This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.III

Well it IS the same situation. We have Hamas, a terrorist group, in control of the Strip.

How does the fact a terrorist group controls the Strip matter? Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians? Okay. Then evacuate those border towns (Sderot etc) and relocate the people (sure they'd be made homeless (although in Israel, which isn't exactly a poor state like Lebanon or Jordan), but it wouldn't compare to the amount of Palestinians made refugees from Israeli attacks). What Israel shouldn't do/have done, is launch airstrikes on civilian populated areas and impose an economic blockade, as it clearly doesn't work (in fact, the effects to the civilian population has made people desperate and has increased Hamas support).

Or maybe think about why Hamas was created in the first place. Then pursue peace with the Palestinians, ie stop building illegal settlements and withdraw from the Fatah (who fully recognise Israel's right to exist) controlled West Bank (besides some key religious sites). Then as peace comes closer (of course it's not an instant process), support for Hamas would erode, and maybe it would be Fatah who would win the future election(s).

Original post by DVnotDivvy

The article basically said that the issue of Israeli security is often overstated in American politics, you said that the rates of collateral damage are largely uneven, then I gave you the reason why that is. The article and you are the ones saying that the Arabs are incapable of protecting themselves, I just simplified it for you. Is that clear and politically correct enough for you?

Well of course Palestinian women and children killed by airstrikes inside their homes are unable to defend themselves. And do you honestly believe the majority of Palestinian casualties are deliberate on the part of Palestinians?

At any rate, this blame game/analysing which side is more in the wrong isn't getting anyone very far. I think we should be devoting our energy into achieving peace, and thinking how it can be achieved (because it is a complex process).

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1581

zohaib93

Original post by Democracy

This thread isn't for arguing about sigs or bickering about whose god is better than whose. Keep things on topic please.

its about dealing with rthe jewish state, by hook, by crook or by luck and punishing it till it surrenders, well thats if its in a state to surrender :biggrin:

Reply 1582

zohaib93

Original post by Balagan

Palestine was never a country, so your Italy comparison falls flat.

Maybe if the arab states around Israel would have accepted the UN partition in the first place we wouldnt be in this mess.

Also - flourishing? really? the land called Palestine was an economic backwater in the corrupt Ottoman empire before the Jews came along and developed it.

palestine was a country, its declared independance in 1922 form the ottaman empire (post ww1), it was occupied by the british till the animals came from germanycame and begegd to be let in to get away form hitler, feeling sorry for them the british let them in, the animals were fed and clotheed and then the animals bit the palestinians and created a zionist state on palestinian land.

Reply 1583

Balagan

4

Original post by zohaib93

palestine was a country, its declared independance in 1922 form the ottaman empire (post ww1), it was occupied by the british till the animals came from germanycame and begegd to be let in to get away form hitler, feeling sorry for them the british let them in, the animals were fed and clotheed and then the animals bit the palestinians and created a zionist state on palestinian land.

nah mate, palestine was never a country and never will be lmfao :biggrin:

Reply 1584

Know_ThySelf

Original post by kobtan79

Then you'd Both be wrong.

[Virtually] No one was "kicked off" their land before the partition (Resolution 181) in 1948.
And no one was kicked off as a result of the creation of Israel.
It entailed Not a single Arab having to move.

Both populations grew strongly through the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.
The Arab population, in fact, growing faster in areas the zionists settled.
Just as they flock to Israel for work today- and many more did before the 2000 Intifada.

The refugees were the result of the Arab-Started 1948 War/rejecting states for Both people's.
The Arabs got 77% of the British mandate in the name of Jordan, 10% more as rejected 'Palestine', and would be a majority in the other 13%/Israel had they accepted the partition; Res 181.
Which at the time merely meant a change of sovereignty for 390,000 Arabs. Some of whom (who didn't leave) are ancestors of Israel's current 1¼ million Arab citizens.
That's it!
That why we have this problem now.
And the absurd 4.6 million 'refugees'! (even tho there are only a few thousand real ones left)

Read what I disagree / agree with first.

