Israel at it again!

wes

ionix5891 wrote: »

ISRAEL RAIL

we still waiting on an answer to my simple question

Other posters have already provided information that contradict Irish Rail's claims about colonial expansion. So I taught, what the hell, I will add another that does exactly the same:

From Haaretz:
Peace Now: 'Natural growth' - Israel's trick for West Bank expansion


By Akiva Eldar

Figures released recently by the Central Bureau of Statistics cast doubt on government officials' claims of housing shortages for young couples living in West Bank settlements - the central argument Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to present to U.S. President Barack Obama against freezing settlement construction.

Figures for 2006-07 reveal that the housing shortage in settlements stems largely from "migration" from Israel proper to communities beyond the Green Line, as well as the addition of new immigrants from abroad.

The data show that in 2007, natural growth accounted for 63 percent of settlement population growth, whereas internal migration accounted for 37 percent. The previous year, they show an addition of roughly 5,600 residents (which accounted for those who arrived minus those who had left) across West Bank settlements. For every 10 residents leaving settlements that year, 15 others arrived.

President Shimon Peres told Obama in their meeting earlier this month that "It is unacceptable that children born in Judea and Samaria will not have a place to live. We can't put them on the roofs." Similar remarks were made to U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell when he headed the fact-finding commission examining the causes for the outburst of the Second Intifada. In the report he submitted to then-president George W. Bush in 2001, Mitchell rejected Jerusalem's assertion that Jewish construction in the West Bank was aimed merely at housing natural population growth.

Click here for full article

I think the above, and the links posted by myself and other posters, pretty much show the Irish Rail's claims are simple untrue. Especially as the above article's figures take into account people who leave colonies, into the overall figures.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

Judea and Samaria? Well that an interesting way to refer to the West Bank

They're two areas within the West Bank (Judea stretches actually stretches across Israel and West Bank) :rolleyes:

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

Oh, it most certainly is simple. Please explain to me what right a group of Europeans had to set up a state against the will of the indigenous population of Palestine? I see no real difference between Zionists and other European colonists, who tried to colonize Africa and other place. Could you explain the difference? Also, perhaps your the one who needs to read the other sides story as well btw. I have read up on Zionism and what its founder and various adherents have said and I am to put it simply rather unimpressed. My opinion on Zionism is pretty much based on what Zionists have said and done and I see no difference between it and other ethnic-nationalist ideologies, for example I see no difference between Zionism and the Nation of Islam. They are both of the same ilk of racists imho

Not all Israelis are Zionists, fella. Again, I suggest you broaden your reading material.

wes wrote: »

Again, here is are some simple questions. What right do a group of Europeans, with an absurd claim on some land in the Middle East, have to expel the indigenous population and set up there own state? Also, wouldn't such an action cause conflict?

Have a look through the long list of UN resolutions which get quoted by your ilk and tell me what 181 entails. Why should this resolution remain ignored?
Where else would you suggest Jews treated like dirt by Europeans over the centuries, in particular the latter part of the 19th and first part of the 20th should have effed off to? What about Jews from the former Soviet countries?
None this of course excuses expansion of the settlements for example but your insistance on saying there is one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is typically one-eyed.

wes wrote: »

Also, the I/P conflict, does not being with the most recent colonies. Its started a long time ago.

I know. Thats what I've been telling you.

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

They're two areas within the West Bank (Judea stretches actually stretches across Israel and West Bank) :rolleyes:

I am well aware of that and I also am aware thats what Zionists refer to the West Bank as. Basically, they refer to it that way to suggest that the land is not the Palestinian and is the rightful property of Israel, based on some stuff that happened a 1000 years ago. Of course. the simple fact is that locals changed the name of the place over time.

Its all a part of Israel attempt to pretend the Palestinian don't exist and hence referring to the area, by a name it was called a 1000 years ago.

