The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by ExcitedPup

Israel offered to withdraw from that "illegal" occupation in 1968, to return to the pre-1967 borders in exchange for recognition. The Palestinians refused on the basis they would never accept Israel's right to exist.

Israel made a very good offer again in 2008, which the Palestinians ignored. Israel's actions in 2000 in pulling out of South Lebanon, and in 2005 in pulling out of Gaza, have to be taken into account given they did the right thing, and in both cases they were repaid with treachery and rocket attacks.

Tell me, do you accept Israel's right to exist?

yhwh will provide for us a homeland, we have no need of military action.

Reply 7162

DesmondHarry

Original post by LockheedSpooky

Professor Azmi Bishara: There Is No "Palestinian Nation", Never Was.

The Arab professor talks about the fabrication of the so-called 'palestinians' and claims they're nothing but part of greater Syria. An opinion shared by other experts.

[video="youtube;P3n5-yG-6dU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3n5-yG-6dU[/video]

There's no such thing as palestine
There's no such thing as palestine
There's no such thing as palestine
*clicks red heeled boots*

Reply 7163

DesmondHarry

Original post by ExcitedPup

Israel offered to withdraw from that "illegal" occupation in 1968, to return to the pre-1967 borders in exchange for recognition. The Palestinians refused on the basis they would never accept Israel's right to exist.

Israel made a very good offer again in 2008, which the Palestinians ignored. Israel's actions in 2000 in pulling out of South Lebanon, and in 2005 in pulling out of Gaza, have to be taken into account given they did the right thing, and in both cases they were repaid with treachery and rocket attacks.

Tell me, do you accept Israel's right to exist?

HAHAHAHHAHA

You're telling me it's okay if I invade your home, take over a massive proportion of land and then slowly bit by bit give you slight percentages of it back?

You're funny

I've seen the human shield argument come up a lot. Look, even if Khalid Mashal was standing on top of a hospital with a sign saying 'come get me Israel' - It is still a war crime. It does not matter, the only one to blame is the one behind the trigger.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7166

Original post by DesmondHarry

HAHAHAHHAHA

You're telling me it's okay if I invade your home, take over a massive proportion of land and then slowly bit by bit give you slight percentages of it back?

You're funny

You do realise that Palestine wasn't invaded by Israeli Jews, in fact it was partitioned by the United Nations so that the Jewish majority areas were given over the state of Israel, and the Muslim majority areas were given to the Palestinians.

Didn't you know that?

Reply 7167

Original post by DesmondHarry

yhwh will provide for us a homeland, we have no need of military action.

The first Zionists actually tended to be non-religious; Israel had a particularly secular, socialistic character for its first 30 years

Reply 7168

Original post by StudentOkay

I've seen the human shield argument come up a lot. Look, even if Khalid Mashal was standing on top of a hospital with a sign saying 'come get me Israel' - It is still a war crime.

Actually, it's not. It depends entirely on the proportionality of the action.

If it is a hospital building, but all the patients and doctors have left, then it would be a permissible target.

If Israeli troops are being fired on from a hospital, they would be entitled under the fundamental provisions of self-defence to return fire

Reply 7169

Original post by DesmondHarry

Gay the arabs? Is that what it says?

Unfortunately, people in the Palestinian territories have to hide being gay or they risk being the victim of an honour killing.

Thankfully, gay people in Israel are free to live their lives. Do you support the honour killing of gay people?

I also can't help but point out the vaguely comic double-standard in that you fumed over a TSRian posting media videos (including from French channels, not generally known for their pro-Israeli sentiment), and yet seem to think random graffiti makes some relevant point about the validity of one side or the other's position?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7170

viddy9

16

Original post by ExcitedPup

You do realise that Palestine wasn't invaded by Israeli Jews, in fact it was partitioned by the United Nations so that the Jewish majority areas were given over the state of Israel, and the Muslim majority areas were given to the Palestinians.

Didn't you know that?

The British allowed for the immigration of large numbers of Jews and Zionists during the 1930s, who clearly wished to split Palestinian land up, declare a new state and ethnically cleanse and forcibly expel Palestinians to preserve a Jewish state.

750,000 Palestinians, in 1948, had to leave their homes, most of them because of Israel's forced expulsions and ethnic cleansing.

