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 Meenglishnogood
as far as i was aware , the term zionist simply refered to a jew that followed the principle that jews were to have a homeland as per their Torah. it has been hijacked i think by various anti-jewish peoples, islamists included, to try and use it in a derogatory manor, similar to various racial terms etc
Irrelevant and not related to the post.
If you wish to make an irrelevant point not related to what you I have posted, please do not quote me.
Original post by Super Cicero
Every single war Israel has participated in has been out of self-defence - either because hostile neighbours attacked them first seeking to exterminate the Jewish people, or because they were forced to strike first (such as in 1967 when Syria was about to cut off Israel's water supply and Israel had solid intelligence the Arabs were going to attack).
A two-state solution is a fantasy. If Israel withdrew from Judaea & Samaria (i.e. the "West Bank") then extremists would take over there just like they did in Gaza after Israel withdrew. Israel would have no strategic depth if it withdrew and so would not be able to defend itself. Israel should encourage more settlements in Judaea & Samaria, and then annex the region - but Palestinians living in the region should be given devolved autonomous administrations underneath Israeli sovereignity, but should not be allowed to vote in national elections. Or alternatively, they could have Jordanian citizenship and be able to vote in Jordanian elections - despite living under Israeli control. Jordan already is the Palestinian state.
No division of Eretz Yisrael. No tolerance for Islamic terrorist organisations like Hamas - annihilate them. Construct the Third Temple on Temple Mount. This is the solution that is needed.
A two-state solution is a fantasy. If Israel withdrew from Judaea & Samaria (i.e. the "West Bank") then extremists would take over there just like they did in Gaza after Israel withdrew. Israel would have no strategic depth if it withdrew and so would not be able to defend itself. Israel should encourage more settlements in Judaea & Samaria, and then annex the region - but Palestinians living in the region should be given devolved autonomous administrations underneath Israeli sovereignity, but should not be allowed to vote in national elections. Or alternatively, they could have Jordanian citizenship and be able to vote in Jordanian elections - despite living under Israeli control. Jordan already is the Palestinian state.
No division of Eretz Yisrael. No tolerance for Islamic terrorist organisations like Hamas - annihilate them. Construct the Third Temple on Temple Mount. This is the solution that is needed.
Starting to wonder now is it's TSR mod policy to add another crazy to the mix whenever this thread looks like drying up for a little.
Original post by Meenglishnogood
but as i said already they were all given their own land ( in US , states too) to recognise their historic heritage in those countires)
In other words, they were given autonomous areas within the larger states. The British made suggestions about similar proposals for Palestine in the 1930s. The Zionists rejected this and demanded a completely separate state.
if you have an issue with this, why should there then be a separate palestinian state then?
Actually, I'd prefer a single binational state, but unfortunately I don't believe Israel would ever accept such an idea, so a two-state solution is probably the best we can do given the situation.
there is plenty of historic record of the hebrew tribes being basedin levant, from the romans to the egyptians to europeans
That doesn't answer my question. Why does that make it their 'homeland'?
there is zero record of any muslim or even arab settlemnt there, until of course the arabs invaded jerusalem much much later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans
whatever it is , i see no problem in them having a constitution that requires a jewish majortity government, seeing as it was setup as a jewish state and homeland
Turkey was set up as a Turkish state and a homeland for Turks. Does that justify their genocides of Turkey's Armenian, Assyrian and Greek populations, and the decades-long brutal forced subjugation and attempted assimilation of its Kurdish population, in order to create a sizable Turkish majority.
as i would iran or saudi have a muslim only run state.
Most of the world sees Saudi Arabia and Iran as reactionary, brutal and totalitarian regimes for precisely this reason. Israel, by contrast, claims to be a liberal democracy.
so does saudi (in terms of citezenship anyway. tell me is a non muslim allowed to enter mecca?
The Saudi regime is in my opinion one of the most detestable in the world. But what does that have to do with Israel/Palestine.
agreed but the cannanittes/ ancient egyptian pharoes etc no longer exist.