Serenity Now!

wes wrote: »

I am well aware of that and I also am aware thats what Zionists refer to the West Bank as. Basically, they refer to it that way to suggest that the land is not the Palestinian and is the rightful property of Israel, based on some stuff that happened a 1000 years ago. Of course. the simple fact is that locals changed the name of the place over time

Oh ffs.
He was referring to the two areas in the West Bank where settlements are continuing to spread. Read into it what you will though (you always seem to do this anyway).
It wasn't even under Palestinian control but occupied by outsiders before Nasser rallied the other Arab neighbours to attack Israel in 1967, much like Gaza, the Golanim and Jerusalem.

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Not all Israelis are Zionists, fella. Again, I suggest you broaden your reading material.

Of course there not. I never said they all were.

Still, the ideology of the majority of Israel's political parties is Zionism. It is the main steam of Israeli' politics and the ideology on which the state was founded, which is what I was referring to specifically.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Have a look through the long list of UN resolutions which get quoted by your ilk and tell me what 181 entails. Why should this resolution remain ignored?
Where else would you suggest Jews treated like dirt by Europeans over the centuries, in particular the latter part of the 19th and first part of the 20th should have effed off to? What about Jews from the former Soviet countries?
None this of course excuses expansion of the settlements for example but your insistance on saying there is one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is typically one-eyed.

Nah, it ain't one eyed. Of course, I find it repugnant that Zionists are so keen to screw over the Palestinians on account of being persecuted by Europeans. Maybe, they ought to take it up with the people who, you know actually persecuted them? I am sorry for what was done to the Jews, they have suffered some of the worse crimes in history, but this does not change Zionist crimes against the Palestinians. Zionists did there best to expel the Palestinians, not just from there land, but from history, by bizarre denials of there very existence. I honestly don't understand the kind of hatred needed to try and ignore the existence of a group of people.

The simple fact is that, Zionists caused the conflict and Palestinians are the victims of the creation of Israel. Without Zionism, there would be no Hamas, no Fatah, they would have no reason to exist. You see the Palestinians had feck all to do with Jewish persecution in Europe and the fact that you seem to think that this persecution give Zionists the right to set up a state in Palestine is laughable. Why should the Palestinians pay for the crimes of Europe. The creation of Israel by western powers, is a typical example of Western racism from the time. They decided to punish some other people for European crimes.

Also, check all the UN resolutions, I think you will find they don't mention any allowances for ethnic cleansing by Zioinsts. They also mention something about a Palestinian right to return as well and something about a Palestinian state as well, which Zionists have done everything within there power to prevent from happening. I know the resolutions well enough, and I know the only part important to Israel and thats the bits that benefit them.

Also, I am of the opinion the UN, had no right to give away Palestinian land, which did not belong to them. The simple fact is that the natives exercised there right to reject there land being given away to foreign invaders and they did what every other people on the planet would have done.

Still, the UN resolutions (which I think both sides should respect regardless of the right and wrongs) has never been respected by Israel, so I think it a bit rich for you to bring it up. Israel could care less about the UN and has shown its contempt most recently by firing on UN buildings during the Gaza conflict.

You see its simple. Zionists wanted to create a country in the Middle East and expel the natives, as they (the natives) were the wrong race, now when any other group does this, its called colonialism. Now predictably enough the natives were against this and fought back. Hence, causing the conflict.

Now, the Zionists had all kind of excuses for there crimes, they wanted to commit against the indigenous populace, but I fail to see there relevance to there victims personally. If someone was about to stab me, them having a crap child hood means feck all to me, as I am more concerned with them trying to stab me.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I know. Thats what I've been telling you.

And that what I have been talking about....

wes

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Oh ffs.
He was referring to the two areas in the West Bank where settlements are continuing to spread. Read into it what you will though (you always seem to do this anyway).

Its a name used exclusively by Israel to describe the land there trying to colonize. The whole point of using that term is to put emphasis on the lands inherent Jewish character. You see words are very important and how people refer to things are also very telling. Referring to the West Bank by its ancient Biblical name is done with an express purpose and the purpose is to say that the land belongs to Israel.

