This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Reply 6020

DErasmus

3

wait guys

lets give the Native Americans their land back!

This justifies Native American terrorism!

Reply 6021

felamaslen

15

Original post by viddy9

The offers have to be examined in detail, though, and none of them were acceptable under international law and were simply unjust. They could offer the Palestinians 10cm2 of land, and I'm sure Israeli apologists would proclaim such an offer as "benevolent". They've been the side which has consistently rejected the international consensus on the two-state solution and have, along with the United States, vetoed any attempt to implement a two state solution at the UN. In January 1976, this pattern of events was in its early stages: a resolution was brought to the UN Security Council. It called for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border "with guarantees for the rights of both states to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders." Israel refused to attend the session. The resolution was vetoed by the United States. This has continued to the present day.

In principle the Palestinians should have a state, I agree, but what is the point in creating a Palestinian state when (a) it won't end the conflict (Israel faced war from the Palestinians and Arab states from the moment it was created), and (b) the Palestinian state will not be free.

Israel still exert effective control over Gaza; they haven't yet stopped occupying it. And, Hamas were voted in in free and fair democratic elections, and, after this democratic election, the so-called pro-democracy players: Israel, the United States and co., then proceeded to punish the Palestinian people for voting the wrong way by supporting an attempted coup in the Gaza Strip, which did indeed lead to bloodshed. The Israeli government then initiated Cast Lead, killing more than a thousand innocent Palestinians. Of course, this year, fighting again broke out when Israel bombed and assassinated Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip, leading to a retaliation by Hamas. From the ceasefire agreed upon in 2012 to 2014, Hamas abided by the terms of the ceasefire; Israel did not, making incursions into Gaza and committing acts of violence as well as failing to lift the blockade of Gaza as agreed upon in 2012.

It really wouldn't lead to suicide for Israel if they actually supported the two-state solution and didn't continue to commit atrocities. We've not yet seen Israel do either, so it remains to be seen what will happen, but peace is certainly conceivable, and at least the Palestinian government does support the two-state solution.

They stopped occupying Gaza in 2005, at which point the state of the place fell precipitously as it was taken over by a jihadist group.

If a jihadist, fascist or other totalitarian is voted in, they should be opposed. Who cares that they were voted in? Hitler was voted in. Do you oppose the war on Hitler?

Why lift the blockade on Gaza when it will result in disgusting terrorist attacks? Hamas needs to be defeated, Gaza needs to be made into a liberal democracy, then the blockade can be lifted and we can all live happily ever after.

Supporting Hamas, however, is not equivalent to supporting the Palestinian resistance and the end of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine. One hypothetical proof by contradiction of this is that one could be a pacifist and not support the French resistance either, but still support the liberation of France from the Nazis by peaceful means. Similarly, one could be a pacifist and therefore not support Hamas or any Palestinian resistance activities, but still support the liberation of Palestine from Israel by peaceful means.

Hamas don't represent "resistance". They represent jihad. The killing of innocent people, for fun, in order to advance the cause of totalitarianism. That is not resistance, and to call it such reduces your credibility as a decent human being.

If the Palestinian "resistance" was nonviolent, they would have won in 1948, when Israel agreed to live peacefully according to the UN partition plan.

A standard tyranny? I don't see how the secular party which leads the Palestinian government is 'tyrannical'.

Mahmoud Abbas agreed to form a unity government with jihadists. Therefore he is not to be trusted. It is as if David Cameron agreed to form a coalition government with the national front, but - somehow - worse.

Reply 6022

Ggmu!

Original post by felamaslen

Would you say Britain or Germany was to blame for WWII?

You're blindly pro Western, you have no ability to look at things objectively.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6023

Jemner01

8

Original post by hdaindak

what that doesn't even make sense- so if someone came to your door with a gun and said that it was now theirs that would be ok would it

Conquest on a global scale =/= protected property rights on an individual scale. If you're asking me if I would defend my home the answer is yes (although the ability to defend is severely neutered here in the UK) , but the rhetorical question is loaded none-the-less.

