Creation of the State of Israel
Corocotta
Active member
Redneck said:
I used the word blackmail because it is what happened.
In the last days and hours before the adoption of the partition resolution, the Zionists tried by every means available to secure a two-thirds majority. They even went to the White House and contacted the capitals of the more reluctant countries and threatened them with blackmail, trying to get them to support the partition resolution. They tried to postpone the meeting in the course of which a vote was scheduled to be held to give the White House enough time to put pressure on smaller countries(basically Latin America, african and asian). US Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles in his book entitled We Need Not Fail, described what happened, and I quote:
"By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured."
See Sumner Welles, We Need Not Fail (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1948), p. 63.
[/quote]
What I don't understand is why anybody from the West would not want to support Israel?
Here you have the only self-established and self-sufficient democracy in the region. Not to mention Israel is very pro-west, those Arab countries surrounding it are not, in facy alot of them would rather see harm coming to the West, not so with Israel.
I guess there is alot of politically correct motivation to see Israel as evil, and support the palestinian cause. But ask yourself this question, had the Palestinians been in charge over there you think there would be a democracy, hell no! Even the government they have now is extremely corrupt.
Any support the the West give the Arabs over Israel not only undermines democracy but the West itself.
Here you have the only self-established and self-sufficient democracy in the region. Not to mention Israel is very pro-west, those Arab countries surrounding it are not, in facy alot of them would rather see harm coming to the West, not so with Israel.
I guess there is alot of politically correct motivation to see Israel as evil, and support the palestinian cause. But ask yourself this question, had the Palestinians been in charge over there you think there would be a democracy, hell no! Even the government they have now is extremely corrupt.
Any support the the West give the Arabs over Israel not only undermines democracy but the West itself.
Corocotta
Active member
gladius said:
Gladius, the clue is that from my point of view the way Israel was created was extremely unfare. The "politically correct" is to always agree with israel´s policy and never disagree due to fear of being called anti semite.
Claiming that paslestinian goverment is corrupt in order to defend Israel is contradiction in its own terms. Israel is the country that more oftenly breaks international law. Furthermore, it is controlled by extreme right zionist. The most notorious of the Zionist terror groups was the Irgun, whose leader Menachem Begin would one day go on to become Prime Minister of Israel! Is this a democratic Goverment? :shock:
Also remember that in 1982 the actual Prime minister of Israel ,Ariel Sharon, blocked the exits from the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps while a Lebanese militia, allied with the Israeli military, went into the camps and slaughtered more than 1,500 unarmed Palestinian civilians while raping many women. Though these Lebanese militias were the ones who did the actual killing, it was Ariel Sharon who controlled the militias and it was Sharon's soldiers who stood by and blocked the camp exits, deliberately allowing the slaughter to take place. A survivor of the attack who had been raped and shot went to Belgium and initiated a war crimes case against Sharon. Several Lebanese militia leaders were summoned to testify against Sharon. Shortly before their testimony, three of them were suddenly killed by unknown gunmen and car bombs. Israel's Mossad of course denied any responsibility for the strange and untimely deaths of these three witnesses against Sharon. How can the international public opinion can ignore all this facts? :?:
This has nothing to do with politcal correctness, people dont support Israel because of fear, they support it because they think it is the more democratic and morale side in the conflict.
Yes, it is a democratic gov because he was ELECTED. He also did sighn a peace treaty with Egypt...Is that the "extreme zionisem" you fear so much?
You are talking out of ignorance and very shallow knowledge, and have no idea what you are talking about. If you do know what you are talking about, that is even worse because you are than a liar. I suggest you rethink posting such redicules, lies, before you find your self out of this forum.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
I have been reading around 12 books for my University final dissertation about the real influence of the Jewish Lobby on the Congress.
They rarely used blackmail.
Stauro, I do not like your approach at times.
They rarely used blackmail.
Stauro, I do not like your approach at times.
