以巴冲突是怎么回事 让以色列将军之子告诉你！

nezha1

kingedward 发表于 26-7-2014 08:07 AM
1.是巴勒斯坦和阿拉伯国家自己不要接受联合国1947年画好的边界。是巴勒斯坦贪心，要完整个以色列土地，所以 ...

这些都是以色列的宣传和谎言，在一楼的video都有提到，都被戳破了

锡安主义本来的目的就是种族清洗，然后把整个巴勒斯坦领土占为自有，战争还没有发生前就已经开始种族清洗活动，以色列从来都没有想要和平过。

你看一楼的video就会明白

nezha1

monster.inc 发表于 26-7-2014 08:24 AM
您那麼支持巴勒斯坦不如叫巫統吧所有巴勒斯坦人都接過來大馬啦， 反正巫統也是支持巴勒斯坦。給他們ic 讓他 ...

有一点要纠正你，马来西亚不分朝野都支持巴勒斯坦。

以色列是种族主义，从1947年开始就进行种族清洗活动，可以说是法西斯。

比种族主义，巫统简直是小巫见大巫

monster.inc

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 09:41 AM
有一点要纠正你，马来西亚不分朝野都支持巴勒斯坦。

以色列是种族主义，从1947年开始就进行种族清洗活 ...

都是嘴巴講了爽那種。怎麼不去聲討緬甸的bangala被清洗？

kingedward

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 09:31 AM
这些都是以色列的宣传和谎言，在一楼的video都有提到，都被戳破了

锡安主义本来的目的就是种族清洗，然 ...

那么巴勒斯坦更加应该尽早把边界分清楚，成立巴勒斯坦的国家，有主权的国家。这样才能把以色列军队的侵略变成犯法行为。现在没有边界，以色列的侵犯根本没有错。 是巴勒斯坦不要和平，是巴勒斯坦自己痒，找架打。

nezha1

monster.inc 发表于 26-7-2014 09:49 AM
都是嘴巴講了爽那種。怎麼不去聲討緬甸的bangala被清洗？

缅甸没那么严重，至少没有完全被驱赶，况且那些bangla本来都不是缅甸人，都是后来移民过去的。

巴勒斯坦人不一样，他们本来就是世世代代生活的那里的人，锡安主义者来了后就把他们杀的杀赶的赶，要不然就是奴役。

你看了那些video就会明白了

纠正：罗兴亚人在缅甸的历史可以追溯到7世纪。现在缅甸人要屠杀他们，他们就应该向勐拉、果敢和佤邦的华人学习，成立自己的武装部队。

四智武童

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 09:57 AM
缅甸没那么严重，至少没有完全被驱赶，况且那些bangla本来都不是缅甸人，都是后来移民过去的。

巴勒斯 ...

巴勒斯坦也是外来移民
是邪教入侵时，迁移过来的

nezha1

kingedward 发表于 26-7-2014 09:56 AM
那么巴勒斯坦更加应该尽早把边界分清楚，成立巴勒斯坦的国家，有主权的国家。这样才能把以色列军队的侵略 ...

在2012年，巴勒斯坦已经受到联合国的承认，边界还没分清楚但这些并不是最重要，最重要的是以色列不断对人口密集的加沙地带炮轰，完全违反人道主义 是战争罪 是必须要受到谴责的。

况且锡安主义目的是把整个巴勒斯坦占为自有，以种族清洗为主要手段、屠杀、驱赶、恐吓、奴役 无所不用其极。可以算是恐怖主义了

monster.inc

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 09:57 AM
缅甸没那么严重，至少没有完全被驱赶，况且那些bangla本来都不是缅甸人，都是后来移民过去的。

巴勒斯 ...

緬甸一樣是大屠殺，怎麼bangala 皮膚黑就不是人了？不幫忙聲討。
歷史上根本沒有巴勒斯坦國，只有以色列國，和迦南地。一個注定要復國的國家現在驗證了幾千年前的預言。所以回教徒當然不爽了。
那片土地下的歷史文物就可以證明這塊土地是以色列人的， 巴勒斯坦根本就是其他國家拋棄的移民。

http://allaboutmuhammad.com/page8.html
PALESTINE NEVER EXISTED

There is a preliminary historical fact that must be established; THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CIVILIZATION OR NATION REFERRED TO AS “PALESTINE!”

