The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Actually, after all this time, the world should recognise that the West Bank and Gaza are actually part of "Greater Israel"…

And everyone living in those areas is a citizen of Israel (ie all the Palestinians).

That'll make their next election a bit livelier.
Original post by Tawheed
What about Israels army ..?

it's an army. Not a terrorist group
I think people forget why borders changed in 1967.
Original post by Skip_Snip
Remove Hamas before even consider giving Palestine a statehood.

why, they were elected weren't they?
Original post by Skip_Snip
They're a) a state and b) not terrorists, so entitled to an army.


you clearly meant: not recognised by my as a terrorist organisation. considering various war crimes committed by them they aren't that far away.


Original post by whorace
Aggrevating Russia,


you are right. they should look elsewhere when Rasputin rebuilds ussr 2.0, right? world already stood once quietly in similar situation- in 30's- did it bring peace?

Original post by whorace
cuddling up with the French causing damage to the special relationship;


special re.... what? so-called "special relationship" exists mostly in Brits minds. there is no such thing as "SR", there are only current interests. and if you ask me, slightly cooling down the ties with US would only benefit UK and UE.

Original post by whorace
Utterly awful ISIS policy letting them expand with little intervention,


maybe because us population had enough of wars on the middle east?

Original post by whorace
nuclear negotation with Iran.


Which is probably the best thing to do. Better fighting isis and it's supporters (i.e. most sunni countries) with the hands of Iranians.

Original post by whorace
And now they're attacking a legitimate liberal democracy? Have they done anything right?


so no-one is allowed to criticize Israelis than?
Original post by simon_g


you are right. they should look elsewhere when Rasputin rebuilds ussr 2.0, right? world already stood once quietly in similar situation- in 30's- did it bring peace?

Original post by whorace
cuddling up with the French causing damage to the special relationship;


special re.... what? so-called "special relationship" exists mostly in Brits minds. there is no such thing as "SR", there are only current interests. and if you ask me, slightly cooling down the ties with US would only benefit UK and UE.



maybe because us population had enough of wars on the middle east?



Which is probably the best thing to do. Better fighting isis and it's supporters (i.e. most sunni countries) with the hands of Iranians.



so no-one is allowed to criticize Israelis than?


I don't even know where to begin. Are you by any chance a member of the administration?

Ukraine has serious tensions that may esculate into a hard conflict, this has been admitted by respected foreign relations experts on both sides, both Kissinger and Gorbachev made this comment, not to mention that the Russians do have a point, the Ukraine is not divided on a single ethnic line (many in the East consider themselves Russian, even Kissinger admits) and the revolution did topple a legitimate democracy with the help of fringe elements.

The special relationship exists, although if that is the general attitude of the Obama administration it won't for long. And here I thought the UK and US interests were one, what a shame they would cuddle up to the French and call them their oldest ally because the vote on Syria didn't go their way.

We both know the US population doesn't really care about war in the middle east, only small minorities of intellectuals and the rock scene seem to give a damn about peace in that country, it is one of the least effective countries for social democratic policies, and the reason is the US are very apathetic.

Giving the Iranians nuclear weapons to contain a regional threat is like giving a guard a gun to kill an inmate when they only need to put them back in their cell, it's overkill and very dangerous.

Of course you can criticise Israel. Can we please make criticisms based on factual evidence instead of left wing fantasy.
Original post by whorace
[



Of course you can criticise Israel. Can we please make criticisms based on factual evidence instead of left wing fantasy.


Amen


DISCLAIMER: Any evidence going against the Israeli governments narrative is not factual.

Interesting approach though, suppose Obama wants to try and create some longer lasting legacy in the region. Though if the Republicans get back in it''ll mean sweet **** all.
Original post by The Clockwork Apple
it's an army. Not a terrorist group


Nazi Germany also had an army. What's your point?


Posted from TSR Mobile
The USA should overtake both Israel and Palestine.


No you misunderstand, it is intentional but you must understand the context. Those children will eventually grow into adults and there is a chance those adults might end up firing home made rockets at Israel. Thus you must kill the children to stop them potentially being future enemy combatants.

....or actually I think those children could have been setting off rockets as well, you can't SEE it, but they were....