Corocotta
Active member
SHERMAN said:
Sherman, many goverments are democratically elected and them became completely undemocratic, there are many examples in history. I would like to hear your version concerning the Sabra & Shattila massacre, so I can compare. I think wikipedia is kind of objetive source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
I am not liying.
Italian Guy, you said rarely, so I guess sometimes happened, read this quote of the creator of Zionism:
Righteous Victims, there is a nice and very objective book...
About Sabra and Shatila, like I said to you before it is not true that Israel participated knowingly in the Massacre. It is true that there wa s a major f**k up and by the time Israel intervened 700 Palestinians were dead. Ariel Sharon was found guilty of nothing more than failing to note the dangere in letting the Falangas go into the camps. Saying that Israel "closed off" the area is redicules, as all of the area occupied by the IDf was preetey much a no-movement zone for civilians.
By the way, this has nothing to do with the creation of Israel. It is a common act by propoganda experts to shift topics when they see the publis is not responding, did you know?
About Sabra and Shatila, like I said to you before it is not true that Israel participated knowingly in the Massacre. It is true that there wa s a major f**k up and by the time Israel intervened 700 Palestinians were dead. Ariel Sharon was found guilty of nothing more than failing to note the dangere in letting the Falangas go into the camps. Saying that Israel "closed off" the area is redicules, as all of the area occupied by the IDf was preetey much a no-movement zone for civilians.
By the way, this has nothing to do with the creation of Israel. It is a common act by propoganda experts to shift topics when they see the publis is not responding, did you know?
Corocotta
Active member
SHERMAN said:Righteous Victims, there is a nice and very objective book...
About Sabra and Shatila, like I said to you before it is not true that Israel participated knowingly in the Massacre. It is true that there wa s a major f**k up and by the time Israel intervened 700 Palestinians were dead. Ariel Sharon was found guilty of nothing more than failing to note the dangere in letting the Falangas go into the camps. Saying that Israel "closed off" the area is redicules, as all of the area occupied by the IDf was preetey much a no-movement zone for civilians.
By the way, this has nothing to do with the creation of Israel. It is a common act by propoganda experts to shift topics when they see the publis is not responding, did you know?
We will never know the exact number of victims, but it is btw 700-3500. I just can not belive that Israel did not know what their allies were doind there. the camp was surrended by Israeli troops, this is well known. Ando you are right, this is kind of offtopic, I post it to point that Israel prime Minister was at least indirectily responsible of the massacre.
I want to belive that it was an indirect responsability.Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Righteous Victims is not an objective book.
Wikipedia itself is not necessarily an objective place.
The only objectivity you can find is trying to compare verify and doublecheck all the elements of the story.
If I type "Bush is a murderer"and google it up I'll most probably stumble across those very news I was looking for- and will find all the confirmations I needed.
And btw: Sherman might be very young, but seldom have I met a guy who was so much acquainted with the real story of Israel, regardless of European propaganda. He is totally truthful on the Sabra and Chatila massacre.
Wikipedia itself is not necessarily an objective place.
The only objectivity you can find is trying to compare verify and doublecheck all the elements of the story.
If I type "Bush is a murderer"and google it up I'll most probably stumble across those very news I was looking for- and will find all the confirmations I needed.
And btw: Sherman might be very young, but seldom have I met a guy who was so much acquainted with the real story of Israel, regardless of European propaganda. He is totally truthful on the Sabra and Chatila massacre.
Corocotta
Active member
Italian Guy said:
Righteous Victims is a highly acclaimed book about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It methodically (and in great details) walks you through the evolution of the conflict since the late 19th century, until year 2000. It should be noted that most of the early chapters of this book have been mostly based on declassified Israeli, Haganah, and Zionists documents. Benny Morris, the author of the book, is a famous Israeli historian who has written several books and many articles rotating around the al-Nakba and the Palestinian refugees, especially 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem´. Why it isn´t objetive?