The anchors on Al Jazeera are praising Hamas for their continued rocket attacks. Talk is that Israel will either need to learn to live in bomb shelters, or leave the country. Others are hinting at the need for "ethnic cleansing" and say that Israel will cease to be by 2027.
Originally posted by whodey http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/07/shocking-translations-show-al-jazeera-reporters-using-facebook-and-twitter-to-cheer-on-hamas-praise-allah-for-the-capture-of-a-zionist-soldier/
The anchors on Al Jazeera are praising Hamas for their continued rocket attacks. Talk is that Israel will either need to learn to live in bomb shelters, or leave the coun ...[text shortened]... ansing" and say that Israel will cease to be by 2027.
Who here agrees with these assessments?
Hamas is like a wild animal that needs to be destroyed to prevent harm to children playing in the playgrounds.
Originally posted by RJHinds Hamas is like a wild animal that needs to be destroyed to prevent harm to children playing in the playgrounds.
AMY GOODMAN: That is the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal. In these last few minutes we have left, Noam Chomsky, talk about the demands of Hamas and what Khaled Meshaal just said.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, he was basically reiterating what he and Ismail Haniyeh and other Hamas spokespersons have been saying for a long time. In fact, if you go back to 1988, when Hamas was formed, even before they became a functioning organization, their leadership, Sheikh Yassin—who was assassinated by Israel—others, offered settlement proposals, which were turned down. And it remains pretty much the same. By now, it’s quite overt. Takes effort to fail to see it. You can read it in The Washington Post. What they propose is: They accept the international consensus on a two-state settlement. They say, "Yes, let’s have a two-state settlement on the international border." They do not—they say they don’t go on to say, "We’ll recognize Israel," but they say, "Yes, let’s have a two-state settlement and a very long truce, maybe 50 years. And then we’ll see what happens." Well, that’s been their proposal all along. That’s far more forthcoming than any proposal in Israel. But that’s not the way it’s presented here. What you read is, all they’re interested in is destruction of Israel. What you hear is Bob Schieffer’s type of repetition of the most vulgar Israeli propaganda. But that has been their position. It’s not that they’re nice people—like, I wouldn’t vote for them—but that is their position.
AMY GOODMAN: Six billion dollars of damage in Gaza right now. About 1,900 Palestinians are dead, not clear actually how many, as the rubble hasn’t all been dug out at this point. Half a million refugees. You’ve got something like 180,000 in the schools, the shelters. And what does that mean for schools, because they’re supposed to be starting in a few weeks, when the Palestinians are living in these schools, makeshift shelters? So, what is the reality on the ground that happens now, as these negotiations take place in Egypt?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there is a kind of a slogan that’s been used for years: Israel destroys, Gazans rebuild, Europe pays. It’ll probably be something like that—until the next episode of "mowing the lawn." And what will happen—unless U.S. policy changes, what’s very likely to happen is that Israel will continue with the policies it has been executing. No reason for them to stop, from their point of view. And it’s what I said: take what you want in the West Bank, integrate it into Israel, leave the Palestinians there in unviable cantons, separate it from Gaza, keep Gaza on that diet, under siege—and, of course, control, keep the West Golan Heights—and try to develop a greater Israel. This is not for security reasons, incidentally. That’s been understood by the Israeli leadership for decades. Back around 1970, I suppose, Ezer Weizman, later the—general, Air Force general, later president, pointed out, correctly, that taking over the territories does not improve our security situation—in fact, probably makes it worse—but, he said, it allows Israel to live at the scale and with the quality that we now enjoy. In other words, we can be a rich, powerful, expansionist country.
AMY GOODMAN: But you hear repeatedly, Hamas has in its charter a call for the destruction of Israel. And how do you guarantee that these thousands of rockets that threaten the people of Israel don’t continue?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Very simple. First of all, Hamas charter means practically nothing. The only people who pay attention to it are Israeli propagandists, who love it. It was a charter put together by a small group of people under siege, under attack in 1988. And it’s essentially meaningless. There are charters that mean something, but they’re not talked about. So, for example, the electoral program of Israel’s governing party, Likud, states explicitly that there can never be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. And they not only state it in their charter, that’s a call for the destruction of Palestine, explicit call for it. And they don’t only have it in their charter, you know, their electoral program, but they implement it. That’s quite different from the Hamas charter.
AMY GOODMAN: That is the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal. In these last few minutes we have left, Noam Chomsky, talk about the demands of Hamas and what Khaled Meshaal just said.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, he was basically reiterating what he and Ismail Haniyeh and other Hamas spokespersons have been saying for a long time. In fact, if you go back to 1988, ...[text shortened]... t’s quite different from the Hamas charter.
http://m.democracynow.org/web_exclusives/2223
Why must anyone think US policies must change? What does US policy have to do with these wild animals? If they really wanted peace they could have had it a long time ago.