Isreal was granted to the Jews in 1948. Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and from about 1922/23 Israel and some of the surrounding area was legally British-owned territory. Before that, the Ottomans (Turks) owned it from about 1500 onward. So unless "native" Arabs from pre-1500 are currently fighting against Israeli forced for "their" land, you'll find that it's their ancestors who claim it's rightfully theirs and their ancestors who are attacking the current Jewish democracy in Israel (Jews who didn't even take the land in the first olace- they were granted it).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6024

arvy

4

Original post by hdaindak

the palestinians lived there for 100s of years before the israeli's came... i think you'd be pissed off too

Of course that has been missed by many people and the fact that illegal settlements get denied by Israel and hence they continue to build them then they wonder why nobody really supports them , yet anything Palestine does is oppressed and everyone wonders why ,

And I agree with jemner01 and that he is right his history is poor

Pps an eye for an eye is not related to judaism/Israel so op should check facts

Reply 6025

felamaslen

15

Original post by Ggmu!

You're blindly pro Western, you have no ability to look at things objectively.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I do admit that the West has committed crimes though.

Edit: do you seriously believe there isn't a clear, objective answer to the question of whether it was Britain or Germany to blame for WWII?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6026

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by KingBradly

Except it doesn't at all, and the left-wing media (and the BBC) is totally bias towards Palestine.

And pro
Palestinians complain that the BBC is pro
Israeli.

You know you're reporting effectively when you piss off both sides in a news story.

Reply 6027

arvy

4

Original post by Jemner01

Conquest on a global scale =/= protected property rights on an individual scale. If you're asking me if I would defend my home the answer is yes (although the ability to defend is severely neutered here in the UK) , but the rhetorical question is loaded none-the-less.

Isreal was granted to the Jews in 1948. Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and from about 1922/23 Israel and some of the surrounding area was legally British-owned territory. Before that, the Ottomans (Turks) owned it from about 1500 onward. So unless "native" Arabs from pre-1500 are currently fighting against Israeli forced for "their" land, you'll find that it's their ancestors who claim it's rightfully theirs and their ancestors who are attacking the current Jewish democracy in Israel (Jews who didn't even take the land in the first olace- they were granted it).

So why doesn't the people who gave Israel to the 'jews' follow Judaism then if they believe in giving people land ?
Hypocrisy is rife , if the same people followed religion properly then the world would be in a better place but it seems they are like u -war mongerors .

Reply 6028

sarsoora

1

Original post by james22

If you are being attacked, you defend yourself. If this means that the attacker suffers more damage than you, it's their fault for striking against you.

Does defending oneself mean attacking more innocent people?

If you hit me will my self defense be justified by attacking your entire family?

Am I not a hypocrite if I do that?

Reply 6029

Jemner01

8

Original post by arvy

So why doesn't the people who gave Israel to the 'jews' follow Judaism then if they believe in giving people land ?
Hypocrisy is rife , if the same people followed religion properly then the world would be in a better place but it seems they are like u -war mongerors .

What? How does granting land to a certain ethnic or religious group have a prerequisite of also having to be said ethnic or religious group? You don't need to be part of group x to grant something to group x. The question is completely irrelevant. Hypocrisy is rife, sure, blame corrupt governments and extremist groups (i.e. Hamas, Sinai, Muslim Brotherhood and evolutions of IS) not the civilians of a country. Your basis for calling me a "war-mongeror" is pretty flimsy but I'll let that slide seeing as an appeal to any semblance of logic is lost on you.

Reply 6030

sarsoora

1

Original post by MatureStudent36

Because Israel is better at defending its population than the Palestinians.

As the old saying goes.

People without iron dome air defence systems shouldn't fire rockets at those that do, and then complain when they get targeted.

oh shut up lol

Reply 6031

james22

16

Original post by sarsoora

Does defending oneself mean attacking more innocent people?

If you hit me will my self defense be justified by attacking your entire family?

Am I not a hypocrite if I do that?

If defending myself has the unfortunate side effect of hurting innocents, their blood is on your hands. In war innocent people die as collateral. It happens in every single war in all of history.

Reply 6032

arvy

4

Original post by Jemner01

What? How does granting land to a certain ethnic or religious group have a prerequisite of also having to be said ethnic or religious group? You don't need to be part of group x to grant something to group x. The question is completely irrelevant. Hypocrisy is rife, sure, blame corrupt governments and extremist groups (i.e. Hamas, Sinai, Muslim Brotherhood and evolutions of IS) not the civilians of a country. Your basis for calling me a "war-mongeror" is pretty flimsy but I'll let that slide seeing as an appeal to any semblance of logic is lost on you.

