The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by felamaslen

Some Arabs lived there for centuries. Some Jews lived there for centuries. Other Arabs migrated there in the recent past. Other Jews migrated there in the recent past.

Hamas' ideology is militant Islamism. They are part of the international jihad. They are an offshoot of the Muslim brotherhood, a typical jihadist, Islamist organisation. Stop being silly.

Again, if the IDF really wants to kill children, why is it so bad at doing so? Why is the population of Palestine exploding? (1.8 million in Gaza today, from a few hundred thousand a few decades ago).

I did not claim that is the IDF's primary aim but it is one of many, many war crimes the militant state of Israel has committed in the region. Netanyahu refused to countenance the 2 state solution advocated even by the USA, and so he is ready to continue more bloodshed and blame it on the people hemmed into a scrap of land by the sea.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6602

Original post by DK_Tipp

ISIS hate both the PLO and Hamas due to their nationalist nature I thought?

ISIS hate everyone, but they are self affirmed jihadists. Typically these organisations shout jihad from the rooftops and are not subtle about it at all. Since our resident shill knows so much about Hamas I am sure they can provide a declaration of jihad from them.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6603

Original post by Midlander

I did not claim that is the IDF's primary aim but it is one of many, many war crimes the militant state of Israel has committed in the region. Netanyahu refused to countenance the 2 state solution advocated even by the USA, and so he is ready to continue more bloodshed and blame it on the people hemmed into a scrap of land by the sea.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well they did elect a jihadist group, to be fair.

Reply 6604

Original post by anarchism101

In 1993 the PLO gave up their armed campaign for the promise of a peace deal, the expectation being of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. They didn't get it; not only would the Israelis not make an offer of a properly contiguous and viable state, but they kept building and expanding settlements.

Any wrongs that Israel may have done during the Oslo process were vastly offset by the disgusting jihad that followed during the second intifada. Nothing called for that.

Reply 6605

Original post by anarchism101

Wales was legally treated as part of England right up until after WW2.

The vast bulk of countries in the world that are former colonies had never existed as countries prior to independence.

Yes, that's because the borders were most often drawn by the imperial overlords.

You make a good point though. Independence for Palestine would turn out a bit like independence for Zimbabwe: it would not make the place any more free.

Reply 6606

Original post by anarchism101

Not really in comparable quantities though. According to the 1931 British Mandatory Census, 58% of Jews had been born outside Palestine, compared to just 2% of Muslims.

Isn't that simply because the Arab migrations happened a few decades earlier?

Reply 6607

Original post by felamaslen

Well they did elect a jihadist group, to be fair.

Jihadists or not this justifies war crimes how exactly?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6608

Original post by Midlander

Jihadists or not this justifies war crimes how exactly?

Posted from TSR Mobile

The bloodshed in Gaza is directly attributable to Hamas; Hamas were elected by the Palestinians so they can share some of the blame for it.

Reply 6609

Original post by felamaslen

The bloodshed in Gaza is directly attributable to Hamas; Hamas were elected by the Palestinians so they can share some of the blame for it.

Ah I see Hamas sniped the children and shelled their own beach. You are the Mark Regev of TSR, sir.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6610

DK_Tipp

9

Original post by felamaslen

The bloodshed in Gaza is directly attributable to Hamas; Hamas were elected by the Palestinians so they can share some of the blame for it.

Using "Je Suis Charlie" as your profile pic is laughable. Terrorism has no creed or nationality. Israeli terror is no better or worse than Islamist terror just because they have a state and a huge military budget bankrolled by Uncle Sam.

I don't condone Hamas but those who absolve Israel of their sins baffle me. You contribute to a cycle of violence and murder by giving it the Western Civilian stamp of approval.

Reply 6611

anarchism101

17

Original post by felamaslen

Yes, that's because the borders were most often drawn by the imperial overlords.

Not just that; the whole idea of the nation-state was a recent and European one that in most of the world had no real precursors.

Reply 6612

anarchism101

17

Original post by felamaslen

Isn't that simply because the Arab migrations happened a few decades earlier?

Nope.

Reply 6613

Original post by anarchism101

Nope.