Nor, by most anthropological standards, did the Jews exist as a single group by the 19th century. They were Ashkenazi, or Sephardi or Mizrahi. They still broadly held to the same theology, but so do Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians.
the celts used to exist first here in UK before the anglo saxons, but they do not anymore.
Try telling the Welsh that.
were there? how do you know, and in what numbers?
See above about the Ghassanids and Nabateans.
so then why do muslims today have a problem with the jews having their own state in the homeland that judaism was established?
Because that state was established by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs from their home. And 'home' here as in the sense that it was the place where they'd been born and grown up, and where their parents had been born and grown up and so on, not their 'home' according to a national-religious narrative based on the fact that their distant ancestors had lived there nearly 2000 years ago.
and their holy book - the torah which states abraham was sent to jerusalem as the jews homeland - is also the holy book of the muslims. so by a purely theological argument, you are contradicting yourself also.
The term 'Jew' did not exist at this point in the Torah - it came from the later Kingdom of Judah. According to both Muslims and Jews, Jerusalem was the promised land to the descendants of Abraham. According to Muslims, this includes the descendants of both Abraham's sons - Isaac (whose descendants were the Israelites/Hebrews) and Ishmael (whose descendants were the Arabs).. According to Jews, it includes only the former.
the first muslims were largely arab, and their territories and settlements all in arabia. islams first real link to jeruslaem ( depending on what you beelive as fact/fcition) was mohamemds claimed visin of flying to heaven from a rock in jerusalem on the back of a winged donkey. this is islamic tradition that essentially drove the early muslims to seize jerusalem under islamic control. but in reality all of islam was formualted and grew in arabia in the lands around and including mecca and medina, on entirely the otherside of the middle east.
Islam, like all religions, including Judaism, adopted bits and pieces of already-existing religions. Indeed, it adopted traditions of Judaism as well. According to the Quran, yes Islam (at least, as we would see it - according to Muslims Islam is an unbroken line back to Abraham which the Jews broke from when they rejected Jesus and the Christians broke from when they rejected Muhammad) began in Arabia with Muhammad - but according to the Torah, Abraham first came to God when he was somewhere in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq or Syria.
agreed, but his statement still applied, the muslims were invadeing and conquereing land controlled by the byzantine empire ( which happened to be levant) the early muslims have the complete track record of invading other peoples lands and imposeing islamic rule - from the entire middle east, to north africa into southern/central europe and into fringes of asia - so much so that most muslims today are the ancestors of people that were conquered and colonised at some point by islamic armies - so his point still stands . The fact taht the jews were not intially in control of heir homeland doesnt detract from the logic of now giving them a homeland there. the arabs werent in control of mecca till the british took control of it and gave the muslims a holy city either.
This applies to pretty much every empire in history, it's not unique to the Caliphate.
Original post by Chindits
Terrorist state of Qatar
Wait, what?
Are Hamas animals, or something lower?
Original post by anarchism101
In other words, they were given autonomous areas within the larger states. The British made suggestions about similar proposals for Palestine in the 1930s. The Zionists rejected this and demanded a completely separate state.
.
.
the british made various proposals, one of which was to give the jews a state. and a final mandate was prepared, the various arab nations refused to accept it, so the jews simply declared israel to exist, then there was a free for all for various regions between jordan egypt and isreal, inc WB and gaza. their boundaries came about from these conflicts, not british proposals
Original post by anarchism101
Actually, I'd prefer a single binational state, but unfortunately I don't believe Israel would ever accept such an idea, so a two-state solution is probably the best we can do given the situation. .
Actually, I'd prefer a single binational state, but unfortunately I don't believe Israel would ever accept such an idea, so a two-state solution is probably the best we can do given the situation. .
binational state is a dumb idea, almost complelty unworkable logiistcally speaking, as is i beleive the segregated jersualem with a 'corridor of access' I mean these various groups cant live togehter in the current boundary arrangement, how should such a ludicrous meandering boundary scenario work?