How would people feel if large numbers of immigrants were allowed into Britain with a clear policy of declaring a new state which had to have a majority population of a certain race, thereby entailing the splitting of land and the repopulation of hundreds of thousands of people?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7171

LockheedSpooky

In his own words, HAMAS member explains that 'palestinians' come from all over the Arab world and are not an indigenous entity

He also describes how the so-called 'palestinians' are the "spearhead of Islam against the West"

So it seems that the 'palestinians' see their war against Israel as part of their wider war against the west.

Interesting, makes you want to give these people a state right away :lol:

[video="youtube;j3-GBsGmE54"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3-GBsGmE54[/video]

Reply 7172

Original post by viddy9

The British allowed for the immigration of large numbers of Jews and Zionists during the 1930s

Actually, the British severely limited Jewish immigration to Palestine. However, Jewish immigration was fundamentally permitted under the League of Nations mandate, and in fact most Zionists originally envisoned something that was less a state and more a kind of dependent territory.

It was the experience of World War 2, the hatred for the Jews in that land, the close relationship between the Third Reich and Palestinian leaders, that convinced many Zionists that their homeland would have to be a full nation-state with an armed force sufficient to ensure their security and prevent another Jewish genocide

who clearly wished to split Palestinian land up

They had no such wish. Jews wished to live in Palestine. That is perfectly reasonable; are you opposed to immigration?

declare a new state

That state was declared by the United Nations. It was generally agreed that, given there were 600,000 Jews and over a million Arabs in Palestine, and given the enmity and animus that had grown up between them, it would be better that they should have separate and self-determining governments. Do you disagree with that judgment?

and ethnically cleanse and forcibly expel Palestinians to preserve a Jewish state

And yet the majority of Palestinians within the 1948 borders were permitted to stay. How do you explain that? There are over a million Arab Israelis who live in Israel, living on the lands of their forefathers, and enjoying full democratic rights in excess of those enjoyed by any other Arabs.

750,000 Palestinians, in 1948, had to leave their homes, many of them because of Israel's forced expulsions

Many, perhaps even most, of the Palestinians who fled their homes did so not at the point of the bayonet, but as refugees by their own volition fleeing fighting. It is sad that many of them subsequently could not return home; similar things happened during the partition of India, and the re-bordering of Germany and Poland.

Instead of whipping up grievances about it, it is usually best to try to make the best of the situation as it stands. It is very easy for you, in your armchair here in England, to call on the Palestinians to shed their blood for a principle (the existence of the State of Israel) that even the PLO accepted 20 years ago

and ethnic cleansing

Again, the accusation of ethnic cleansing falls flat on its face given the huge numbers of Arab Israelis who were not molested or expelled at all.

Perhaps you can answer this one very simple question; how many Palestinians would have had to have left their homes if the Arab world had not rejected the partition, and attempted to seize 100% of the land by force?

How would people feel if large numbers of immigrants were allowed into Britain

If said immigrants were actually some sort of ancient Saxon tribe who had been expelled by Norman overlords, and then suffered terrible genocides against them when they were living overseas, and sought to peaceably return to the land of their forefathers and set up a small state in Kent, then I would think it was a complex issue that should be adjudicated by the United Nations.

I would further think it would be complicated if in retaliation for the declaration of such a state, areas in the north of England and Scotland started discriminating against the ancient Saxons living in their borders, forcing them to flee to this Kentish statelet (i.e. the Mizrahi Jews from Iraq, Egypt, Yemen etc), then I would have some sympathy for them. If then all the remaining nations of England declared war on this Saxon statelet, but the Saxons won, I would have little sympathy regards disputes about the original validity of that Saxon statelet in Kent.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7173

anarchism101

17

Original post by ExcitedPup

You do realise that Palestine wasn't invaded by Israeli Jews, in fact it was partitioned by the United Nations

The UN General Assembly passed a resolution endorsing the UNSCOP majority opinion partition plan, which isn't quite the same thing.

so that the Jewish majority areas were given over the state of Israel, and the Muslim majority areas were given to the Palestinians.

Nope, several Arab-majority areas (not all Arabs are Muslims) were also assigned to Israel (or just the 'Jewish state', as it was referred to at the time, as it wasn't entirely clear what it would be officially called), usually on account of them having noticeable Jewish minorities (those even this wasn't the case in the Negev). Only almost exclusively Arab areas were assigned to the proposed Arab state under the plan.