The very notion of a “Palestinian Arab nation”, having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world!  There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct “Palestinian” culture or language.  Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964…three years BEFORE the Arabs of “Palestine” lost the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza as a result of the 1967 Six Day’s War (which the Arabs started).  Even the so-called leader of the “Palestinian” people, Yasser Arafat, is Egyptian!  In short, the so-called Arab “Palestinians” are a manufactured people…a people with no history and no authority…whose sole purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish State!      

Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam!  Seven hundred and twenty-six years later, in 586 B.C., these first ancient Jews in the land of Israel (Judea) were overrun and Israel’s First Jewish Temple (Solomon’s Temple) on Jerusalem’s Old City Temple Mount was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon.  Many of the Jews were killed, enslaved or expelled; however many were allowed to remain.  These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews, who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also aSecond Temple in Jerusalem on the same site as Solomon’s Temple.  Thus, the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago, right after the Holocaust, and drove out the Arabs is preposterous!  

Then, in 70 A.D.(nearly 2,000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire’s turn to march through ancient Israel, known at that time as Judea, and destroy the Second Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of the Jewish population.  The Romans, without success, had tried to impose their many deities on the Jews, but few Jews were willing to submit to the Roman demands regarding their worship, and were certainly unwilling to regard a Roman Emperor as a divine being.

After a succession of uprisings against Roman rule, in which over one and a half million Jews were killed, enslaved or driven out of their homeland, the then Roman Procurator in charge of the area decided to take even another measure in retaliation.  Calling his scribes, he asked the historians as to who had been the worst enemies of the Jews in past history.  He was told the “Philistines.”  Having this determination, he then ordered all maps altered to reflect that the Land of Israel (Judea) would be labeled “Philistia” (further bastardized into “Palaistina”) to dishonor the Jews and obliterate them, if only figuratively, from the map.  Hence, the name “Palestine” was invented, and entirely appropriate that this invented name of the Romans would be used by Muhammad’s invented religion of Islam, over 1,800 years later, when initiating its campaign to steal the Jewish homeland.

Over 3,250 years, various Peoples, Religions and Empires marched through Jerusalem, Israel’s ancient capital established by King David.  The region was successively ruled by the Hebrews (Jews), Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks (who indifferently governed the backward neglected territory from the 16th Century until the British drove them out during World War I) and then once again by the Jews in 1948.  None bothered, nor were they in the least bit inclined, to build a Nation of their own…EXCEPT the Jews!

It should be noted that in 636 A.D., when the Arab marauders of Muhammad came to the land, and uprooted even more of the Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there…and certainly not a “Palestinian” nation.  They were simply “Arabs” who, as did others before them, moved into a geo-political area called “Palestine!”  And, remember this one fact…it was not the Jews who “usurped” (a favorite word from the Arab propagandists) the land from the Arabs.  It was the Arabs in 636 A.D. who overran and stole it from the Jews!  A point:  The Dome of the Rock Mosque was constructed atop the ruins of the second Jewish Temple, and not vice-versa!   

The Jewish People have the most legitimate “Birth Certificate” of any nation in the world!  Every time there is an archaeological dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that the Jewish People have had a presence there for well over 3,000 years.  The national coins, the pottery, the cities, the ancient Hebrew texts…all support this claim.  Yes, other peoples have passed through, but there is no mistaking the fact that Jews have always had a continuous presence in that land for over 3,000 years.  This predates and certainly dwarfs any claims that other people in the regions may have.   

IN CONCLUSION:  No nation, other than the ancient nation of Israel and later again in 1948, with the rebirth of the 2nd Nation of Israel, has ever ruled as a sovereign national entity on this land.  A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area many centuries before the Arabs, and their newly invented religion of Islam appeared on the scene in the 7th Century A.D.

                                                           

End Notes:  (1) The above article has had no deletions from its original content, but we have slightly amplified the explanation of why Israel has been named “Palestine”.  We urge our readers to access the Masada2000.com website since it is highly informative and its information has been well researched.  (2) Caution:  A part of this website enables viewers to access video clips showing Muslims conducting ritual murders of prisoners, and this viewing is certainly not for children or the faint of heart! (3) We urge our readers to access the website of "www.MapsofWar.com" for a better understanding of the so-called Palestinians spurious claims to the region now popularly known as Palestine.

nezha1

四智武童 发表于 26-7-2014 10:03 AM
巴勒斯坦也是外来移民
是邪教入侵时，迁移过来的

那些巴勒斯坦人已经世世代代在那边生存了几千年了，是那边的主人

现在的以色列人才是外来者，多数是从欧洲移民过去的不然怎么有那么多白人脸孔？古代犹太人的长相本来和阿拉伯人没分别

如果你不看那些video，说明你对这个课题没兴趣，就请你不要在这里浪费时间了

四智武童

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 10:20 AM
那些巴勒斯坦人已经世世代代在那边生存了几千年了，是那边的主人

现在的以色列人才是外来者，多数是从 ...

