Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Israel Petition

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This petition calls for the TSR House of Commons to issue a motion condemning recent activity by the State of Israel towards Iran.

    It is widely estimated by the global diplomatic and intelligence community that Israel is preparing to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran, this has led to calls by several countries for relations to cool between the two powers. The United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has publicly warned that strikes could come within months.

    Further evidence has presented itself in the form of suspected false-flag operations by the Israeli state intelligence agency, Mossad, in New Delhi, Tbilisi, and Baku.

    Whatever the case, unilateral military actions against Iran would achieve nothing but further instability in the region, probably through tipping the country's currently fragile "moderate" government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into an overtly theocratic alternative led by Islamist extremists.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, we're condemning them for something they haven't done?

    Pull the other one.
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What difference would it make? The Israali's pretty much do what they damn well please and balls to the consequences. Condemning them does what exactly? Will it stop them? Will it defer them?
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Sorry, we're condemning them for something they haven't done?

    Pull the other one.
    We condemn Iran (rightfully) for developing nuclear technology. We should condemn Israel for trying to turn the current covert war into an overt one. This is the diplomatic way.

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    What difference would it make? The Israali's pretty much do what they damn well please and balls to the consequences. Condemning them does what exactly? Will it stop them? Will it defer them?
    There haven't been any consequences for Israel so far, obviously if they ignore the plea of a nation with a seat on the Security Council, that's one step closer to there being consequences - perhaps in the form of economic sanctions - as penalty for their divisive and outrageous actions.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    We condemn Iran (rightfully) for developing nuclear technology. We should condemn Israel for trying to turn the current covert war into an overt one. This is the diplomatic way.
    Yeah, but that's because Iran actually are developing Nuclear weapons (or, rather, the intelligence suggests so). Your argument is that the intelligence suggests Israel are preparing to launch an attack. Aside from the fact that preparing to do something isn't the same as doing it (I'd be shocked if the British military didn't have some sort of preparation for the same course of action), there's also the issue that simply "turning the current covert war into an overt one" isn't an inherently bad thing.

    If you were convinced that there's actually a genuine thread to Israel from Iran, would you condemn them trying to pre-emptively halt this threat in the form of "overt" military strike?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    'Israel' must be shown that, just like any other 'country', it is not above international law...which is paradoxical because I dont even consider it a country.. more along the lines of a temporary Nazi-style colonial regime that survives by murdering Palestinians.

    (sorry for going a bit off topic)
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yeah, but that's because Iran actually are developing Nuclear weapons (or, rather, the intelligence suggests so). Your argument is that the intelligence suggests Israel are preparing to launch an attack. Aside from the fact that preparing to do something isn't the same as doing it (I'd be shocked if the British military didn't have some sort of preparation for the same course of action), there's also the issue that simply "turning the current covert war into an overt one" isn't an inherently bad thing.

    If you were convinced that there's actually a genuine thread to Israel from Iran, would you condemn them trying to pre-emptively halt this threat in the form of "overt" military strike?
    If I believed that overt action against Iran was in the best interest of peace, then pursuing it through the UN would be the only legal way by which to achieve it. Unilateral action will only increase tensions in the region, and, as I've said, would likely lead to an increasingly militarised/extremist Iran. Thus I anyway believe that overt war is an inherently bad thing in this case.

    And there's a difference between having a preparation plan and actually planning open warfare. All the evidence points to Israel doing the latter.

    (Original post by jawdy)
    'Israel' must be shown that, just like any other 'country', it is not above international law...which is paradoxical because I dont even consider it a country.. more along the lines of a temporary Nazi-style colonial regime that survives by murdering Palestinians.

    (sorry for going a bit off topic)
    Israel is a country, like it or not.

    And can I just say how disgusting I find your comparison of Zionism to Nazism.

    Also, to say that Israel survives by killing Palestinians is so stupid and harmful to the Palestinian cause as it would then justify Israel's actions towards the Palestinians in the eyes of the Israelis.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    If I believed that overt action against Iran was in the best interest of peace, then pursuing it through the UN would be the only legal way by which to achieve it. Unilateral action will only increase tensions in the region, and, as I've said, would likely lead to an increasingly militarised/extremist Iran. Thus I anyway believe that overt war is an inherently bad thing in this case.

    And there's a difference between having a preparation plan and actually planning open warfare. All the evidence points to Israel doing the latter.
    The UN? Aha, stop messing around. You and I - I'm assuming you don't live in Israel, so please correct me if I'm wrong - have the luxury of living in a country whose existence is not, on a day by day basis, threatened. Several times in the countries short history, it has had its massively larger neighbours mount their troops on its borders with a war ensuing.

    In 1948, the UN came up with a plan. The Jews agreed, the Arabs did not. The Israeli's declared independence based on the borders in said UN agreement (a move which the UN recognised as Legitimate just a year later) yet stood idly by as Israel's neighbours immediately invaded (and where, btw, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip). The UN did nothing. In 1967, once again hundreds of thousands of troops were massed around Israel's border. Given the enormous inequality of troop numbers, had Israel not unilaterally struck first, it's entirely possible they wouldn't exist anymore. Again, the UN did nothing.

    You should thank your stars that you have the luxury or living in a country that can afford to wait for ineffectual UN resolutions to conduct war legally (as if that's not an oxymoron enough - all wars are crimes, though they are sometimes necessary). If Israel had taken that stance over the entirety of its existence, it wouldn't still be here. And yet you still expect them to sit there and wait whilst Iran builds a nuke, because Russia and China - those bastions of rights and freedoms - haven't signed off on an attack? Pfft.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Petitions were designed to call for things that could be enacted in legislation, so they should be asking for bills to be written rather than asking for motions to be issued. I'll allow this to stay up, but as a reminder for future (and I hope you will be submitting petitions in future! ), they should be calling for things we can enact in legislation.