Somebody made the claim that the land now known as Israel rightly belongs to the Jews as it is their Holy Land. I disagree with this being a good enough reason to take another's land.

Reply 1585

frostmage

1

Original post by OllieS

How does the fact a terrorist group controls the Strip matter? Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians? Okay. Then evacuate those border towns (Sderot etc) and relocate the people (sure they'd be made homeless (although in Israel, which isn't exactly a poor state like Lebanon or Jordan), but it wouldn't compare to the amount of Palestinians made refugees from Israeli attacks). What Israel shouldn't do/have done, is launch airstrikes on civilian populated areas and impose an economic blockade, as it clearly doesn't work (in fact, the effects to the civilian population has made people desperate and has increased Hamas support).

Or maybe think about why Hamas was created in the first place. Then pursue peace with the Palestinians, ie stop building illegal settlements and withdraw from the Fatah (who fully recognise Israel's right to exist) controlled West Bank (besides some key religious sites). Then as peace comes closer (of course it's not an instant process), support for Hamas would erode, and maybe it would be Fatah who would win the future election(s).

[In order of bold]
Matter? Read carefully "TERRORISTS controlling an area of land - so basicly, they're holding the Gaza strip hostage." - nevermind peace talks.

Coz the unilateral disengagment from Gaza (which brought only misery so far) was not enough... Why should we surrender to terrorists - with such high demands at that. Let me remind that Russia, for example, would have dealt with the situation in Gaza within a space of a few days.

Sorry, but here we go back to WWII compatison, terrorists in control. I won't even consider the ludicrous libel that Israel would intentionally want to strike civilians - which is counter-productive for them no matter what "Zionist conspiracy" they are up to.

For your last thing, why do we have to do anything just to gain peace talks? Surely these things like the settlements should be part of the talks - surely it is only dialogue, what harm could come from that. Why are they refusing to talk and settle these issues? Again, it is only talk - there shouldn't be any need to stop building. Nevermind the fact that they did stop building for 10 months and the PA only started talks at the end. Why didn't they realise that those 10 months were hard enough push for?
Besides, have you ever heard of the "Jordan should be part of a future palestinian state" idea. Given the 80% Palestinian population it seems an excellent idea to me. I'm interested in hearing the opposing argument.

In other news, the Iranian president has disappeared, some say a power struggle is ensuing. Perhaps he is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2pbsuJvlVs
(different version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDjBiuHPqE) 4:15 is to the one who wanted to nuke Israel :P

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1586

OllieS

Original post by frostmage

[In order of bold]
Matter? Read carefully "TERRORISTS controlling an area of land - so basicly, they're holding the Gaza strip hostage." - nevermind peace talks.

Hamas were elected in Gaza, and enjoy even more popular support since Operation Cast Lead. That's not what I'd call holding the Strip 'hostage'.

Coz the unilateral disengagment from Gaza (which brought only misery so far) was not enough... Why should we surrender to terrorists - with such high demands at that. Let me remind that Russia, for example, would have dealt with the situation in Gaza within a space of a few days.

What surrender? I suggested evacuating Israeli towns prone to Hamas rocket fire as that, ostensibly, would cause less death overall on both sides. And it's not like Israel wouldn't have the money to relocate those living near the Strip (only the population of a few small towns). I don't see how the Russia analogy is relevant.

Sorry, but here we go back to WWII compatison, terrorists in control. I won't even consider the ludicrous libel that Israel would intentionally want to strike civilians - which is counter-productive for them no matter what "Zionist conspiracy" they are up to.

Comparing the situation to World War 2 - rightly or wrongly - isn't a convincing and/or comprehensive argument. In my post I addressed why terrorists being in control of the Strip is a problem, and proposed a solution (evacuating the Israeli towns). Maybe discuss why you think that solution wouldn't work?

Israel has targeted civilian populated areas in military operations, that is a fact. Even if the targets aren't civilians, it still causes collateral damage, such as in Operation Cast Lead. This isn't really a controversial claim, I don't why you mentioned 'Zionist conspiracy'.