Original post by anarchism101
That doesn't answer my question. Why does that make it their 'homeland'? .
That doesn't answer my question. Why does that make it their 'homeland'? .
it was made their homeland becuase thats what the british wanted. jsut as they set mecca as islams/arabs homeland. if you disagree with this principle then all the arab borders should now scrapped and their should a massive battle royal to see who gets what share of the land - my money tho would be on israel in this case.
yes thanks for that, dont see any point. i can post links of ancients tribes that ruled mecca too that werent muslim - so you are saying kick all the muslims out of mecca?
Original post by anarchism101
Turkey was set up as a Turkish state and a homeland for Turks. Does that justify their genocides of Turkey's Armenian, Assyrian and Greek populations, and the decades-long brutal forced subjugation and attempted assimilation of its Kurdish population, in order to create a sizable Turkish majority. .
Turkey was set up as a Turkish state and a homeland for Turks. Does that justify their genocides of Turkey's Armenian, Assyrian and Greek populations, and the decades-long brutal forced subjugation and attempted assimilation of its Kurdish population, in order to create a sizable Turkish majority. .
no idont agree with genocide, the turk adminisitration was scum a hangover of the Ottoman claiphate that the britsh defeated to take ownership of palestine region. again i dont see what relevance this is
Original post by anarchism101
Most of the world sees Saudi Arabia and Iran as reactionary, brutal and totalitarian regimes for precisely this reason. Israel, by contrast, claims to be a liberal democracy. .
Most of the world sees Saudi Arabia and Iran as reactionary, brutal and totalitarian regimes for precisely this reason. Israel, by contrast, claims to be a liberal democracy. .
its a democracy i wouldnt call it liberal ( i wouldnt call any middle eastern society liberal) but it is still ahead of the islamic arab world in that respect.
Original post by anarchism101
The Saudi regime is in my opinion one of the most detestable in the world. But what does that have to do with Israel/Palestine. .
The Saudi regime is in my opinion one of the most detestable in the world. But what does that have to do with Israel/Palestine. .
saudi runs all sunni islamist agendas, including palestine
and surely the comparisons you made of isreal society are far worse in saudi, so why no outcry and thread on saudi ( if this is your genuine concern
Original post by anarchism101
Nor, by most anthropological standards, did the Jews exist as a single group by the 19th century. They were Ashkenazi, or Sephardi or Mizrahi. They still broadly held to the same theology, but so do Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians. .
Nor, by most anthropological standards, did the Jews exist as a single group by the 19th century. They were Ashkenazi, or Sephardi or Mizrahi. They still broadly held to the same theology, but so do Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians. .
so?
Original post by anarchism101
Try telling the Welsh that. .
Try telling the Welsh that. .
the welsh are not celts, they are a hybrid of various invasion over the years. probably they have more 'celtic ' heritage than the average english, but not much.
but even without the direct genetic link wales is made a homeland to the welsh. so why shouldnt jews have their homeland in a traceable aprt fo their history?
Original post by anarchism101
See above about the Ghassanids and Nabateans.
Because that state was established by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs from their home. And 'home' here as in the sense that it was the place where they'd been born and grown up, and where their parents had been born and grown up and so on, not their 'home' according to a national-religious narrative based on the fact that their distant ancestors had lived there nearly 2000 years ago. .
See above about the Ghassanids and Nabateans.
Because that state was established by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Muslim and Christian Arabs from their home. And 'home' here as in the sense that it was the place where they'd been born and grown up, and where their parents had been born and grown up and so on, not their 'home' according to a national-religious narrative based on the fact that their distant ancestors had lived there nearly 2000 years ago. .
thats not even a half-truth is it. leading up to the point, arabs and jews slaughtered each other freely and displaced each other, the jews were in minority and so could not bully the arabs. in fact prior to this there is plenty of record of jews actually buying land from arabs . im afraid the british idea may have been flawed - look at any partiton india-pakistan for exmaple, you dont think there was millions of hindus and sikhs living in pakisitan that had to move, and vice-versa. you are trying pin blame entire on jews for this movement. britain decided to give muslims a homeland in indian subcontinent and caused one of the biggest movmenet of peopls form their homes in human history , for why? who knows. the partition to create israel makes far more sense to me, because at least judaism belonged to that region in the first place. the arabs were given numerous countries to live, in fact many arabs did move to egypt and jordan.
