What is Israel trying to hide?

Originally posted by drevill
Isreal imports 99% of its oil from the world Market and is vulnerable to this market. It has no coal, natural gas ornuclear generating power stations. Gaza and other refugee issues both power and supplies is a global issue not just an Israeli one.

The Palestinian Authority has been granted legal ownership of huge oil/gas reserves found off the coast of Gaza.

Could this be a hidden agenda by the Israeli govt to secure its rights to those reserves over the palestian claims? It should certainly be a factor to be considered in the broader scheme of things

Gaza doesn't need aid: It has a £2Bn gas field

"...Twenty miles from the beaches of Gaza, too far for the eye to see but still very much in Palestinian waters, lies a fortune in untapped, off-shore gas. Prospecting vessels sent down two probes seven years ago and what they found got the juices of executives from multinational fuel companies flowing. In one field alone, experts estimated a reserve of £2 billion worth of natural gas. And there is plenty of potential for other fields..."

BG group at centre of $4Bn deal to supply gazan gas to Israel

"...It would enable BG Group, the former owner of British Gas, to begin to develop an offshore field that is the Palestine Authority’s only natural resource. The move would mark an unprecedented milestone in Middle East relations. There would be enough gas to provide 10 per cent of Israel’s annual energy requirement..."

reply to post by neformore


seriously?

any noteworthy country could do it. i dont think the blockade has legal standing ( i admit to not checking) can you imagine isreal sinking " humanitarian ships" i cannot, so. if the determination was there it would happen

reply to post by Taikonaut


good point but $2 billion is not a huge amount in the scheme of things

reply to post by lightchild


I note what you are saying but that is a different issue its like saying the IRA is/was a country. the british were in control of the area. we cannot use that as a palestinian-jewish tit for tat

david

This is a conspiracy website.

Deny Ignorance.

If so, how can one support Israel and the jew tainted media?

reply to post by Bl0rg


"tainted"

Just "tainted"? I'm pretty sure the media is more than just 'tainted' by jews.

But that isn't their fault. History has taught them that if the don't control public opinion (especially in regards to themselves) something bad will happen to them.

That is why for centuries many Jews didn't invest in land, as it was only a matter of time before a pogrom against them would force them to leave.

This is why the Jews involve themselves in the financial industry, it is far more flexible and such wealth can be taken with them when they are eventually kicked out.

Sadly, this logical practise of creating a safety net via the maintenance of a portable wealth system has often been used against the jews in order to instigate the very pogroms that their system of wealth management is meant to protect them against.

It is a vicious circle. It would be a better world if everyone obeyed the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
(the American versions, The rest don't guarantee as much freedom as the one those Yanks developed)

Just makes you think, how far are we prepared to let the Israelis go before we finaly do something about their,essentially, terrorist attacks on a nation that has more right to be there than Israel ever will.

The faster religion ends the faster the wars end. Sorry, but that is my opinion.

reply to post by drevill


It seems very similar to me.
England invaded Ireland 1000 years ago and since then there has been fighting between the English invaders and the native Irish, it also involves two different religions.

reply to post by Bl0rg


The answer is very simple.

They don't support murdering terrorists, Hamas.

They know Hamas launches military attacks almost everyday.

They know that when you attack a country everyday, there will come a point at which the attackers are removed.

There is no supporting terrorists that attack, with direct intent to kill civilians-they are animals.

There is no support terrorist’s hamas who hide behind civilians in hopes they will die so as to give them falsehoods and propaganda.

They know not to support those who broke the peace treaty many times, Hamas.

They know that after a month of constant and well over a week of high numbers of attacks on civilians that the terrorists more than deserve their "COUNTER" attack that they are receiving.

Also, Iran actually cared one bit, they would tell the Hamas to stop so as to stop the blockade, which we all know is stopping weapons far more than anything else.

reply to post by drevill


The island of Ireland was and is a legitimate country until the invasion and occupation by norman forces in 1162 which went on to become the government of the UK. That complete occupation lasted until 1922 when the IRA won independence for 26 out of the 32 counties on the Ireland.

In the remaining 6 counties under British control the British Government then supported an organised sectarian primarily protestant government with British allegiance who discriminated against catholics on a large scale basis leading to an armed response from a section of that population (the IRA). Catholics were mainly people who supported unification with the Republic of Ireland. To say it was a religious war is not correct - just that the populations who supported unification with the Republic and union with Britain tended to be split along religious lines although it must be noted not completely - there were sections of catholics and protestants who supported the other camps.

The British did respond with violence to IRA violence - e.g. Bloody Sunday Killing of civilians by British paratroopers, the collusion in the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings, the shoot to kill policy and British involvement with unionist terrorist organisations.

There was mistakes on both sides and civilians were killed on both sides.

It was / is a similar situation to Israel / Palestine. As the population in Northern Ireland with British Allegiance came from a settlement programme by the English to breed out the Native Irish in the 17th Century and hence the reason those who support continued union with Britain were primarily protestant as the UK at the time of this settlement programme was a strongly pro protestant and anti catholic country.

This conflict in NI raged for years. The British Government also refused UN peacekeepers to be allowed to be deployed in Northern Ireland despite several requests from the Irish Government as the Irish Government viewed the British Army presence as adding to the violence by giving a further sense of colonisation to the pro independence section of the community in NI.

However, the difference being is that there was not a major split along IRA lines - There was only two parties to the conflict and not 3 as in the Israel / palestine conflict - plus the majority on both sides wanted to reach a meaningful settlement.

When the IRA called a cease fire they did not instigate large scale bombings against the UK. There was one break in the ceasefire in 1994 when the IRA found out about continued surveillance by UK intelligence services of their members. This stopped after an agreement by both sides to back off.