巴勒斯坦人已经世世代代在那边生存了几千年了？
读好历史才来吧
     

nezha1

monster.inc 发表于 26-7-2014 10:18 AM
緬甸一樣是大屠殺，怎麼bangala 皮膚黑就不是人了？不幫忙聲討。
歷史上根本沒有巴勒斯坦國，只有以色列 ...

现在不是争论什么国家存在不存在的问题，这些都不重要。而是出于人道主义立场就必须声援巴勒斯坦人 谴责以色列。

不管是哪个国家，哪个种族，屠杀就是错，都应该受到谴责。就因为以巴的问题长时间无法解决，才造成更多人道灾难的发生，因为人会有样学样。

如果你还没有看那些video就请你先看先。如果让以色列的奸计得逞，将来会成为世界一个大问题。

monster.inc

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 10:35 AM
现在不是争论什么国家存在不存在的问题，这些都不重要。而是出于人道主义立场就必须声援巴勒斯坦人 谴责以 ...

事實就是巴勒斯坦國根本不在歷史上存在過。回教國也不願意見到以色列復國，也不願意接納自己遺棄的百姓。

請支持巴勒斯坦人吧。

nezha1

monster.inc 发表于 26-7-2014 10:58 AM
事實就是巴勒斯坦國根本不在歷史上存在過。回教國也不願意見到以色列復國，也不願意接納自己遺棄的百姓。 ...

无论什么都好，出于人道主义都应该让他们有个国家，因为他们真的很可怜，他们身处在世界最大的集中营、前无去路后无退路、缺水、缺粮、还随时被轰炸。

他们现在是对抗以色列邪恶政权站在最前线的一群人，无论如何都应该支持他们。如果让以色列得逞，谁能担保将来以色列不会控制全世界各领域 奴役全人类？

monster.inc

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 11:10 AM
无论什么都好，出于人道主义都应该让他们有个国家，因为他们真的很可怜，他们身处在世界最大的集中营、前 ...

是人都知道捅馬蜂窩的後果。非洲蘇丹大把難民怎麼你也不幫忙聲討，難道皮膚黑的就不是人了？還有伊拉克isis對其他宗教的大屠殺怎麼你不幫忙聲討？
Zuheir Mohsen[size=0.875em]

Zuheir Mohsen (1936–1979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

nezha1

monster.inc 发表于 26-7-2014 11:18 AM
是人都知道捅馬蜂窩的後果。非洲蘇丹大把難民怎麼你也不幫忙聲討，難道皮膚黑的就不是人了？還有伊拉克is ...

现在这个帖子是揭穿以色列谎言的，谈的就是以巴的事情。你要声讨其他的大屠杀你可以另外开贴 我又没有阻止你。

怎么能说巴勒斯坦人不存在呢？巴勒斯坦受到联合国承认是事实。出于人道理由，不要再落井下石了好吗？

nezha1

这篇文章不错，值得一读

Israel: Legitimacy and Behavior – an Analysis by Lawrence Davidson



Part I – Separating Legitimacy and Behavior

In the year 1762 the King of Prussia, Frederick II, launched an unprovoked attack on Austria with the aim of conquering the province of Silesia. One hundred and two years later, in 1864, Otto von Bismarck, then prime minister of Prussia, provoked a war with Denmark in order to seize the Danish provinces of Schleswig and Holstein. Since its founding, the United States has launched over 330 mostly unwarranted foreign military interventions around the globe. Concurrently the U.S. existed as a slave state until 1865 and then practiced institutional racism right up into the 1960s. Throughout all of this history the citizens of these countries never doubted the legitimacy of their nation-states.

This discounting of violent and inhumane policies reflects a long tradition that asserts that if a state exists, that is, if it has a government that can exercise sovereignty over territory, it is automatically legitimate. In this way the idea of legitimacy has been separated from the fact of behavior. If you think about it, this is the equivalent of saying a killer is a legitimate member of society simply because he or she is alive and occupying space. In both cases it is true that the state and the person exist, but can either really be judged legitimate members of their respective communities apart from their behavior? In the case of criminals, no society separates legitimacy and behavior. Criminal behavior leads us to try to rehabilitate the offender or segregate him or her from the population through incarceration. Dealing with states which act in criminal ways is, of course, more complicated.