Original post by anarchism101
The term 'Jew' did not exist at this point in the Torah - it came from the later Kingdom of Judah. According to both Muslims and Jews, Jerusalem was the promised land to the descendants of Abraham. According to Muslims, this includes the descendants of both Abraham's sons - Isaac (whose descendants were the Israelites/Hebrews) and Ishmael (whose descendants were the Arabs).. According to Jews, it includes only the former.
.
The term 'Jew' did not exist at this point in the Torah - it came from the later Kingdom of Judah. According to both Muslims and Jews, Jerusalem was the promised land to the descendants of Abraham. According to Muslims, this includes the descendants of both Abraham's sons - Isaac (whose descendants were the Israelites/Hebrews) and Ishmael (whose descendants were the Arabs).. According to Jews, it includes only the former.
.
what a daft statement, the word 'islam' is not used in the quran as a title for the religion , and im fairly sure it doesnt mention Muslims either, jsut beleivers, so what are you trying to say, they dont exist? jew is a collective term, it can apply to all the descendants of the israelite tribes . the purpose of israel was not to apply a genetic link to the land - but to allow all jews as a religious groups to live there, where the judaic kingdom if you like began.
the torah doesnt mention muslims nor that arabs were decednant of ishmael. this is an idea that mohammed propagated. and the idea makes little sense anyway
Original post by anarchism101
Islam, like all religions, including Judaism, adopted bits and pieces of already-existing religions. Indeed, it adopted traditions of Judaism as well. According to the Quran, yes Islam (at least, as we would see it - according to Muslims Islam is an unbroken line back to Abraham which the Jews broke from when they rejected Jesus and the Christians broke from when they rejected Muhammad) began in Arabia with Muhammad - but according to the Torah, Abraham first came to God when he was somewhere in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq or Syria. .
Islam, like all religions, including Judaism, adopted bits and pieces of already-existing religions. Indeed, it adopted traditions of Judaism as well. According to the Quran, yes Islam (at least, as we would see it - according to Muslims Islam is an unbroken line back to Abraham which the Jews broke from when they rejected Jesus and the Christians broke from when they rejected Muhammad) began in Arabia with Muhammad - but according to the Torah, Abraham first came to God when he was somewhere in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq or Syria. .
but both jews and muslims accept the torah which states that the 'kingdom of israel and judea' was to be established by abraham, and that it was to be based around the location known as Jerusalem between the judea mountains or so. yes both copied from earlier probably pagan relgions, judaism from babylonian and islam from arab pagan but to repeat , the purpose of state of israel is not to account for theology soley.
Original post by anarchism101
This applies to pretty much every empire in history, it's not unique to the Caliphate.
This applies to pretty much every empire in history, it's not unique to the Caliphate.
(edited 9 years ago)
Salah al-Aruri praises "heroic action" of Kassam Brigades; Hamas had previously denied kidnapping Fraenkel, Shaer and Yifrah.
A senior Hamas official admitted for the first time on Wednesday that the organization's armed wing, the Kassam Brigades, was behind the kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens Nafatli Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah in the West Bank in June.
The Hamas official, Salah al-Aruri made the comments during a conference of Islamic clerics in Turkey. He praised the "heroic action of the Kassam Brigades.
A senior Hamas official admitted for the first time on Wednesday that the organization's armed wing, the Kassam Brigades, was behind the kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens Nafatli Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah in the West Bank in June.
The Hamas official, Salah al-Aruri made the comments during a conference of Islamic clerics in Turkey. He praised the "heroic action of the Kassam Brigades.
Fresh off the press, so yet to be translated into English.
Just shows what utter fools those people who believed Hamas' denials are.