Of course, you can ignore this all you want, but I sure as hell won't.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

It wasn't even under Palestinian control but occupied by outsiders before Nasser rallied the other Arab neighbours to attack Israel in 1967, much like Gaza, the Golanim and Jerusalem.

So? This doesn't change why that term is used.

paulaa

turgon wrote: »

Yeah well I hear about the 54 million people killed by Lenin+Stalin even less.

Given that the Holocaust is seen as so big a deal of Israel, because it was one of the motivators for the setting up of the state, its very easy to see why its so commemorated.

I assume you give out about Irish people mentioning the famine too.

Yes but isn't there a movement to have those people commemorated now too. It's facing all kinds of obstacles but at least they're trying.

I have no problem with the Holocaust being remembered, it should be so that it never happens again. The problem I have is that it is used too often to justify all kinds of atrocities committed in the name of the "State of Israel". Where is the "State of Israel" btw ? They refuse to define their borders so it will have to be done for them eventually.

What has the famine got to do with the Middle East ?

paulaa

truebluedub wrote: »

Point of information the people who make an issue of the famine and compare it to the holocaust are the same people who support the murder of 1,781 people during the troubles and the injury 6,000 members of the security forces and 14,000 civilians. (Lost Lives)

Wow you do have a vivid imagination lol

paulaa

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Paulaa I would suggest you do some reaserch on the pchr before quoting them as it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I have done thanks. What reading do you suggest I do, IR, the Jewish virtual library, the Elders of Zion blog ?
I read all sides, I wonder do you ?

paulaa

wes wrote: »

Oh, it most certainly is simple. Please explain to me what right a group of Europeans had to set up a state against the will of the indigenous population of Palestine? I see no real difference between Zionists and other European colonists, who tried to colonize Africa and other place. Could you explain the difference? Also, perhaps your the one who needs to read the other sides story as well btw. I have read up on Zionism and what its founder and various adherents have said and I am to put it simply rather unimpressed. My opinion on Zionism is pretty much based on what Zionists have said and done and I see no difference between it and other ethnic-nationalist ideologies, for example I see no difference between Zionism and the Nation of Islam. They are both of the same ilk of racists imho.

So far, you argument appears to be to claim I am wrong, as opposed to actually providing a counter argument. You seem completely unable to answer any of my questions and just insist that I am wrong.

Again, here is are some simple questions. What right do a group of Europeans, with an absurd claim on some land in the Middle East, have to expel the indigenous population and set up there own state? Also, wouldn't such an action cause conflict?

Also, the I/P conflict, does not being with the most recent colonies. Its started a long time ago.

Wes, Hertzel, father of the Zionist movement, didn't even look at Palestine at first when he was considering a homeland for the Jewish people. In the late 1800s he looked at Kenya, South America, the Phillipines and a few other places. Palestine was decided on because of it's proximity to Europe. It's only later that we get the "Biblical home of the "chosen people" for 2000 years" excuse.

It was absolutely ridiculous to plonk a people in the predominantly Arab Middle East ,who had nothing in common with and were never going to get on with their neighbours, particularly when they turned out to be the aggressive colonisers that we see today.

wes

paulaa wrote: »

Wes, Hertzel, father of the Zionist movement, didn't even look at Palestine at first when he was considering a homeland for the Jewish people. In the late 1800s he looked at Kenya, South America, the Phillipines and a few other places. Palestine was decided on because of it's proximity to Europe. It's only later that we get the "Biblical home of the "chosen people" for 2000 years" excuse.

Yeah, I know they considered other places, but they all had the same problem as well. I was mostly talking about when Zionists finally nailed things down and decided on Palestine, as the earlier stuff doesn't really matter to much anymore, other than to add some historical detail.

paulaa wrote: »

It was absolutely ridiculous to plonk a people in the predominantly Arab Middle East ,who had nothing in common with and were never going to get on with their neighbours, particularly when they turned out to be the aggressive colonisers that we see today.

