This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- My very rude Islam teacher
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Amphiprion
Listen I'm not saying you're wrong or anyone else is right. All I want is a reliable source where I can read about it.
Because it's undisputed fact, you can read just about any source as long as it's not from Hamas.com or something.
'palestine' was a region controlled by various empires.
Original post by Pinzgauer
'palestinian' terrorism against indigenous Jewish villagers preceded all excuses you can come up with for 'palestinian' terror.
which ofcourse you approve of because the arabs are not "indigenous" . pro israel supporters are the biggest deniers on the planet. israel shells beit hannun killed 20 kids. its their fault for being there which is what the pro israeli supporters are saying. . by the way hamas methods are terrible but you exercise restraint the ira used the same tactics did we bomb dublin or bomb derry and bomb schools? nope. also im half english/bengali . The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.
And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.- ayelet shaked.
And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there. - ayelet shaked.
such peaceful people xD
. id rather die then shoot at kids seems the israelis have a different morality to the rest of humanity.Strikes on a refugee camp in Gaza killed 10, including eight children, health officials said. A separate strike hit an outpatient clinic near Shifa hospital. The Israeli military blamed Hamas rockets for the strikes. More than 1,065 Gazans have died in the current conflict. more peacefulness. sorry but israel has ground forces you use them your less likely to kill kids.
Eight children playing in a Gaza refugee camp were killed, its main public hospital was struck, four Israelis were killed in a mortar attack' and militants from Gaza infiltrated Israel through a cross-border tunnel." - also i dont like when people target innocent people like hamas do which is why i dont like them. but i support the pal people from the genocidal freaks of israel.
of course this wasnt on purpose
.(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by TheAnusFiles
If religion was not around, the 'holy land' would be no more significant to the world than Dorset. However because it is designated holy, it becomes the target of crusades and jihad.
Sure, it's a small part of it, but it isn't the reason behind it. The conflict is due to attempted ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It began because the Jewish were persecuted so much during WW2 that the UN and UK decided to 'give' them land (Israel) but they had no right to give anyone that land (without even going into the religion side of Judaism that actually says the Jews can't have their own land anyway) as people already lived there. It's too complicated to explain it all but the religious parts of it aren't that significant. I don't deny that it's involved but it doesn't have enough of an effect to use it as an explanation.
Original post by Pinzgauer
Because it's undisputed fact, you can read just about any source as long as it's not from Hamas.com or something.
'palestine' was a region controlled by various empires.
'palestine' was a region controlled by various empires.
Googling history of palestine, history of gaza, history of israel just brings up a bunch of links to people debating who owns it. Half say Palestine were invaded and taken over by Israel, half say the Jews were there first.
If you'd link me to the place where you read what you're saying I'd appreciate it.
Original post by Amphiprion
Googling history of palestine, history of gaza, history of israel just brings up a bunch of links to people debating who owns it. Half say Palestine were invaded and taken over by Israel, half say the Jews were there first.
If you'd link me to the place where you read what you're saying I'd appreciate it.
If you'd link me to the place where you read what you're saying I'd appreciate it.
Your specific question was related to a 'country' called 'palestine'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
All you need is the first sentence.
The history of Palestine is the study of the past in the region of Palestine, generally defined as a geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.
Jordan is a country carved out of the region of 'palestine'.
Original post by Amphiprion
Googling history of palestine, history of gaza, history of israel just brings up a bunch of links to people debating who owns it. Half say Palestine were invaded and taken over by Israel, half say the Jews were there first.
If you'd link me to the place where you read what you're saying I'd appreciate it.
If you'd link me to the place where you read what you're saying I'd appreciate it.
Who was there first means nothing though, especially if they vacate the area.
Why is cameron in support of Israel when the UK as a whole does not support what;s happening.
How is it this little country ahs so much power over so many nations?
How is it this little country ahs so much power over so many nations?
Original post by Pinzgauer
It's now becoming obvious to everyone but the apologists that Hamas are literally desperate the inflict civilian casualties on their own population because this is the only thing that gives them diplomatic leverage.
They cannot win militarily, so their only option is political leverage with a complicit European media that gives them the anti-Israel propaganda needed for mass protests etc which then puts pressure on nations to condemn Israel.