Part II – The Zionist Gambit

Most Zionists play this game of separating legitimacy from behavior when they defend against those who question Israel’s right to be. For them, it should not matter if, like Prussia, Israel steals others’ land, and it should not matter if, like pre-civil rights America, Israel practices institutional racism. For most Zionists such behavior has nothing to do with Israel’s legitimacy as a country.

Take, for instance, Leon Wieseltier, a well-known and highly educated American Zionist, who goes down this road of separating legitimacy from behavior in support of Israel. He does this in a 24 November 2013 New York Times Book review of Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel.

Here are some of the points Wieseltier makes:

– “Too much of the discourse on Israel is a doubting discourse. … As if some fundamental acceptance of its reality is pending upon the resolution of its many problems … consigning it to a historical provisionality. … As if anybody has the authority to declare that the experiment has failed, and to try to do something about it.” Wieseltier concludes that “Israel is not a proposition, it is a country.”

– Wieseltier likes Shavit’s book because the author “recover(s) the feeling of Israel’s facticity and revel(s) in it, to restore the grandeur of the simple fact in full view of the complicated facts.” And, of course, there are plenty of reprehensible “complicated facts” for which both author and reviewer recognize the Zionist state’s responsibility.

For instance, Wieseltier cites Shavit’s “narrative of the massacre and expulsion of the Arabs of Lydda by Israeli forces in the war of 1948.” He sees this recounting as an example of the author’s facing Israel’s crimes forthrightly. Yet, for Wieseltier, nation-states per se often act in a criminal fashion and so, in the end, we must accept it. He notes, with apparent approval, the following from Shavit: “The choice is stark, either reject Zionism [the Zionist State of Israel] because of Lydda, or accept Zionism [the Zionist state] along with Lydda. … If need be, I will stand by the damned. Because I know that if it wasn’t for them, the state of Israel would not have been born. … They did the dirty, filthy work that enables my people, myself, my daughter and my sons to live.” Here Shavit has mixed up belief and fact. He does not actually know that the Israel would have not been “born” without “filthy work” such as mass murder. He just excuses the criminality by believing in its necessity.

– For Shavit, this all makes the “peace process” problematic. “If Israel does not retreat from the West Bank, it will be politically and morally doomed. But if it does retreat it will face an Iran-backed and Islamic Brotherhood-inspired West Bank regime whose missiles could endanger Israel’s security.”

Wieseltier agrees that this description of Israel’s apparent dilemma “is all true” even though, once again, neither he nor Shavit really know this to be so. Israel has always treated the Palestinians in a way that encourages resistance. To then declare that security-threatening resistance is inevitable is to engage in circular reasoning. If Israel were to withdraw to the 1967 border and allow for the creation of truly viable Palestinian state it probably would not get those dreaded missiles in return. The conviction that the missiles are inevitable simply serves as a justification to do the criminal thing and illegally colonize the West Bank.

As to Shavit’s reference to Iran, the reality is that Iran has never been a physical threat to Israel and agreements (which the Israeli leadership opposes) that allow Iran to reconcile with the West help ensure that it will not be one in the future. On the other hand, Israeli policies that promote Muslim enmity are a real source of present and future danger to Israeli citizens.

Part III – Seeing Legitimacy and Behavior as One

There is something reductive and simplistic about Wieseltier’s thinking, as if the legitimate existence of the State of Israel is something completely apart from its manner of being or behavior.

Take for instance Wieseltier’s insistence that “Israel is not a proposition, it is a country.” Actually, he is wrong not only about Israel but about all countries.  Nation-states are not eternal or unchanging. They have beginnings, and sometimes abrupt and violent ends. Moreover, those that do persist are in fact evolving propositions that are usually brought, peacefully or otherwise, to conform to their changing international environments.

This means that all nation-states will periodically change from one kind of nation into another. In many cases their legitimacy depends on their adaptability. Thus, the Germany of Adolf Hitler is not the Germany of today. The South Africa that practiced apartheid is not the South Africa of today. The Cambodia of Pol Pot is not the Cambodia of today. The Chile of Pinochet is not the Chile of today. And, the United States as it existed before the civil rights movement of the 1960s is not the United States of today. In each case the earlier versions of these countries were anathema not only to their own morally aware citizens, but to much of the rest of the world. In each case there were both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals who pointed to the country’s problems and called for actions to be taken against them. Why should Israel be treated as an exception to such an historical pattern of change?