For your last thing, why do we have to do anything just to gain peace talks? Surely these things like the settlements should be part of the talks - surely it is only dialogue, what harm could come from that. Why are they refusing to talk and settle these issues? Again, it is only talk - there shouldn't be any need to stop building. Nevermind the fact that they did stop building for 10 months and the PA only started talks at the end. Why didn't they realise that those 10 months were hard enough push for?
Besides, have you ever heard of the "Jordan should be part of a future palestinian state" idea. Given the 80% Palestinian population it seems an excellent idea to me. I'm interested in hearing the opposing argument.

Israel should do things to gain peace talks with Hamas; with Fatah it's a lot easier (although unfortunately not consistent, as you addressed). I think Israel should do the things I listed because I think they would advance the process. Of course, Hamas should stop firing rockets too, but I think at least part of that can be controlled by Israel's policy towards the Strip (the blockade), which unfortunately strengthens Hamas.

The Jordan idea is interesting, except Jordan doesn't even have 40% of the global Palestinian population (don't know where 80% came from). Lots of it depends on the demographics of Jordan - if the areas in Jordan in which the Palestinians live are clear cut, and hopefully bordering the West Bank, that would be a lot easier. But I doubt they are that clear, and how far the Jordanian govt. would be willing to cooperate. Still, it's a fine idea.

Reply 1587

frostmage

1

Original post by OllieS

Hamas were elected in Gaza, and enjoy even more popular support since Operation Cast Lead. That's not what I'd call holding the Strip 'hostage'.

What I call hostage is deliberatly firing from civilian locations and suppressing any voices of dissent.

What surrender? I suggested evacuating Israeli towns prone to Hamas rocket fire as that, ostensibly, would cause less death overall on both sides. And it's not like Israel wouldn't have the money to relocate those living near the Strip (only the population of a few small towns). I don't see how the Russia analogy is relevant.

Relocation to where? The west bank :rolleyes:

Seriously though, relocation would be the terrorists' dreams. Relocating them would give them a sweet victory. Why should evil be granted victory? The russian analogy is relevent. NO OTHER country in such a situation would give in to terrorists demands without putting up a good fight. Imagine rockets falling from Monaco to France, would the French relocate all the surrounding cities??! Or would they rid the city/country of aggression?
Besides, I don't know where you get the idea that Israel has the resources to relocate them. I suggest reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan#Aftermath

Israel has targeted civilian populated areas in military operations, that is a fact. Even if the targets aren't civilians, it still causes collateral damage, such as in Operation Cast Lead. This isn't really a controversial claim, I don't why you mentioned 'Zionist conspiracy'.

I mentioned that because there are idiots who think that Israel targets civilians as a matter of policy (a very large number of people who think this). A ridiculous claim that deserves no thought - especially since it's counter productive for Israel.

What else do you target in war caused by years of rocket fire?

Israel should do things to gain peace talks with Hamas; with Fatah it's a lot easier (although unfortunately

not consistent

, as you addressed). I think Israel should do the things I listed because I think they would advance the process. Of course, Hamas should stop firing rockets too, but I think at least part of that can be controlled by Israel's policy towards the Strip (the blockade), which unfortunately strengthens Hamas.

Peace talks with Hamas? How can you talk to someone who denies your existence (+ more)??

Not consistent is an understatment. Why are they making such a big deal about talking???????? I can't stress it enough. (for full rant see post before :wink:

)

Reply 1588

DVnotDivvy

5

Original post by OllieS

Well of course Palestinian women and children killed by airstrikes inside their homes are unable to defend themselves. And do you honestly believe the majority of Palestinian casualties are deliberate on the part of Palestinians?

At any rate, this blame game/analysing which side is more in the wrong isn't getting anyone very far. I think we should be devoting our energy into achieving peace, and thinking how it can be achieved (because it is a complex process).

Israeli bombers don't bomb civilian targets intentionally, the problem is that Hamas members HIDE AMONG civilians, in schools and the such; the other more efficient method of killing terrorists and not civilians is sending ground forces into Gaza, but since sending ground troops is expensive and complicated, and often illegal, the IDF is left with no choice but to use air strikes.