The NI conflict resolution is and was being used as a template for the resolution of the Israel / Palestine conflict, by negotiations taking place between Fatah and Israel.

However, the IRA'S aim was never annihilation of the UK but rather unIfication of the Island of Ireland. Hamas stated aim is the total destruction of Israel as a nation and people.

Therefore in this case how do you deal with these people? - you cannot! there can never be peace in Israel / Palestine until the removal of Hamas from the equation.

Fatah like the IRA, and Israel like the UK are ready to talk and make a deal that will benefit both sides. Hamas is the destructive force and must be met with same. They have no interest in peace and unfortunately for the civilians in Gaza wilL bring them nothing but destruction until they wise up and get rid of this mob.

reply to post by lightchild


probably but the danes were there before. one mans invasion another mans liberation eh?

they couldn't get together as they were of the i'm looking after my own mentality

invasions a historical roundabout!

reply to post by Mdv2


Yes, this is clear that Israel, who has more than 300 nuclear warheads - is the architerctural center of global terrorism and fear generating - as we saw here, on maps clearly, jewish population was not in domination previously, Israel is artificially made country with additional hysteria about anti-semitism, while small part of jews (so called children of the Zion) are the main generators of the probleems in the whole world - they are also generated two World wars as such - as they were behing big bankers who had financed both sides during the wars and continue to do so, ignoring at the same time that USA and Soviet Union were in Cosmos, on the Moon and on the Mars long years before that:
you can read about those things from this same very web page.
Please also see the movie: zeitgeist.... then you understand that.

Why not rename the country Palestine-Israel and have Open Elections?

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Tigergeist
reply to post by jonah0julian

 

Johan do you seriously believe its because the Israel Leaders are Reptilians.. granted they kinda look like lizards to me but.. don't you think you need some proof before you go about believing something like that...its a little extreme and has no solid ground to stand on.

What I do not believe in at all though I must say is the war on terror, there are far too many reasons, and documentaries that disprove 911 being a terror attack from Osama and also I remember when British soldiers were arrested in Iraq for shooting and causing chaos in Iraq while disguised as Taliban... they were arrested but rescued by the British armed forces when the Iraqi police didn't want to release them.

Why do you have to spew your bias and prejudice like this. Your words come from a heart filled with hatred. I hope others can see through your comments. You may think you are funny, but you are a racist.

Actually I have no hatred and ys I was putting some humor in my reply. The best cure is having a sense of humor if you haven't noticed; so don't come out here judging everyone because it doesn't make you better at all. I'm guessing I was called a racist for replying to Johan when he said the Israeli leaders were reptiles and I replied by saying granted they might look reptilian but it doesn't mean they are (summarized version).. guess now I'm a racist haha. Anyway you are free to believe whatever you want. I almost forgot.. were is my Bias?? I sure didn't make this stuff up.

Now then I have a responsibility to fully explain everything I say from now on because there are people out there who take everything face value and may lack humor most of the time.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by Tigergeist]

Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling

The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.

To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.

There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.

The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."

Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice – an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.

Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.

It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.

The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.

The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.

The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."

Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply. And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.

The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours.''

www.independent.co.uk...

reply to post by Mdv2


It's very simple to understand.

The Hamas terrorists attack and attack and attack.

That is ok and no one wants to or is willing to stop the attacks.

Because of this, the teroists are being "COUNTER" attacked.

If people are upset over the terroristws being killed, they need to suggest that as long as they attack, the will get back counter attacks, and deserive everything they get and more.

If anyone want this to never happen again, they need to convince the terrorists to never again attack.

The Hamas started this and Israel is ending it.

Jordan knows the Hamas terrorists are at fault and have said so.
Egypt knows the terrorists are at fault and have said so.

They blame the attackers, not the victums of the terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
reply to post by Mdv2

 

It's very simple to understand.

Dude, I respect your opinion and you have all freedom to reply to my posts but I am simply not gonna reply your topic related posts anymore. It's like talking to a deaf man. I can repeat the same over and over again but you prefer to believe your reality of this conflict while repeating your bleating about terrorists and rockets over and over again.

I have been to the region and witnessed myself that both sides are to blame, not just Hamas or Israel. Your ideas are shortsighted and you obviously don't have a clue about the background of this conflict. It's more complex than: 'Hamas fires rockets into Israel and Israel responses' like your philosophy seems to work.

In my opinion you are brainwashed like pretty much everyone who is of opinion there is just one side that should be blamed. But if it makes you happy, surely believe it's just Hamas.


Peace


Rephrased a sentence.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by Mdv2]

reply to post by Mdv2

Your TAC violating insults aside..............

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to post it, this is not religiously controlled board which stop's posting of views counter to some.

You are more than welcome to post your opinions. (No, seriously. I disagree with almost everything you say/post. That said, I will die for your right to your own opinion and the right to post it. That right does come with one condition; all things posted are open to challenge and being disproven)

That said, if you do, you must be prepared to find them proven wrong-that "IS" the nature of this open board.

(I will give you this, unlike another member who suggest I not be allowed to post because I proved all his points wrong)

Refusing to answer posts implies you can not prove your point so you move on to people who you can.

(Sorry for off topic)

It occurs to me, that since my points can't be refuted, you have no choice but to agree.

Its ok, we all know Hamas started it and Israel is ending it.

We all know that as long as Hamas attacks, it will receive "COUNTER", attacks and that is as it should be.,



[edit on 12/29/2008 by mrmonsoon]

Really, who cares? People are oppressed in one way or another throughout the world, including me and my fellow citizens . How does the quality of life for the Palestinians or Jews affect me? Well it doesn't. Injustices are accepted by the masses as the "norm". I could go on and explain my stance on this issue, but would probably be labeled as a racist in one way or another. It's about time to drop the bomb on the Middle East. Problem solved.