...there's some sort of acceptable reason for sniping kids, I mean **** maybe it was just for some lulz with the lads, but y'know...Israel needs to fight for its freedom...and stuff.


Noticed America's relationship seems to be fracturing, think this is solely Obama trying to make a name for himself or if it's a bigger thing which will continue? (Assuming Democrats win, if Republicans win clearly it'll die down).
Original post by joey11223
No you misunderstand, it is intentional but you must understand the context. Those children will eventually grow into adults and there is a chance those adults might end up firing home made rockets at Israel. Thus you must kill the children to stop them potentially being future enemy combatants.

....or actually I think those children could have been setting off rockets as well, you can't SEE it, but they were....

...there's some sort of acceptable reason for sniping kids, I mean **** maybe it was just for some lulz with the lads, but y'know...Israel needs to fight for its freedom...and stuff.


Noticed America's relationship seems to be fracturing, think this is solely Obama trying to make a name for himself or if it's a bigger thing which will continue? (Assuming Democrats win, if Republicans win clearly it'll die down).


Did you not see how the Congress behaved towards Netanyahu on his recent visit?


Posted from TSR Mobile
You realise that while they're playing peace keeper with Iran, at the same time they're pushing closer to a war with Russia and I'm sure Iran will get involved in that....
Hey if Jews hadn't sparked a revolution in Russia and the spread of Communism they wouldn't have been persecuted and could have lived perfectly happily ever after in Europe.

BUT

Zionists did not want this. They feared integration, which the Jews managed to avoid for hundreds of years. So they get themselves persecuted, to force Jews to Palestine and establish their national homeland of Israel.

Meanwhile Europe's become Marxist (Karl Marx was Jewish) while the Jews have their Jewish Zionist nationalism..


You can see what the Marxist agenda really is.
What a lad
Original post by The Clockwork Apple
I think people forget why borders changed in 1967.


You mean Israel's attack on Egypt?
Original post by typonaut
Actually, after all this time, the world should recognise that the West Bank and Gaza are actually part of "Greater Israel"…

And everyone living in those areas is a citizen of Israel (ie all the Palestinians).

That'll make their next election a bit livelier.


That'll be the long term result unless Israel are prepared to sign a peace deal and soon.
Original post by anarchism101
You mean Israel's attack on Egypt?

I mean Egyptian forces were sent to Israel's borders and Israel had to defend itself pre-emptively, yes. The 1967 borders are a consequence of neighbouring arab countries having a masochistic obsession with attacking Israel
Original post by The Clockwork Apple
I mean Egyptian forces were sent to Israel's borders and Israel had to defend itself pre-emptively, yes. The 1967 borders are a consequence of neighbouring arab countries having a masochistic obsession with attacking Israel


"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" - Menachem Begin

"Nasser did not want war." - Abba Eban, then Israeli foreign minister

"The whole story about threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories." - Mordechai Bentov, then Israeli cabinet minister

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." - Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of Staff

"I am convinved that our General Staff never told the government that there was any substance to the Egyptian military threat to Israel... All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded toward the full mobilization of our forced, no-one in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary for our 'defence' against the Egyptian threat...To pretend that the Egyptian force concentrated on our border were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Zahal [the Israeli Army]." - Mattityahu Peled, then Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces
Original post by anarchism101
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" - Menachem Begin


"But, he added in that speech, the 1967 war was not an act of aggression, but of response to multiple acts of aggression designed to debilitate Israel step by step as a preliminary to outright war."

I don't trust anything else you write because you chose to omit that.
Original post by whorace
"But, he added in that speech, the 1967 war was not an act of aggression, but of response to multiple acts of aggression designed to debilitate Israel step by step as a preliminary to outright war."


Is what it says in wiki. Having read the whole speech, I don't see much to support such a claim. The next passage of the speech, for example, is:

"This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

Admittedly, Begin was a hawk, but his logic here is the "Iron Wall" logic that has shaped Israel's foreign policy from its creation; that Israel must always be in a position of secure military strength and advantage vis-a-vis the surrounding states, especially for negotiations. Inevitably this ends up as an aggressive war policy.

I don't trust anything else you write because you chose to omit that.


I didn't 'omit' it. Begin's quotes appear in places other than wiki, you know?