Original post by Chindits
Are Hamas animals, or something lower?
Substitute "babies" for neighbours (doesn't really make a difference) and you have yourself a match.
"Scientists often see passive, or indirect, selfish behavior in animals — for example, they may see an animal hide behind its neighbor to escape from a predator. "That's common to observe," says Robert Young, a biologist with the University of Salford Manchester in the U.K. "They may be hiding behind someone else, but they're not actively pushing someone forward.""
So we have established quite firmly that HAMAS are "animals" and seeing as how all humans are animals and so on and so forth, we can unequivocally state that HAMAS, like the IDF, like the British Army, like you Chindits, like MEING, like Barack Obama and like Morgan Freeman, are all animals.
Word to the wise: Using propaganda like that may work on the gullible and elderly but here, we deal in facts and figures.
64 Israeli soldiers killed by Al Qassam Brigades along with 3 "Israeli civilians":
Civilian A) Arab Bedouin who was afforded no air raid shelter or even warning system.
Civilian B) A Thai national who happened to turn into an "Israeli citizen" almost by magic overnight.
Civilian C) A food volunteer who was delivering food to IDF soldiers near the border.
It seems the only "Israeli civilians" killed in this skirmish have been...wait! There were none...
On the other hand, the death toll of the Palestinians stands at 2038.
Yet no one claimed that "Hamas" isn't a terrorist.
This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.
Posted from TSR Mobile
This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by missfats
Yet no one claimed that "Hamas" isn't a terrorist.
This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.
This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.
It's not Israel's fault the people of Gaza elected Hamas who went on to firing rockets at Israel from civilian areas. Israel has full justification to destroy this rocket firing points.
Original post by Snagprophet
It's not Israel's fault the people of Gaza elected Hamas who went on to firing rockets at Israel from civilian areas. Israel has full justification to destroy this rocket firing points.
And the tunnels.
Original post by missfats
Yet no one claimed that "Hamas" isn't a terrorist.
This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.
Posted from TSR Mobile
This does not excuse any mistreatment and barbaric acts to the citizens of Palestine which has unfortunately been conducted by the IDF.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Only yesterday or so you were praising ISIS and supporting attacks on Jews in Europe
Original post by Chindits
x
I'll wait for some major news agencies to hit this before I join the bandwagon.
Original post by samba
And the tunnels.
Only yesterday or so you were praising ISIS and supporting attacks on Jews in Europe
Only yesterday or so you were praising ISIS and supporting attacks on Jews in Europe
Sources?
I have never did any of those.
However, stop trying to ignore these undeniable facts.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Chindits
Fresh off the press, so yet to be translated into English.
Just shows what utter fools those people who believed Hamas' denials are.
Fresh off the press, so yet to be translated into English.
Just shows what utter fools those people who believed Hamas' denials are.
Am intrigued into this statement, can you tell me where you obtained your source?
Original post by samba
And the tunnels.
It's ironic that when Israel starts demolishing the tunnels, of which there are so many, the tunnels are actually used increasingly to attack Israel.
You may be able to help me out here but I haven't heard of a single instance of the Palestinians using one of those tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers prior to Operation Protective Edge.
Original post by Stevelee
Am intrigued into this statement, can you tell me where you obtained your source?
Starting to do the rounds. It was at a gathering of Muslim scholars in Turkey.
Original post by Chindits
Starting to do the rounds. It was at a gathering of Muslim scholars in Turkey.
Move on, there's nothing new here...
After all the breathless claims that they had nothing to do with it, Hamas has now admitted that they kidnapped the boys. Good timing though, because Israel just took out three senior terrorists in the last 24 hours Israeli air strike kills three Hamas commanders in Gaza
Who says the media isn't biased? - dnt belive everything u read on papers kid!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by blackorchard_01
Who says the media isn't biased? - dnt belive everything u read on papers kid! Posted from TSR Mobile
Are you claiming Al-Arouri didn't say this? You're going to embarass yourselfRelated 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 ?