I think an agreement with Egypt needs to be worked out to allow women and children through the Rafah crossing - and then let Israel wipe Hamas out for good.
They cannot win militarily, so their only option is political leverage with a complicit European media that gives them the anti-Israel propaganda needed for mass protests etc which then puts pressure on nations to condemn Israel.
I think an agreement with Egypt needs to be worked out to allow women and children through the Rafah crossing - and then let Israel wipe Hamas out for good.
Your argument is invalid. Why? Because it is Israel that are inflicting the civilian casualties that Hamas so desperately crave.
Anybody with any cop on knows that Hamas are a pretty nasty organisation. What people don't know, what I did not know until recently is that Israel spawned Hamas, allowing the Islamists to thrive in Gaza in the hope they would split the more secular PLO.
Britain and the Unionists faced a similar ******* in Northern Ireland. When faced with the very reasonable Irish Catholic civil rights movement they behaved with apathy occasionally violence. They have ended up having to share power with the political wing of an armed organisation that wanted to destroy the Union...
Basically Israel and Hamas deserve each other. The innocent civilian victims on either side do not.
Original post by BoddyBuilder
Why is cameron in support of Israel when the UK as a whole does not support what;s happening.
How is it this little country ahs so much power over so many nations?
How is it this little country ahs so much power over so many nations?
It's wrong to say the UK doesn't support Israel.
The UK unfortunately has a heavy bias in the media against Israel.
The televised media is dominated by leftist BBC, Channel4 News which is ultra leftist, ITV news which is made by the same company as Channel4 News - and then Sky news which also leans towards palestinians.
This gives the impression of the UK being anti-Israel and no doubt it does have an impact.
The reason the governments support Israel is simply because they understand what Israel is facing.
After all, Britain was engaged on two front in Iraq and Afghanistan - and those countries didn't even attack the UK.
Original post by Pinzgauer
It's wrong to say the UK doesn't support Israel.
The UK unfortunately has a heavy bias in the media against Israel.
The televised media is dominated by leftist BBC, Channel4 News which is ultra leftist, ITV news which is made by the same company as Channel4 News - and then Sky news which also leans towards palestinians.
This gives the impression of the UK being anti-Israel and no doubt it does have an impact.
The reason the governments support Israel is simply because they understand what Israel is facing.
After all, Britain was engaged on two front in Iraq and Afghanistan - and those countries didn't even attack the UK.
The UK unfortunately has a heavy bias in the media against Israel.
The televised media is dominated by leftist BBC, Channel4 News which is ultra leftist, ITV news which is made by the same company as Channel4 News - and then Sky news which also leans towards palestinians.
This gives the impression of the UK being anti-Israel and no doubt it does have an impact.
The reason the governments support Israel is simply because they understand what Israel is facing.
After all, Britain was engaged on two front in Iraq and Afghanistan - and those countries didn't even attack the UK.
No, the reason the British government supports Israel is because of an aggresive, well funded and well organized Israeli lobby. They control both the UK and the USA.
These leeches need tog et out of British politics.
Original post by DK_Tipp
Your argument is invalid. Why? Because it is Israel that are inflicting the civilian casualties that Hamas so desperately crave.
It's not possible to fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not sure how leftists managed to create this environment whereby people expect zero-casualty wars.
The British are currently killing civilians in Afghanistan. The difference is that due Britain does not come in for the same scrutiny as Israel. The BBC is not camped outside Afghan hospitals showing injured kids - but civilians are dying.
Anybody with any cop on knows that Hamas are a pretty nasty organisation. What people don't know, what I did not know until recently is that Israel spawned Hamas, allowing the Islamists to thrive in Gaza in the hope they would split the more secular PLO.
This is overstated much like when people make the statement that the US "created Al Qaeda" because they armed some cave-dwellers against the Soviets.
Britain and the Unionists faced a similar ******* in Northern Ireland. When faced with the very reasonable Irish Catholic civil rights movement they behaved with apathy occasionally violence. They have ended up having to share power with the political wing of an armed organisation that wanted to destroy the Union...
Basically Israel and Hamas deserve each other. The innocent civilian victims on either side do not.
Basically Israel and Hamas deserve each other. The innocent civilian victims on either side do not.