Actually the history behind the Jewish return to israel is fairly simplistic so I will try to explain it and even for you should be easy to understand. There was talk of 'allowing' the return going back into the 19th century due to Jewish people not really fitting in in the west (jewish people were undermined /second class citizens in london even) and in the event of back and forward favouritism the brits were granted the mandate , after the brits and the french tried to undermine the Egyptians it did not work out so the brits left thinking they had undermined both the small number of jews and the Palestinians /arabs in the region. Providing weapons to the jews was a no-brainer for so called self defense.
since then the Jewish people (using weapons and aggression which must have been rubbed into them from the brits) have illegally expanded into the region .
I believe they have a right in the region however living under Palestinian rule and law. Jewish people have often stated being happiest living under muslim rule and law.

Reply 6033

Jemner01

8

Original post by arvy

Actually the history behind the Jewish return to israel is fairly simplistic so I will try to explain it and even for you should be easy to understand. There was talk of 'allowing' the return going back into the 19th century due to Jewish people not really fitting in in the west (jewish people were undermined /second class citizens in london even) and in the event of back and forward favouritism the brits were granted the mandate , after the brits and the french tried to undermine the Egyptians it did not work out so the brits left thinking they had undermined both the small number of jews and the Palestinians /arabs in the region. Providing weapons to the jews was a no-brainer for so called self defense.
since then the Jewish people (using weapons and aggression which must have been rubbed into them from the brits) have illegally expanded into the region .
I believe they have a right in the region however living under Palestinian rule and law. Jewish people have often stated being happiest living under muslim rule and law.

I'll pick this bit out in particular as blatant falsification- the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans in WWI, legally claimed the region in 1923 (source: Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy") and then granted the entire region to the Jews. You're right in saying that there was a lot of tension and violence between Jews going back to their "homeland" from 1800 onwards in what they called Aliyahs (i.e. mass immigration), which was illegal at the time, but since 1948 Israel has been a legal entity run by a Zionist regime which was legally enstated. The Jews are not there illegally and are reconised by most major powers as the legal occupant. It seems to be only the dominant Muslim/anti-Semitic powers in the region i.e. Palestine, Hamas that believe the Jews are there illegally.

Reply 6034

arvy

4

Original post by james22

If defending myself has the unfortunate side effect of hurting innocents, their blood is on your hands. In war innocent people die as collateral. It happens in every single war in all of history.

And I'm sure you proclaim and profess yourself to be a peaceful person however you have a stone age mindset which has probably been washed onto you . If somebody attacked you then you can only defend yourself with that person/persons ,you certainly could take a gun to that persons house and shoot randomly into the house could u ? It would be like the wild west /taliban everywhere but you support it.
This whole eye for an eye Thing means that exactly 'an eye for an eye ' not '4 eyes for an eye' does it ? But the extremists take it too far claming to understand Judaism /christianity .

Reply 6035

james22

16

Original post by arvy

And I'm sure you proclaim and profess yourself to be a peaceful person however you have a stone age mindset which has probably been washed onto you . If somebody attacked you then you can only defend yourself with that person/persons ,you certainly could take a gun to that persons house and shoot randomly into the house could u ? It would be like the wild west /taliban everywhere but you support it.
This whole eye for an eye Thing means that exactly 'an eye for an eye ' not '4 eyes for an eye' does it ? But the extremists take it too far claming to understand Judaism /christianity .

Do you say the same about absolutely every other war that has ever happened?

Reply 6036

anarchism101

17

Original post by Jemner01

I'll pick this bit out in particular as blatant falsification- the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans in WWI, legally claimed the region in 1923 (source: Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy") and then granted the entire region to the Jews.

Bit in bold - where are you getting this from?

The Jews are not there illegally and are reconised by most major powers as the legal occupant.

Firstly, Israel =/= the Jews. About half of the world's Jewish population is not Israeli, and about a quarter of Israel's population is not Jewish.

Secondly, yes, Israel is internationally recognised as the legal sovereign of Israel, but not the Occupied Territories.

It seems to be only the dominant Muslim/anti-Semitic powers in the region i.e. Palestine, Hamas that believe the Jews are there illegally.

You're confusing legality and legitimacy here. Virtually no-one disputes the legality of Israel's sovereignty over its recognised territory (as noted above, the Occupied Territories are a different question). They may still however dispute the legitimacy of Israel.

Reply 6037

intheTSRspirit

Original post by samyerson

What if I wasn't silent and did object to the overreaction of Israel that caused the conflict? Am I allowed to express my disgust that civilians were murdered by people? Because, this was an act of terror, and it was committed by Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians. Evidently, it's not an "old, tired non-argument" if it's a fact.
And before you accuse me of calling all Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians terrorists, I'm not that idiotic. I've met Muslims from Arabia and Palestine and all over the world, and I don't think any were terrorists. Nonetheless, it was still the M/A/Ps that were responsible for this attack.