    If anyone else is interested in writing a petition, it's open to all! Click here to learn more.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As an Israeli Citizen I am against this, I will never condemn Israel on the same scale that you non-Israeli/Jew's seem to do. None of you understand the history as well as we do nor do you understand our present struggles in this world where everyone that surrounds us wants us dead.

    Unfortunately I quit my posts and thus my opinion has no real bearing on any of this.
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye.

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    What difference would it make? The Israali's pretty much do what they damn well please and balls to the consequences. Condemning them does what exactly? Will it stop them? Will it defer them?
    That isn't the point. Yes we may not stop them and yes it may not deter them, but we are taking a stand and making clear to the Israelis that their actions are not acceptable. Even if the condemnation achieves nothing material, it still makes clear that no we will not accept the actions of the Israelis.

    On a separate note, I am disappointed with the negging again, but at least there's some debate going on.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is kind of an MUN thing, tbh. Well written though
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    The UN? Aha, stop messing around. You and I - I'm assuming you don't live in Israel, so please correct me if I'm wrong - have the luxury of living in a country whose existence is not, on a day by day basis, threatened. Several times in the countries short history, it has had its massively larger neighbours mount their troops on its borders with a war ensuing.

    In 1948, the UN came up with a plan. The Jews agreed, the Arabs did not. The Israeli's declared independence based on the borders in said UN agreement (a move which the UN recognised as Legitimate just a year later) yet stood idly by as Israel's neighbours immediately invaded (and where, btw, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip). The UN did nothing. In 1967, once again hundreds of thousands of troops were massed around Israel's border. Given the enormous inequality of troop numbers, had Israel not unilaterally struck first, it's entirely possible they wouldn't exist anymore. Again, the UN did nothing.

    You should thank your stars that you have the luxury or living in a country that can afford to wait for ineffectual UN resolutions to conduct war legally (as if that's not an oxymoron enough - all wars are crimes, though they are sometimes necessary). If Israel had taken that stance over the entirety of its existence, it wouldn't still be here. And yet you still expect them to sit there and wait whilst Iran builds a nuke, because Russia and China - those bastions of rights and freedoms - haven't signed off on an attack? Pfft.
    Membership of the UN Security Council is not decided by virtue of democracy/freedom in any one country, China/Russia are there because they represent the current global balance of power. The UN is not a sham because of this, it is merely more effective at being the conservative-inclined organisation that it has always been intended as.

    And you did not just go there, sistah.
    There is more evidence for the existence of a current nuclear weapons programme in Israel than there ever has been for whatever it is suggested the Iranians are up to. Stripping Israel of the bomb would immediately remove any incentive for Iran to get the bomb - do you honestly think that they crave war?

    Israel on the other hand has done its level best to be a bad neighbour, killing Arabs and taking their land is not going to make other Arab states form pleasant opinions of Zionism. I am convinced that the two peoples can live in peace.

    The 1948 plan was rejected on the grounds that terrorism should not be pandered to. Accepting it added legitimacy to the Zionist terror campaigns (that are oh so ironically similar to those that have been waged by Hamas in more modern times. The blaring difference is of course that today Israel has the support of billionaires and U.S. defense spending.) Jordan and Egypt annexed those places out of a belief that they should be governed on behalf of the people who live there - before the settlers and machine guns arrived, the majority populations in both those places were Arab (and in fact still are mostly).

    Also, can you stop saying that the dichotomy is between 'Jews' and 'Arabs' when in fact its offensive to say that all Jews support the abuse of human rights perpetrated by Israel (on a note that really should not be relevant, I myself am Jewish).
    • Thread Starter
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    As an Israeli Citizen I am against this, I will never condemn Israel on the same scale that you non-Israeli/Jew's seem to do. None of you understand the history as well as we do nor do you understand our present struggles in this world where everyone that surrounds us wants us dead.

    Unfortunately I quit my posts and thus my opinion has no real bearing on any of this.
    Interesting, as I said in my post, I am Jewish. Of course being opposed to Israel automatically makes me a traitor, and I must of course be totally ignorant of my people's history to not support the policies of Bibi Netanyahu.

    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    This is kind of an MUN thing, tbh. Well written though
    It could be turned into a resolution and submitted to the uber sexy SG.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Interesting, as I said in my post, I am Jewish. Of course being opposed to Israel automatically makes me a traitor, and I must of course be totally ignorant of my people's history to not support the policies of Bibi Netanyahu.
    Yes I agree that you are a traitor to our race and homeland, when I read your posts it appears that you want to see an end to Israel which is the worse thing a Jew could wish for and I therefore doubt you are even Jewish.

    Supporting the policies of Netanyahu has nothing to do with anything, you can be against his policies and support the existence of Israel like most Israeli/Jew's.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    teh, I'm sure you feel passionately about this but stop calling people traitors and stop setting yourself apart. It's not good for the feel of the place.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    teh, I'm sure you feel passionately about this but stop calling people traitors and stop setting yourself apart. It's not good for the feel of the place.
    He brought up the fact he was a traitor first, I simply agreed.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Yes I agree that you are a traitor to our race and homeland, when I read your posts it appears that you want to see an end to Israel which is the worse thing a Jew could wish for and I therefore doubt you are even Jewish.
    As an interesting aside, the debate on whether criticism of Israel's current administration amounts to being a "traitor" to the cause has had quite a developed debate in the United States, for obvious reasons. In JPCK's defence, he's far from alone in his views and the label of "traitor" seems, to an outsider, unduly harsh.

    Anyway, you might find something of interest in the writings of Tony Judt:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/op...pagewanted=all
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ju...lf-hating-jew/
Updated: February 27, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.