Poll: Do you trust Israel ? ? ? ?

by Iron Eagle 84 Replies latest social current

• 

  ThiChi

  ""America is ran by zionists working from the inside; they control everything.."

  Let me guess, Hitler, 1935...did I get that quote right?

  Historically, Israel’s claim is valid.

  Biblically, Israel’s claim is made.

  Geopolitically, Israel is surrounded by dictators.

  Some history:

  A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

  The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

  Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

  The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century —— years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement —— more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.1 The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.

  Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.
• 

  ThiChi

  UnRealist:

  Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat.

  First, if the United States felt compelled to increase its access to oil from Iraq, it could do so by getting the U.N. Security Council to lift the economic sanctions that restrict Iraqi output -- no bloodshed necessary. Iraq's oil would flow freely into the global market, contracts already signed with Russian and European companies would increase Iraqi production and, as a beneficial side effect, prices would decline as supplies increased.

  Then assume the worst in Saudi Arabia: Militant anti-American extremists seize control of the government. Such rulers might refuse to sell oil directly to the American customers, but it's highly unlikely they would refuse to sell oil to anyone, because the country's other sources of income are negligible. Because the worldwide oil flow -- about 67 million barrels a day -- is fungible in a global market, the effect of such a move by Saudi Arabia against the United States would be minimal. To the extent that the Saudis shifted oil sales to customers in Europe or Asia, those customers would stop buying oil from wherever they get it now, and the United States could shift its Saudi purchases to those other suppliers.

  It might be necessary to modify refinery runs to account for variations in oil quality, and shipping costs might increase with distance, but the overall impact would be tolerable.

  Moreover, the record shows that even countries whose rulers are hostile to us are willing to sell us oil because they need the money. Saddam Hussein's Iraq itself sells oil to American consumers under the "oil for food" program. If the United States buys no oil from Iran or from Moammar Gaddafi's Libya, it is because we cut them off -- not because they cut us off. Libya would welcome the return of a petroleum relationship with the United States.

  Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more.

  As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.

  Thomas W. Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, is writing a book on U.S.-Saudi Arabian relations.
• 

  Satanus

  Tichi

  Is israel justified in doing the things i listed, taking advantage of american largess and selling it to america's enemies?

  SS
• 

  Iron Eagle

  Osama Bin Laden is innocent.

  He Is yet another scapegoat for the Israeli's.

  Check the real facts before blindly going along with whatever the media says.. Didn't you learn anything from your experience in the Watchtower ? ! ?

  http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/STF/stranger-than-fiction.htm

  Isreal orchestrated the attacks, Bin Laden had nothing to do with them.
• 

  Pleasuredome

  obl is jewish.
• 

  dubla

  Isreal orchestrated the attacks, Bin Laden had nothing to do with them.

  well, the videotape i watched showed bin laden praising the success of the attacks, and laughing about the fact that some of the hijackers werent even informed that they were on a suicide mission. that must have been one hell of a make-up job.....i wonder who played bin laden? tom cruise?

  aa
• 

  Iron Eagle

  well, the videotape i watched showed bin laden praising the success of the attacks, and laughing about the fact that some of the hijackers werent even informed that they were on a suicide mission. that must have been one hell of a make-up job.....i wonder who played bin laden? tom cruise?

  How convenient! And how improbable. The "mastermind" of 9-11, who was so brilliant that he pulled off 9-11 without being detected, was careless enough to leave a "confession video" laying around to be discovered by the US!
  

  Experts have agreed that the tapes were duped, guess you just never got round to hearing that. Like many others, maybe you still think that the anthrax letters were sent by Bin Laden to.

  On December 20, 2001, the German TV show Monitor (the "60 Minutes of Germany") found the translation of the "confession" video to be not only "inaccurate", but even "manipulative". Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini and Professor Gernot Rotter made an independent translation and accused the White House translators of "writing a lot of things that they wanted to hear but cannot be heard on the tape no matter how manytimes you listen to it."

  Even more compelling than the revelations of the European press are the actual images of the "confession video". Every photo previously taken of Osama Bin laden shows gaunt facial features and a long thin nose. The Pentagon video of Bin Laden clearly shows a man with full facial features and a wide nose.
• 

  Realist

  thichi,

  you just don't get it do you?

  bush is not concerned about an oil shortage for the US. there is no reason to worry about that.

  but his buddies want to make money with iraqi oil. they have been excluded from the iraqi oil buisness until now and they want to change that.

  if US oil companies do not take over the oil production in iraq once the war is over than i will apologize and reconsider the situation....until than i am convinced bush wants the oil for his buddies and gives a shit about the US of A.
• 

  Pleasuredome

  iron eagle

  dubla knows what he saw. the fbi cliams its genuine, so it has to be that, genuine. whatever the fbi or any other gov agency says is fact unless proved otherwise, you should know that.

  the next thing you'll be saying is that Oswald was not a 'lone gunman', or that Mcveigh couldn't have blown up the the Murrah building with a fertilizer bomb.
• 

  dubla

  The Pentagon video of Bin Laden clearly shows a man with full facial features and a wide nose.

  tom cruise then?

  aa