I was referring to the arguments people make when trying to explain away the real reasons why Palestinians may resort to such desperate tactics as attacking seemingly innocent people.

Reply 6038

intheTSRspirit

Original post by Jemner01

I'll pick this bit out in particular as blatant falsification- the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans in WWI, legally claimed the region in 1923 (source: Palestine Royal Commission Report, "The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy") and then granted the entire region to the Jews. You're right in saying that there was a lot of tension and violence between Jews going back to their "homeland" from 1800 onwards in what they called Aliyahs (i.e. mass immigration), which was illegal at the time, but since 1948 Israel has been a legal entity run by a Zionist regime which was legally enstated. The Jews are not there illegally and are reconised by most major powers as the legal occupant. It seems to be only the dominant Muslim/anti-Semitic powers in the region i.e. Palestine, Hamas that believe the Jews are there illegally.

Your knowledge of history is very confused. There was no conquering of Palestine at all: the Ottoman Empire lost in World War I alongside Germany etc. and was subsequently forced to sign treaties (Sevres) that stipulated that they must hand over most of their land to the Allies. The Balfour Declaration was part of these treaties, and it was only the Balfour Declaration that alluded to a 'Zionist homeland'; for the most part the British tried their utmost to limit Jewish entry into Palestine, mainly because of Arab rebellion. European Jews migrated illegally (from the point of view of the British who controlled Palestine at the time) to Palestine. The Zionists in Israel, the Irgun, Haganah, etc. collaborated with Nazi officials to ship Jews from Europe to Palestinian shores because the British government refused to do so - that was before the Nazis finally decided not to expel the Jews but exterminate them. Around the end of the British Mandate in Palestine, the British even sent a couple Jewish migrant ships off back to Europe where they'd come from, though of course they couldn't go back and therefore were left to die and that led to public furore which led to the British withdrawing from Palestine.

Also, bringing 'legality' into the matter is entirely null, because there is no one universal law that rules over the earth. One cannot simply take Israel to be legal because Israel and the West consider it so. Indeed if any preference of narrative were to be bestowed then that preference should rightly be given to the people of the region who are directly affected by all of this rather than imperialists (for so Britain was at the time of the Mandate) or neo-imperialists who seek only to keep their interests unharmed.
And you can hardly correctly state so categorically that the Zionist state was 'legally instated' - for legally according to whom? You cannot quote British sources to establish once and for all the legality of the state of Israel. A United Nations vote chose to rip apart Palestine into two states, but who exactly was part of the United Nations (which was then a very new organisation of states whose roles at that time in the world in general and in the region in particular are now considered very questionable)? Who appointed the United Nations supreme leader of the world? The state of Israel was built on 'terrorism' as described so by the British ruling Palestine. Its first ministers were former members of former 'terrorist' groups. It may also interest you to learn that Britain itself wasn't so sure of the legitimacy of its takeover of Ottoman land and had to obtain legitimacy via the League of Nations which has since of course been rendered null and void. And under current international law Israel illegally occupies the West Bank.

Reply 6039

lorealblab

1

Original post by tsr1269

You mean "work together" as in "allow your land to be invaded by settlers whom you protect" whilst you, meaning the PA, fill your pockets with the "aid" that is given to you by Israel?

Yes, why not refer to the opinion of a person proudly refers to himself as a "Jew and a Zionist"? I'm sure he won't be in the least biased.

Having said that, I don't dismiss people's opinions based on the views they hold so let us examine the evidence (detailed below).

I don't know if you. or Gilbert for that matter can count or where you get your sources from, but that in no way is even close to "50,000 Arabs immigrating".

If you can bring some evidence for this mythical "50,000 immigrants", then I'd love to discuss this further...

Does that not make those who have immigrated "Arabs" given the fact that they were living in Arabia before the State of Israel? Why, all of a sudden, do you want them to disassociate their "Arabness" given the fact that these people had lived in Arab countries for centuries?

absolute nonsense, you may think you've done your research but clearly you aren't aware of how to do it. why go read a whole bunch of pro-israel and anti palestine references, may i remind you i coud justify all your evidence with references from pro palestine and anti israel references. its ridiculous how people simply just swallow whatever is given in their hands, how about wider research. read the story from both sides -not jut the end or the beginning.

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you