Yeah, it was always a bad idea.

brianthebard

It was more Britain that decided on Palestine than the zionists wasn't it?

dresden8

brianthebard wrote: »

It was more Britain that decided on Palestine than the zionists wasn't it?

Your point being?

Is it important who decided that the Palestinians would pay for Europe's sins?

Either way, they got fncked up the ass.

Big time.

brianthebard

Why the attitude? My point was that even when the Zionist homeland was established, it was out of the Zionist movements hands where they would settle.

wes

brianthebard wrote: »

It was more Britain that decided on Palestine than the zionists wasn't it?

Well, thats a fair point. The British were instrumental in the creation of Israel, but would they done what they did without Zionists lobbying the UK for a Jewish homeland? Sure, both are 2 blame, but I think without Zionists lobbying for a Jewish state in mandate Palestine, the British wouldn't have had any reason to make the Balfour declaration.

dresden8

brianthebard wrote: »

Why the attitude? My point was that even when the Zionist homeland was established, it was out of the Zionist movements hands where they would settle.

So, it's the Brits fault the Palestinians have to pay for Europe's sins, instead of the Kenyan's or Madagascan's?

Wow, that makes it all worthwhile so.

dlofnep

Arthur Balfour wasn't British?

brianthebard

dresden8 wrote: »

So, it's the Brits fault the Palestinians have to pay for Europe's sins, instead of the Kenyan's or Madagascan's?

Wow, that makes it all worthwhile so.

:rolleyes: Yeah that's what I was saying.

InFront

People often dismiss discussion of the birth of "Israel" in Palestine as being pointless and worthless and retrograde. To a large extent, this is sadly true. It's pretty pointless to discuss the genesis as a roadmap to peace because the immigrant Jews are not leaving. While the Arab league and the Hamas and Fatah bicker and point out the terrible injustice that they have been subjected to (and this is undeniable), the Jews of Israel are building houses and planting gardens and having babies and establishing themselves firmly in the land of their plantation.

It is too late to turn things around and the Palestinians are literally losing ground.
The discourse on how this was allowed to happen is one that the Palestinians must deal with later when Palestine starts to reconcile itself with itself. Their current priority should be to stop the new houses going in, establish the machinery of state and open security dialogue with the Israelis.

I think the greatest barricade to peace on the part of the Palestinians is that they would not be forgiven such an admission of loss and apparent surrender, on behalf of the next generation nor internationally in the Muslim ummah. That's true.
There is also the fear an admission of where things stand would go unrecognised and maybe walked all over to further the Zionist regime in Jerusalem. That could be true too.

The Palestinians have lost their territory and it won't be won back in our lifetimes. They need to accept that and work with what they have left. But until such time as the injustice of the establishment and the genesis and the perpetuation of this idea, Israel, is recognised and acknowledged, I'm not sure the Palestinians will ever even begin to move on.

wes

InFront wrote: »

People often dismiss discussion of the birth of "Israel" in Palestine as being pointless and worthless and retrograde. To a large extent, this is sadly true. It's pretty pointless to discuss the genesis as a roadmap to peace because the immigrant Jews are not leaving. While the Arab league and the Hamas and Fatah bicker and point out the terrible injustice that they have been subjected to (and this is undeniable), the Jews of Israel are building houses and planting gardens and having babies and establishing themselves firmly in the land of their plantation.

It is too late to turn things around and the Palestinians are literally losing ground.
The discourse on how this was allowed to happen is one that the Palestinians must deal with later when Palestine starts to reconcile itself with itself. Their current priority should be to stop the new houses going in, establish the machinery of state and open security dialogue with the Israelis.

I think the greatest barricade to peace on the part of the Palestinians is that they would not be forgiven such an admission of loss and apparent surrender, on behalf of the next generation nor internationally in the Muslim ummah. That's true.
There is also the fear an admission of where things stand would go unrecognised and maybe walked all over to further the Zionist regime in Jerusalem. That could be true too.

