources, it did the most to publicize the Holocaust and seek support for Jewish resistance in Europe.
On the other hand, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was an international organization with a large intelligence network. Specifically, it was the only Jewish international organization which had liaison offices inside Nazi Europe. It had direct organizational links with Zionist groups throughout Europe and direct access to and political influence with the Allied powers.
It was also involved in arms smuggling and financial operations, but this vast apparatus, which then had illegal armed forces in Palestine, was not used to publicize the Holocaust or support beleaguered ghetto fighters or aiding rescue activities. It was accused of covering up the crimes of the Nazi regime until the Allied powers decided to publicize it, not assisting Jewish resistance groups, and not making attempt to rescue the bulk of European Jewry.
One advocate of not helping the Jews of Europe was the Zionist leader Yitzhak Greenbaum, whose son was described in Nazi-Zionist Collaboration once as a "exceptionally notorious" Kapo (Jewish policeman) at Auschwitz.
Greenbaum , was the head of the Rescue Committee for European Jewry, and later became a cabinet minister in Israel's first Government in 1948.
In a speech given in Palestine in 1943, he indicated that buying land from the Arab population of Palestine was more important than rescuing Jews in Europe, and, as he admitted after the war, he had even called for less to be said about the extermination of the Jews, so as not to distract attention from buying land in Palestine. It is a shocking indictment of Zionism and its wartime leaders.
The Zionist policy during the Holocaust is best summed up in the words of Greenbaum speaking on 'The Diaspora and the Redemption' at a Tel Aviv meeting in Palestine during February 1943:
For the rescue of the Jews in the Diaspora, we should consolidate our excess strength and the surplus of powers that we have. When they come to us with two plans - the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land - I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land.
The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraization of the land. If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the 'Keren Hayesod' (United Jewish Appeal) to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No! And once again No!"
As Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, in his book The Holocaust Victims Accuse (1977) commented:
The rescue committee of the Jewish Agency falsely bore the name 'rescue'. It would be more appropriate to call it the Committee for Covering Up, Ignoring and Silencing . . . the thoughts of Zionist officials and especially the chairman, Greenbaum, were steeped in plots and schemes to use the holocaust and its consequences to build up the national home and to realize the demands for establishing a Jewish State.
Originally posted by DarknStormy
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MDDoxs
I'm honestly asking. Will you please, for those of us who are learning, point out which of his statements are false?
Would you also offer facts which are necessary for understanding the historical situation?
Well, Islam doesn't have an issue with Jews to start with. Remember, roughly 15-20,000 Jews live in Iran, they are not persecuted, live normal lives and truthfully love their home. From what I remember, they were also offered around $10,000 to move to Israel which most declined. Do those Jews count?