The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

You complain endlessly about the death of innocent Palestinians yet effectively fully support their continuous death by highlighting the need for violence?

Just look at the situation, Hamas are getting obliterated by the Israelis and you still think they should pursue a violent cause?

Boils down to plausibility, something no pro-Palestinian poster on here has suggested.

None of you want to end the violence, you all just want to see Israel destroyed.. Pathetic.

I think you sum up pro-palestinians.

There's just no debating with you. The only ones you can debate with are those who are more neutral.

Guaranteed without fail, every pro-palestinian just uses streams of hyperbole.

Hamas only fire rockets into Israel 24/7 because their suicide bombers get a bullet in the head before they reach the border.

What youre seeing here is Israel being able to repel Hamas from killing innocent Israeli civilians, through means of defence, however they are well within their rights to a counter offensive.

This however has not always been the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

And people wonder why Hamas is called a Terrorist organisation

Let's see what Mahatma Ghandi actually said about Palestine (An except):

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred."

Ghandi lived in india , not palestine.
someone buy this lad a map

Oh, so people are only allowed to comment on the places they live in now?

if i needed a valid view on british colonial indian and the fight for freedom there i could accept ghandis view .
if its a view on the palestine issue, then his view is no more enlightening than anyone elses. you might as well quote george bush's view on palestine

So, what you're saying, is that the only valid opinions are those of the locals? What If I took all the people in my village and brainwashed them to believe that there is a volcano beneath our feet it must be so, even if the learned in other countries say otherwise?

im saying his opinion is pointless in highlighting simply because he is famous for an entirely unrelated point in history - the only purpose is that tsr1269 is trying to accumulate opinions that make it difficult for jews to establish their right to have a jewish state.
in ghandis own land, his country was partitioned off to give muslims a home land (??) in a region where islam has no relevance at all.

If it had no relevance then why would they be separated? Take a look at this map and then think about why it was decided to cut it as it was:

it has no relevance tot he region because islam is a middle eastern religion not an asian one. again it arrived in asia purely by invasion driven by greed of islamic armies.

the reason it was partitioned was becuase the British decided that muslims could not live peacefully alongside hindus and sikhs and islamists were demanding an 'islamic state' for them to live in. the reality was more muslims actually stayed in india than live in islamic pakistan.

similarly british realised previously that muslims would not live peacebly around jews in the palestine region and also that the jews and msulims should have their own holy cities, given both faiths orignated in middle east- hence why israel was created in levant, and saudi arabia around mecca/medina

So now religions have to stay where they origninated? I suppose you're going to have fun with the Middle east then, or more specifically Palestine since you have 3 religions to deal with .

Israel just doesn't seem to want to buy the concept that two state solutions are compromises that work. .

It was also somewhat necessary since, as Ambedkar argues, in the event of an invasion of India by a Muslim country "[W]hom would the Indian Muslims in the army side with?", . well india fought a war with paksistan with signifcant muslim armed forces, and they also liberated muslim bangladesh from the islamic leaders of pakistan committing genocide there of intellectuals and people not 'islamic enough'

Original post by Jammy Duel

As for who lived where, do you have any figures, because the ones I have imply that there were large shifts (about 7.25m Muslims moving from India to Pakistan and a similar number of non-Muslims going the other way post partition), depending on population distribution this could theoretically result in a situation that contradicts your claim. On the other hand, if the population of what is now India was many times greater than that of Pakistan would the simple matter of practicality not explain the discrepancy? For example, there are more Muslims in India now than there are in Pakistan, why? Because their population is that massive, consider the percentages, a different picture is painted. . there were massive population movements, both ways you obviously dont realise, seeing as in paksitan there were huge hindu, sikh and buddhist resident populations too that most moved to india. but 100s of millions of muslims chose to remain in india.

but if you agree with the partition to suit one relgions group in a region which has no link for islam- what is your problem with the same for a relgiion that is the original faith in levant and jerusalem ie judasim ?

Original post by Jammy Duel

Similarly, the Jews were calling for their own nation and they were given lands in Palestine, as were the Muslims. Although, should there not also have been a chunk cut out for the Christians too? Well, they didn't particularly want one. .

yes but the sad reality of many thousand years of islamic rule is both christian and jewish populations in middle east dwindelled signifcantly to waht they were. the jews were given a homeland becuase they didnt have one. christanity already had a' homeland '- essentially that of the ex roman empire.

Original post by Jammy Duel

he Arabs disagreed, the Jews obviously agreed because that's what they wanted, at the same time many didn't. In many respects, it probably would have been better for it to be a single unified state, even if it would have necessitated a Jewish revolution. There was no real way to carve up Palestine that would have been agreeable, maybe the best thing would have been for some exterior power to rule over it to keep it under control.

Don't much want to proceed with this pointless convo but jsyk, that isn't true, he was actually using popular Zionist-propagandist tactics. People were talking about Palestinians being massacred, he tried to divert people's attentions to 'anti-Semitism in Europe'. He was told Israel was committing a massacre, he said no, because if that were true so many more Palestinians would have died.

At no point did I say you supported them or considered supernatural belief valid. What I described was simply the alternative. Still, if we're going to start taking sides based on saying one sides belief is a fairytale, then pretty much everyone except muslims and jews shouldn't be arguing this.

Eh, it's not diverting the topic, unless you were diverting the topic when you asked why non-religious people would support Israel. I've got nothing to do with Mossad or Israel, but if you'd prefer to accuse people of being mossad shills rather than debate the points, that's up to you.

You don't understand my point.



You can be stubborn all you want but there's irrefutable evidence of the Israelis purposely keeping Gaza near breakdown levels, targeting civilians and of course maintaining an apartheid regime in the occupied West Bank.

If people begin to resist and become radicalised under these cruel circumstances then do not be surprised. I certainly would and so would you.

New ceasefire. I wonder how long until Hamas breaks it as usual

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/28596609

They broke it by firing a rocket. Israel responded.

They fired a mortar 2 hours after the ceasefire, it landed within Gaza