A whole different animal. At no point did the Irish declare their stated aim as being the destruction of the UK and the genocide of its people.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
Original post by Pinzgauer
It's not possible to fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not sure how leftists managed to create this environment whereby people expect zero-casualty wars.
The British are currently killing civilians in Afghanistan. The difference is that due Britain does not come in for the same scrutiny as Israel. The BBC is not camped outside Afghan hospitals showing injured kids - but civilians are dying.
This is overstated much like when people make the statement that the US "created Al Qaeda" because they armed some cave-dwellers against the Soviets.
A whole different animal. At no point did the Irish declare their stated aim as being the destruction of the UK and the genocide of its people.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
The British are currently killing civilians in Afghanistan. The difference is that due Britain does not come in for the same scrutiny as Israel. The BBC is not camped outside Afghan hospitals showing injured kids - but civilians are dying.
This is overstated much like when people make the statement that the US "created Al Qaeda" because they armed some cave-dwellers against the Soviets.
A whole different animal. At no point did the Irish declare their stated aim as being the destruction of the UK and the genocide of its people.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
I don;t follow your argument. If you think rocket attacks on your territory constitutes a forceful response then you believe Palestinaians have every right to aim for Israel to be in ruins?
So you support Hamas?
Original post by flyyoufools
Sure, it's a small part of it, but it isn't the reason behind it. (1) The conflict is due to attempted ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It began because the Jewish were persecuted so much during WW2 that the (2) UN and UK decided to 'give' them land (Israel) (3) but they had no right to give anyone that land (without even going into the religion side of Judaism that actually says the Jews can't have their own land anyway) (4) as people already lived there. It's too complicated to explain it all but the religious parts of it aren't that significant. I don't deny that it's involved but it doesn't have enough of an effect to use it as an explanation.
I've numbered your incorrect statements for ease of reference, hope you don't mind.
(1) Assuming you are not so stupid as to be referring to any event after 1948: In 1948 there was a pretty big war and during wars those not involved tend to try and run away. There were incidents during that war when Israelis tried to make Palestinians leave. There was also a well documented call from Arab generals for Arabs to leave the area to make it easier to destroy the nascent Israel and return later. There is no support for claims that there was a policy or attempt at ethnic cleansing.
(2) The UK had already promised Israel as a homeland to the Jews in the 20s and the League of Nations likewise before the second world war
(3) They didn't "give away" in the sense that they handed over private ownership to someone else. They handed over sovereignty which they were perfectly entitled to do.
(4) By the time of the UN's partition plan there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living there too
Original post by Pinzgauer
It's not possible to fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not sure how leftists managed to create this environment whereby people expect zero-casualty wars.
There is actually no reason why it cannot be done in theory, however in practice it is somewhat harder.
The British are currently killing civilians in Afghanistan. The difference is that due Britain does not come in for the same scrutiny as Israel. The BBC is not camped outside Afghan hospitals showing injured kids - but civilians are dying.
Even with a new account you insist on tu quoque argument, and you might want to look up the current civilian casualty rates for NATO (p.s. they're lower than for Israel)
This is overstated much like when people make the statement that the US "created Al Qaeda" because they armed some cave-dwellers against the Soviets.
And overstatement invalidates an argument how?
A whole different animal. At no point did the Irish declare their stated aim as being the destruction of the UK and the genocide of its people.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
As I have already explained to you, the bombing of German cities was no more severe post V2, or at least not as a consequence of V2.
Consider this: Scotland declares its independence, England invades and takes control of most of the country and practically forces most of the population of Scotland to live in either Edinburgh or Glasgow. They then build a wall around Glasgow and cripple the economy by restricting access and as a consequence Glasgow is a city of extreme poverty and is practically reliant on international aid to keep going. The English government is unwilling to negotiate. Do you expect them to just sit there and accept their fate, or turn to more violent approaches given their wishes fall on deaf ears?
Original post by JordanL_
Dawkins is a prick.
Just because a self-important scientist, however brilliant he may be, holds an opinion, that doesn't make that opinion any less ****. He's a biologist, not a philosopher, so maybe he should focus on scientific study instead of his crusade for atheism.
Just because a self-important scientist, however brilliant he may be, holds an opinion, that doesn't make that opinion any less ****. He's a biologist, not a philosopher, so maybe he should focus on scientific study instead of his crusade for atheism.
Last year's philosophy class went to one of his lectures on a school trip once...