Nevertheless, there was some Arab migration and some Jewish migration in the period 1800 to 1950. Therefore to claim that the place belongs to Arabs more than it belongs to Jews (or vice versa) is simply racist. (In my opinion it would be racist anyway, but there you go).

Reply 6614

Original post by DK_Tipp

Using "Je Suis Charlie" as your profile pic is laughable. Terrorism has no creed or nationality. Israeli terror is no better or worse than Islamist terror just because they have a state and a huge military budget bankrolled by Uncle Sam.

I don't condone Hamas but those who absolve Israel of their sins baffle me. You contribute to a cycle of violence and murder by giving it the Western Civilian stamp of approval.

The difference between Israeli "terror" and Islamist terror is two-fold:

1. The Israelis are fighting to preserve a liberal democracy.

2. The Israelis try not to hit civilians, most of the time. (If their goal was to hit civilians, they would do so much more frequently and in much larger numbers, given their, as you stated, huge military budget).

Whereas:

1. Islamists are fighting to establish a totalitarian Islamic state.

2. Islamists target civilians or innocent people 100% of the time.

Even if Israel's intent was to kill civilians, it would still be more worth supporting, due to reason #1, than its jihadist opponents.

Reply 6615

Original post by Midlander

Ah I see Hamas sniped the children and shelled their own beach. You are the Mark Regev of TSR, sir.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas put some dead bodies on the beach and claimed they were victims of Israeli shelling.

That is the sort of thing Hamas does.

Nevertheless, if Israel did indeed kill those children, on purpose, then it committed a grave crime.

In any case, I don't claim Israel is perfect, only that it is the side I support.

Reply 6616

Original post by Kolasinac138

Strong argument in favor of an Israeli state, purely out of hate for Muslims and Arabs rather than any logic. Same with all Israhell supporters, though.

Or maybe just a hatred for unfree Islamic states where minorities are oppressed and there is no freedom of thought?

Not wanting a majority to oppress a minority is not the same as hating the majority.

Reply 6617

anarchism101

17

Original post by felamaslen

Nevertheless, there was some Arab migration and some Jewish migration in the period 1800 to 1950.

No, there was a small, not really significant amount of Arab migration and a huge amount of Jewish migration. There's really no comparison.

In 1947, the combined Muslim-Christian population was about five times what it had been in 1800. The Jewish population was 90 times what it had been.

Therefore to claim that the place belongs to Arabs more than it belongs to Jews (or vice versa) is simply racist. (In my opinion it would be racist anyway, but there you go).

I don't believe it belonged (as in this particular case we're talking about what happened in 1947-48 rather than now) to the Arabs more than the Jews as groups, but rather to the long-standing population (which included Sephardi Jews as well as Christians and Muslims) more than the much more recent (largely Ashkenazi Jewish) Zionist settlers. And even with the latter, I'd say it would be fair to draw a further distinction between the earlier settlers (some of whom had been there since the late 19th century) and the very recent arrivals.

Also, this isn't about the right to live in the land or to have civil or political rights there, but simply about the right to constitute an entirely separate state.

Reply 6618

Original post by anarchism101

No, there was a small, not really significant amount of Arab migration and a huge amount of Jewish migration. There's really no comparison.

In 1947, the combined Muslim-Christian population was about five times what it had been in 1800. The Jewish population was 90 times what it had been.

I don't believe it belonged (as in this particular case we're talking about what happened in 1947-48 rather than now) to the Arabs more than the Jews as groups, but rather to the long-standing population (which included Sephardi Jews as well as Christians and Muslims) more than the much more recent (largely Ashkenazi Jewish) Zionist settlers. And even with the latter, I'd say it would be fair to draw a further distinction between the earlier settlers (some of whom had been there since the late 19th century) and the very recent arrivals.

Also, this isn't about the right to live in the land or to have civil or political rights there, but simply about the right to constitute an entirely separate state.

Well I'm not fussed about anyone's ethnicity, but I am fussed about ideas, which is why I don't want a Palestinian state unless I know it will be at least as liberal and democratic as Israel. In fact I would prefer an Israeli occupation of the West Bank to a state there if it's anything like Gaza.

Reply 6619