Increasingly in the contemporary world legitimacy does not simply rest on the mere fact of occupying or asserting sovereignty over territory. Today legitimacy has to do with national behavior that satisfies international norms and laws. Now that might not be the consistent opinion of governments which are prone to hypocrisy, but it is increasingly the position taken by civil society. The expression of that position is the “doubting discourse” Wieseltier complains of. He does not recognize that within today’s international environment “fundamental acceptance of [Zionist Israeli] reality” is in fact “provisional.” It is provisional in the same sense that apartheid South Africa and the pre-civil rights U.S. evolved into a provisional status as much of the rest of the world came to see their behavior as unacceptable.

Thus, it is not those who engage in “doubting discourse” about Israel who defy reality, it is Wieseltier himself when he simplistically asserts that no one “has the authority to declare that the experiment [that is Israel] has failed, and to try to do something about it.” In truth, the entire world has that authority and, at the governmental level, it is only Israel’s special interest operatives embedded within the Western nations that, for the time being, keep government policy from following evolving popular opinion.

Part IV – Israel Must Change

Wieseltier also fails to recognize that central to today’s “doubting discourse” is the fact that the Israel of Lydda is still the Israel of today. It is clear from his review that he thinks today’s Zionist Israel is the only possible Israel, and the world just has to accept it. It is easy to see why one might get this idea. Listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s warmongering over Iran, itemize the racist legislation coming out of the Knesset, count the number of Palestinian homes destroyed by the Israeli government, list the terroristic acts committed with impunity by violent Zionist settlers, etc., etc., and the Zionist Israel of the present – a racist state openly engaged in a process of ethnic cleansing – seems solidly established. Yet it is just this established behavior that moves millions of people to assert its illegitimacy. Wieseltier’s feared “doubting discourse” is not going away. It is spreading. If you want proof of this take a look at the Boycott Diversity and Sanctions (BDS) movement webpage listing accomplishments achieved just in the last few months. It is impressive, and topped off by the esteemed American Studies Association’s recent decision to endorse the call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Will there come a time when Zionists like Wieseltier understand that the growing condemnation and evolving isolation of Israel will not cease unless that nation-state changes in fundamental ways – that is, becomes a different Israel? Will they also come to realize that the pressure for change is not a function of some “new anti-Semitism” but rather a reaction to the unchanging behavior of the “Israel of Lydda”?

In the end just existing, just possessing “facticity,” as Wieseltier puts it, will not confer legitimacy on Israel, just as merely being a living person does not confer a normal status in society to a criminal. What is important is being plus behavior. At this point in history the ideology that guides Israeli behavior, the ideology of Zionism, leads it to behave in a racist, expansionist fashion. So, just like the criminal, the choice is rehabilitation – which means a non-Zionist Israel wherein all its citizens are equal before the law – or segregation from the society of nations. Like Ari Shavit, Wieseltier must make a choice. Does he want to see Israel a just and humane place, or does he also choose to “stand by the damned”?

http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/zionist-israel-a-racist-state-openly-engaged-in-ethnic-cleansing-says-us-historian/

kingedward

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 10:10 AM
在2012年，巴勒斯坦已经受到联合国的承认，边界还没分清楚但这些并不是最重要，最重要的是以色列不断对人 ...

谁叫巴勒斯坦恐怖分子进攻了以色列平民后，逃去巴勒斯坦平民居住地方躲？ 巴勒斯坦自己不承认自己的边界，所以以色列可以自由进出捉危害以色列百姓的恐怖分子。

以色列在对付巴勒斯坦恐怖分子的时候，也同时对付到巴勒斯坦平民？巴勒斯坦平民自己选择恐怖分子做政府，政府是由平民选的。所以你难怪以色列军队分不清楚谁是恐怖分子，谁是平民。要记得，巴勒斯坦平民是支持恐怖分子。他们今天是平民，明天就是恐怖分子。 他们没有要和平的意图。

要和平很容易，承认边界和不要再危害以色列平民。

nezha1

kingedward 发表于 26-7-2014 01:09 PM
谁叫巴勒斯坦恐怖分子进攻了以色列平民后，逃去巴勒斯坦平民居住地方躲？ 巴勒斯坦自己不承认自己的边界， ...

你肯定是没有看那些video，真正不要和平的是以色列，而且是从来都没想过和平。

如果你不愿意看那些video的话，你一就是对这主题没兴趣，不然就是不懂英文。那你就不要来这里浪费时间了

enzoboy

nezha1 发表于 26-7-2014 10:20 AM
那些巴勒斯坦人已经世世代代在那边生存了几千年了，是那边的主人

现在的以色列人才是外来者，多数是从 ...

你有读历史的吗？巴勒斯坦是那里的主人，我喷饭了...