I agree with you that we should spend our energies in achieving peace, but unfortunately it's not as simple. Consider all the elements that obstruct the peace process; I don't know about the Muslims because my understanding of Islam is limited, but I'm a Jew (loosely :s-smilie:

) and my family belongs to the modern Orthodox movement Chabad-Lubavitch, (if you don't know them, look them up), so I can give you a perspective of their side of the issue. They often preach ardently against a peaceful solution because they see the concession of territories as a sign of weakness and an act against God, so with that in mind, how am I supposed to argue objectively and coherently about a peace solution with them?

Their mentality can go from insane to outright frightening; many of them have as many children as they can with the logic of populating the earth with more Jews, many of them have children primarily to send them to the IDF when they turn 18; in a way it seems that they're not raising a family as much as they're raising an army, which ironically contradicts Golda Meir's famous quote about loving your children more than hating your enemy.

My main concern is for my little brother who at only 12 is already brainwashed with all the religious nationalistic BS, but I've made progress in opening his eyes to the truth about the issue, which still gives me hope that it's not all lost. But if the argument sticks to religion no progress will ever be made, since religion only beclouds the mind from any objective realistic analysis and progress.

Reply 1589

frostmage

1

Original post by DVnotDivvy

I agree with you that we should spend our energies in achieving peace, but unfortunately it's not as simple. Consider all the elements that obstruct the peace process; I don't know about the Muslims because my understanding of Islam is limited, but I'm a Jew (loosely :s-smilie:

) and my family belongs to the modern Orthodox movement Chabad-Lubavitch, (if you don't know them, look them up), so I can give you a perspective of their side of the issue. They often preach ardently against a peaceful solution because they see the concession of territories as a sign of weakness and an act against God, so with that in mind, how am I supposed to argue objectively and coherently about a peace solution with them?

Their mentality can go from insane to outright frightening; many of them have as many children as they can with the logic of populating the earth with more Jews, many of them have children primarily to send them to the IDF when they turn 18; in a way it seems that they're not raising a family as much as they're raising an army, which ironically contradicts Golda Meir's famous quote about loving your children more than hating your enemy.

My main concern is for my little brother who at only 12 is already brainwashed with all the religious nationalistic BS, but I've made progress in opening his eyes to the truth about the issue, which still gives me hope that it's not all lost. But if the argument sticks to religion no progress will ever be made, since religion only beclouds the mind from any objective realistic analysis and progress.

Wha? Sorry, but as a Jew (not from Chabad) that is totaly false. sign of weakness? Religious Judaism (including chabad) has always dictated Pikuach Nefesh (preserving life) above many other things. Most rabbis are for giving land if it is clear that it will lead to peace - unlike the 2006 gaza fiasco.
Chabad, like most other orthodox streams,would have been against the creation of a state (of Israel).
I think you should look beyond what Jews do nowadays and take lessons only from Gedolim and not from their "heirs" or followers.
As far as I am aware Haredim (and Chabad) tend not to go the army... ( majority do not).

Reply 1590

DVnotDivvy

5

Original post by frostmage

Wha? Sorry, but as a Jew (not from Chabad) that is totaly false. sign of weakness? Religious Judaism (including chabad) has always dictated Pikuach Nefesh (preserving life) above many other things. Most rabbis are for giving land if it is clear that it will lead to peace - unlike the 2006 gaza fiasco.
Chabad, like most other orthodox streams,would have been against the creation of a state (of Israel).
I think you should look beyond what Jews do nowadays and take lessons only from Gedolim and not from their "heirs" or followers.
As far as I am aware Haredim (and Chabad) tend not to go the army... ( majority do not).

I think you're forgetting the most important factor in the Israel-Palestine issue; when it comes to religion, any religion, people will ignore their own rules and principles if it gets them to their goal. "Thou shall not kill" didn't seem to important to Baruch Goldstein when he shot and killed 19 innocent Palestinians.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion; your rabbi obviously doesn't uphold the same views as my family's rabbi, and if you don't believe me, come to hellish Florida and see it for yourself. And I didn't mean just Chabad, members of Young Israel hold similar views; also, consider that not all of them can be regarded as Haredim, rather more modernised and pro-Israel as are most down here where I live.