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
Originally posted by RJHinds Why must anyone think US policies must change? What does US policy have to do with these animals? If they really wanted peace they could have had it a long time ago.
What the Palestinians do is virtually irrelevant. Likud have no intention of giving peace to the Palestinians and the fundamentalist Christian supporters of Jewish settlements, people like yourself, have no desire to see peace.
the electoral program of Israel’s governing party, Likud, states explicitly that there can never be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. And they not only state it in their charter, that’s a call for the destruction of Palestine, explicit call for it. And they don’t only have it in their charter, you know, their electoral program, but they implement it. That’s quite different from the Hamas charter.
This is not a peace loving Israeli government and never could have been. It is looking to establish a "Greater Israel" at the further expense of the Palestinians.
Nationalist, pro-settlement parties have been a constant feature of Israel’s electoral landscape, most especially since the historic Likud victory in the 1977 elections. The Likud and the National Religious Party (NRP) have been the most popular parties reflecting this “Greater Israel” ethos. Each in its own way has been captured by these forces. The NRP, long a mainstay of every coalition since Israel’s establishment, had disappeared by the 1988 election in favor of a series of short-lived messianic, settler parties. In the Likud, a primary system resulted in the election of ideologues who pushed Jabotinsky’s party even further to the right in its support of settlement and annexation.
Israel’s right-wing, messianic, pro-settlement forces were first energized by the NRP’s Gush Emmunim--the Bloc of the Faithful--a popular movement that successfully challenged the then-ruling Labor Alignment to expand settlement throughout the West Bank after 1973. When running independently from the Likud, this faction has garnered as few as 7 (in the eighteenth Knesset, 2009), and as many as 17 MKs (thirteenth Knesset, 1992), running under an ever-changing banner of parties in support of more aggressive settlement and annexationist policies. These parties have been notoriously fractious, sectarian, and politically unstable, rarely lasting for more than two election cycles. At their electoral peak (1992-1995), this sector nevertheless failed to prevent Knesset endorsement of the Oslo accords. Ariel Sharon’s campaign to “disengage” from the Gaza Strip was successfully implemented and won a ringing popular support in 2006 despite strong popular opposition from these quarters.
In the new Knesset, Ha Bayit Ha Yehudi (Jewish Home) represents this Greater Israel constituency. The party, which fist appeared in the 2009 elections and won 3 seats, has increased its representation to twelve MKs. It supports the annexation of 60 per cent of the West Bank and opposes the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. What is notable about this party is not so much the electoral strength of Israel’s pro-settlement, messianic movement but its unification under the leadership of Naftali Bennett. Bennett is a high-tech millionaire, a former elite commando and top aide to Netanyahu. He has succeeded in broadening the appeal of what is an ideological, militant, anti-democratic and chauvinist movement based in settlements and religious academies associated with them by attracting votes from the military as well as “regular” voters disaffected with the Likud and Labor, many of whom otherwise voted for Yesh Atid.
Originally posted by finnegan This is not a peace loving Israeli government and never could have been. It is looking to establish a "Greater Israel" at the further expense of the Palestinians. [quote]Nationalist, pro-settlement parties have been a constant feature of Israel’s electoral landscape, most especially since the historic Likud victory in the 1977 elections. [b]The Likud and th ...[text shortened]... .fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-23/no.-1/report-on-israeli-settlement-in-the-occupied-territories
A Greater Israel in which Christ can rule with a rod of iron over all the nations.
Originally posted by RJHinds A Greater Israel in which Christ can rule with a rod of iron over all the nations.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel. The first, found in Genesis 15:18-21, seems to define the land that was given to all of the children of Abraham, including Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Midian, etc. It describes a large territory, "from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates", comprising all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Oman, Yemen, most of Turkey, and all the land east of the Nile river.
The other definitions are found in Deuteronomy 11:24, Deuteronomy 1:7, Numbers 34:1-15, and Ezekiel 47:13-20. They describe smaller territories (see the map included in this article). The definition in Numbers and Ezekiel refers to the land that was divided between the original twelve tribes of Israel after they were delivered from Egypt, and finally, the borders defined in the book of Deuteronomy are those that will be given to the children of Israel slowly throughout the years (please see Exodus 23:29 & Deuteronomy 7:22).
Originally posted by finnegan Surrender what? Land outside the boundary established by the US in 1967. The Palestinians are supposed to surrender land inside that boundary.
Crazy? Well, only if you share the fundamentalist delusions of the zealots in Judaism and Christianity, currently represented on this forum by RJH.
The United Nations recognises the state of Israel inside the borders established in 1967 and not beyond. It is the expansion of Israel by seizing land and resources beyond that boundary that is considered illegal.
Al Jazeera praises Hamas
08 Aug '14 11:10
Back to Top