Original post by Pinzgauer
It's not possible to fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not sure how leftists managed to create this environment whereby people expect zero-casualty wars.
The British are currently killing civilians in Afghanistan. The difference is that due Britain does not come in for the same scrutiny as Israel. The BBC is not camped outside Afghan hospitals showing injured kids - but civilians are dying.
This is overstated much like when people make the statement that the US "created Al Qaeda" because they armed some cave-dwellers against the Soviets.
A whole different animal. At no point did the Irish declare their stated aim as being the destruction of the UK and the genocide of its people.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
The British are currently killing civilians in Afghanistan. The difference is that due Britain does not come in for the same scrutiny as Israel. The BBC is not camped outside Afghan hospitals showing injured kids - but civilians are dying.
This is overstated much like when people make the statement that the US "created Al Qaeda" because they armed some cave-dwellers against the Soviets.
A whole different animal. At no point did the Irish declare their stated aim as being the destruction of the UK and the genocide of its people.
Additionally, N.I was British territory and the people living there were therefore British. They could not bombard their own towns and cities.
Make no mistake, if the UK suffered daily rocket attacks of 150 rockets per day where British nationals were spending half their lives in bomb shelters - Ireland would be in ruins - just like Germany was after V2 rocket attacks.
People aren't too keen on war to begin with. There will always be civilian deaths yes, but on the scale we're seeing in Gaza? I think it's unacceptable and I don't think Israel can be completely absolved of blame by simply blaming Hamas.
I don't know that it is overstated, I think it's relevant. The US definitely had a role to play in the growth of Islamist movement. Their foreign policy throughout the 20th century lead them to supporting and funding some pretty despicable characters in the name of anti-communism. Don't think they can be blamed for Bin Laden, Osama had his own money and influence, didn't need the US.
The British forces did kill "British" civilian citizens in NI. I'm sure anyone in the Bogside and Creggan in Derry/L'derry or Ballymurphy in Belfast will be quick to tell you that.
Shelling Dublin would have been pretty counter-productive given that the IRA were outlawed in the south anyway.
The pigs of Israel are committing war crimes. People who support Israel's actions in Gaza are supporting the killing of children, babies, the unborn and the disabled. The UK and US have blood on their hands for selling billions of arms to Israel and using it to kill innocent people.
Original post by Pinzgauer
x
Additionally note, there are multiple ways around each *******, Israel chooses the easy one, i.e. use explosives. Explain the need to bomb buildings and make tanks fire shells at buildings full of civilians rather than using a bullet to achieve the same end? Slightly higher risk, substantially easier, prevents international outcry.
Original post by DK_Tipp
People aren't too keen on war to begin with. There will always be civilian deaths yes, but on the scale we're seeing in Gaza? I think it's unacceptable and I don't think Israel can be completely absolved of blame by simply blaming Hamas.
On the contrary. Speaking from a purely military perspective - if you look at the environment Israel is operating in which is densely populated, narrow streets and alleyways, homes on top of homes - coupled with the fact that the civilian infrastructure has been completely hijacked and integrated into the terrorist infrastructure, then the casualties are fairly low considering the amount of airstrikes.
Don't forget that although the European media doesn't seem to want to differentiate between terrorist and civilian, hundreds of terrorists have been killed with the army saying around 400 in the ground operation alone.
As it stands, it's somewhere in the region of 0.2 civilian deaths per strike. In such an environment, that's phenomenal.
Israel also goes above and beyond their responsibilities vis-a-vis civilians. Phone call, texts, leaflet drops and roof-knocks are all utilised.
There really is nothing else they can do.
Land for peace does not work. They gave Gaza over and got more terrorism than ever.
The amount of money and effort spent on terrorism by palestinians in Gaza is astounding. If they put a fraction of that towards building Gaza, they would have had a much improved life and territory.
(edited 9 years ago)
Can't sleep so I'll post this
Have a look at
"What if Christianity didn't exist"
and "What if Islam didn't exist" on YouTube. it'd quite interesting and delves in to.this kinda stuff ie: conflicts
Have a look at
"What if Christianity didn't exist"
and "What if Islam didn't exist" on YouTube. it'd quite interesting and delves in to.this kinda stuff ie: conflicts
Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- My very rude Islam teacher
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