Anyway, we're getting away from the point, what I was trying point out is that when it comes to these issues, religions tend to exacerbate things since they mainly promote absolute ideals rather than flexible ones.

Reply 1591

Suetonius

9

The Fatah-Hamas "reconciliation" seems to prove that the Palestinian authorities are committed to unilateralism from hereon in. Which is a shame, because Israel will - from September - be in occupation of a member state of the UN. International pressure will be overwhelming for Israel, and Palestine will, unfortunately, be left as a terrorist state (financed and backed by Iran), run by terrorists, and committed to destroying the State of Israel. Permanent war has pretty much been guaranteed for the foreseeable future.

Reply 1592

frostmage

1

Original post by DVnotDivvy

I think you're forgetting the most important factor in the Israel-Palestine issue; when it comes to religion, any religion, people will ignore their own rules and principles if it gets them to their goal. "Thou shall not kill" didn't seem to important to Baruch Goldstein when he shot and killed 19 innocent Palestinians.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion; your rabbi obviously doesn't uphold the same views as my family's rabbi, and if you don't believe me, come to hellish Florida and see it for yourself. And I didn't mean just Chabad, members of Young Israel hold similar views; also, consider that not all of them can be regarded as Haredim, rather more modernised and pro-Israel as are most down here where I live.

Anyway, we're getting away from the point, what I was trying point out is that when it comes to these issues, religions tend to exacerbate things since they mainly promote absolute ideals rather than flexible ones.

I still disagree. Those renegade Rabbis - and I CAN call them that - are simply going against Judaism. If they refuse to follow the Gedolim (or A gadol) and start bringing things from a slightly different prespective or start fabricating stuff - then it's just pride, arrogance and "Gashmius ( :wink:

) " that drives them - not religion.

Reply 1593

Democracy

20

The oh-so-peaceful and strictly non-terrorist organisation Hamas mourning the death of, er, Osama Bin Laden...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/2/hamas-leader-condemns-death-holy-warrior-bin-laden/

Reply 1594

Mujeriego

10

Original post by Democracy

The oh-so-peaceful and strictly non-terrorist organisation Hamas mourning the death of, er, Osama Bin Laden...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/2/hamas-leader-condemns-death-holy-warrior-bin-laden/

Don't think I have ever seen someone call Hamas peaceful around these parts (yet) but statements like that just show how completely inept most of Hamas' political faction is. It was only two weeks ago that Haniyeh was complaining to the Lebanese press about the Israelis' habit of enforcing collective punishment on Gazans and yet he doesn't mind the same fate being forced on almost 3000 civilians. He just called himself a dove on Al-Jazeera as well.

:s-smilie:

Reply 1595

Democracy

20

Original post by Mujeriego

Don't think I have ever seen someone call Hamas peaceful around these parts (yet)

Find anything abhorrent and disgusting and there'll be an apologist or useful idiot for it on TSR :smile:

That is Democracy's First Law of D&CA.

but statements like that just show how completely inept most of Hamas' political faction is. It was only two weeks ago that Haniyeh was complaining to the Lebanese press about the Israelis' habit of enforcing collective punishment on Gazans and yet he doesn't mind the same fate being forced on almost 3000 civilians. He just called himself a dove on Al-Jazeera as well.
:s-smilie:

They're totally loonies, and I wouldn't have expected anything less from them.

Reply 1596

Balagan

4

Original post by Democracy

The oh-so-peaceful and strictly non-terrorist organisation Hamas mourning the death of, er, Osama Bin Laden...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/2/hamas-leader-condemns-death-holy-warrior-bin-laden/

and yet Israel are still expected to sit down and 'negotiate' with these nutjobs... *sigh*.

Reply 1597

CODKING

9

Original post by Balagan

and yet Israel are still expected to sit down and 'negotiate' with these nutjobs... *sigh*.

Time and again Bin Laden linked his hatred of America to its support of israel and that regime's oppression of Palestinians. Maybe it would be wise to negotiate with the nutjobs before Middle America starts to ask why ITS people are still dying?