The Palestinians have lost their territory and it won't be won back in our lifetimes. They need to accept that and work with what they have left. But until such time as the injustice of the establishment and the genesis and the perpetuation of this idea, Israel, is recognised and acknowledged, I'm not sure the Palestinians will ever even begin to move on.

I agree that they need to move on, but what started in 1948 is still happening while I type, in the West Bank, so the Palestinians are hardly in a position to move on, as there Nakba isn't something that ended in 1948, but is something that is still happening today. It is of course impossible to get over something that is still happening.

As it stands, there will probably be no land for the Palestinians to create a state on and we will either see the Palestinians shut away into tiny prison canton's like Gaza or there will be a struggle for equal rights.

IMHO, the Palestinians should abandon the 2 state solution, Israel will never allow them to have a state and quite frankly the US will always support the persecution of the Palestinians. There best bet is to go for equal rights in a single state and put a end to the current apartheid situation created by Zionism.

Joey the lips

Sometimes you dont need to say anything just leave it to the gobsh1tes to hang themselves! I am not bad for a republician loving nationalist with membership of amnesty. Oh guess what, i got this in a brit paper. Tut Tut Tut!:D



Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel will expand settlements

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that his country will continue to expand its settlements in the occupied West Bank, despite calls by President Barack Obama for construction to stop.



By Our Foreign Staff and Agencies in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 12:55AM BST 25 May 2009


The hawkish premier also referred to a "Palestinian state" for the first time since taking office in March, but it was only to exprss "reservations" about the key demand of the international community.
During Mr Netanyahu's first official visit to Washington of his new term as prime minister, Mr Obama told him last week that "settlements must be stopped".

Related Articles

• Christian graves desecrated in the West Bank
• Netanyahu stands firm against demands from Obama
• Benjamin Netanyahu pledges peace talks with Palestinians
• Barack Obama invites Middle East leaders to White House
• Barack Obama invites Middle East leaders to Washington
• Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu need to keep talking

But the Israeli leader was reported to have told a cabinet meeting on Sunday: "I have no intention to construct new settlements, but it makes no sense to ask us not to answer to the needs of natural growth and to stop all construction."
Israeli settlements in the West Bank are one of the major stumbling blocks in the Middle East peace process, which Mr Obama has vowed to push forward despite a new largely Right-wing government in Israel that backs settlements.
Briefing the ministers on his Washington trip, Mr Netanyahu said that "clearly we need to have some reservations about a Palestinian state in a final status agreement ... when we reach an agreement on substance, we will reach agreement on terminology".
It was the first time since he returned to the prime minister's post that Mr Netanyahu publicly said the words "Palestinian state". But he stopped short of endorsing the concept, backed by Washington, to which Israel committed under the 2003 "road map" Middle East peace plan.
"If we talk about a Palestinian state, we have to first and foremost verify what kind of sovereignty and rights this state will have," he said.
"We have to make sure that we are not threatened."

paulaa

brianthebard wrote: »

Why the attitude? My point was that even when the Zionist homeland was established, it was out of the Zionist movements hands where they would settle.

I would have to disagree with this. When the Zionists decided on Palestine, Irgun, under the leadership of Ben Gurion, started a series of terrorist attacks to get the British out of the country. The bombing of the headquarters of the British Mandate in the King David hotel was the last straw and the British pushed the League of Nations/UN to formally declare 56% of Mandated Palestine the Homeland of the Jewish people.
The Zionists were in charge from day 1.

Serenity Now!

paulaa wrote: »

I would have to disagree with this. When the Zionists decided on Palestine, Irgun, under the leadership of Ben Gurion, started a series of terrorist attacks to get the British out of the country. The bombing of the headquarters of the British Mandate in the King David hotel was the last straw and the British pushed the League of Nations/UN to formally declare 56% of Mandated Palestine the Homeland of the Jewish people.
The Zionists were in charge from day 1.

Irgun wasn't even formed when the "Zionists decided on Palestine" :rolleyes:
Nice little bit of revisionism there. Surely after these alleged "30 or more years" of reading about the Arab-Israeli conflict you'd have known better?

ozzirt

I am of Jewish descent, but what the Zionists do makes me want to disown my ancestry.

As far as I'm concerned Palestine became the Israeli "Lebensraum" The similarities are all too obvious. Twenty years ago Israel had huge world support, gradually their thuggish actions are turning the free world against them (perhaps with the exception of the USA who is mainly in it for the American Jewish vote).

paulaa

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Irgun wasn't even formed when the "Zionists decided on Palestine" :rolleyes:
Nice little bit of revisionism there. Surely after these alleged "30 or more years" of reading about the Arab-Israeli conflict you'd have known better?

Afternoon SN, pleasant as ever I see .
You point has no bearing on the fact that it was terrorist attacks from the Zionist factions that got the British out of Palestine.

Of course they had to decide first where they wanted their homeland. Then
Irgun and the Stern gang started operating in Palestine from 1930/31. They declared independance in 1948

No revisionism there.

BTW are you impressed with the latest announcement by Lieberman that they are going to ban the Palestinians day of mourning for the Nakba ?

turgon

Wow, an Israeli comparison to Germany, thats new.

Someone said that the Palestinians need to work with what they've got. Should they then not recognize the state of Israel?

Nodin

paulaa wrote: »

BTW are you impressed with the latest announcement by Lieberman that they are going to ban the Palestinians day of mourning for the Nakba ?

I have to say he's living right up to my expectations. As is Benji.

Israeli campaigners and left-wing lawmakers have condemned moves to ban Israeli Arabs from marking the Nakba - the "catastrophe" of Israel's creation. On Sunday a government panel backed putting the bill, proposed by the party of far-right Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, before the Israeli Knesset.
A Labour minister opposed it; Hadash, a mainly Arab party, called it "racist".
Some 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced from their homes in the 1948 war after Israel declared independence.

About 20% of Israel's population are descended from Arab citizens of British Mandate Palestine who remained on the territory that became Israel.
Strengthening unity
Along with Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and around the world, Israeli Arabs mark the yearly Nakba anniversary on 15 May with mourning and commemoration events.

The bill could impair freedom of expression and freedom of protest and achieve the opposite goal


Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog


Israelis celebrate their Independence Day, marking the creation of their state, at the same time of year, although according to the Hebrew calendar.
Under the proposed legislation, people caught marking the Nakba could be jailed for up to three years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8066892.stm

paulaa

ozzirt wrote: »

I am of Jewish descent, but what the Zionists do makes me want to disown my ancestry.

As far as I'm concerned Palestine became the Israeli "Lebensraum" The similarities are all too obvious. Twenty years ago Israel had huge world support, gradually their thuggish actions are turning the free world against them (perhaps with the exception of the USA who is mainly in it for the American Jewish vote).

While I agree with you about the last 20 years, I wouldn't disown your ancestry. A portion of my family is Jewish, living near tel Aviv, and they feel the same as you and are thinking of moving back to the states after nearly 30 years of living there.
It's such a pity what is happening in Israel, particularly with this extremist right-wing government.

I have so many times been called an anti-semite here, but my criticisms of Israel stem from a disappointment that a country, that could have been a great example of democracy, especially to her neighbours, has slid into fascism . Also from the fact that a people who have suffered so much could perpetrate such gross violation of human rights and discrimination on others because of their race.

wes

turgon wrote: »

Someone said that the Palestinians need to work with what they've got. Should they then not recognize the state of Israel?

The PLO did that, then Israel started making demands they recognise Israel as a "Jewish" state, the current government have repeated this childish demand. Israel has a history of changing the goal posts. The antics of various Israeli government have shown that no matter what the Palestinians do, the Israeli government will invent a new hoop for them to jump through.

Also, the Palestinian need something to work with. The simple fact is that they don't have enough to make a go at viable statehood. Israel has seen to it that this will never be the case, that they will have a viable state.