Reply 7174

Original post by anarchism101

The UN General Assembly passed a resolution endorsing the UNSCOP majority opinion partition plan, which isn't quite the same thing.

The United Nations General Assembly is the primary legislative body of the UN, therefore its endorsement of the committee's plan represents a de jure legitimisation of Israeli statehood.

No serious international lawyer has questioned the legality of the State of Israel ab initio

Nope, several Arab-majority areas (not all Arabs are Muslims) were also assigned to Israel

Do you deny that the Jewish state encompassed a Jewish majority, and the Arab area encompassed an Arab majority?

(or just the 'Jewish state', as it was referred to at the time, as it wasn't entirely clear what it would be officially called)

Does Jewishness disturb you?

Only almost exclusively Arab areas were assigned to the proposed Arab state under the plan.

The areas that were assigned to the Arabs were all of what currently is the West Bank territory and more besides, all of what currently constitutes the Gaza territory and more besides, and a large chunk of the Galilee.

Envisage we are back in 1948 and you are dictator of the world; you order that the Jews be deported from Palestine?

Reply 7175

LockheedSpooky

'palestinian Muslims ethnically cleansing Arab Christians

Now we're all aware of how the 'palestinian' Muslims have slowly forced the Christians out through intimidation and suffocating their Christian neighbourhoods with new Mosques.

Bethlehem under Israel control up to 1995 - around 35% Christian population.

Bethlehem under 'palestinain' control up to the present day - around 5% Christian population

Yet largely ignored by Western media, a systematic campaign of Muslim persecution against the Christians is taking place in Palestinian areas. It’s a religious and ethnic cleansing campaign silenced by the global churches.

The latest victim has been the Baptist Church in Bethlehem, which the Palestinian Authority just declared as illegitimate, as the US church’s message of reconciliation flies in the face of the hateful propaganda permeating Palestinian society. Arab Christians were obliged to make continual compromises, afraid to mention their own suffering for fear of irritating the Muslim authorities. Soon it became a taboo subject even in the West.

The real ethnic cleansing going on.

Reply 7176

Original post by footstool1924

The Jews to Palestine was a European problem, not an Arab problem.

You forget that a majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi Jews; the descendents of middle eastern Jews.

In this sense, Hitler and the allies were no different. Both sought a solution to the "Jewish problem". Whilst Hitler took responsibility and tried to get Jews deported to Madagascar or some far flung place (and started gassing them when no one showed any interest in housing Jewish Refugees), the allies simply fostered them onto a group of people

I'm sorry but that comment is beyond contempt. The fact you believe the Allies and Hitler were no different in their treatment of the Jewish people is shockingly stupid, and lacks all sense of judgment, proportion

who were initially welcoming of their Jewish brethren

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

I'm sorry but after that previous comment, I don't think I really want to debate with you anymore. If you are so confused that you think Hitler's actions towards the Jews and the Allies actions towards the Jews are comparable, you are beyond help and beyond serious debate. In short, you've lost the plot

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7177

Original post by LockheedSpooky

Bethlehem under Israel control up to 1995 - around 35% Christian population.

Bethlehem under 'palestinain' control up to the present day - around 5% Christian population

The real ethnic cleansing going on.

Indeed. Did you know the Druze, when surveyed (and according to their community leaders) favour Israel remaining, by way of identity, a Jewish state? It's because they have enjoyed more freedom from oppression in Israel than ever they did under the yoke of the Arabs or the Ottomans

For the Druze, or the Christians, or even the Arab Israelis, living in Israel means freedom; it means having the vote, being protected by an independent judiciary, having freedom of sexuality, not having to fear honour killings etc

Despite all their snide criticisms, the vast majority of people on TSR would prefer to live in Israel than another Arab country if they were forced to one or the oher

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7178

footstool1924

Original post by ExcitedPup

You forget that a majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi Jews; the descendents of middle eastern Jews.

What was the population of Mizhari Jews in Europe pre-WW2 and post-WW2?

I'm sorry but that comment is beyond contempt. The fact you believe the Allies and Hitler were no different in their treatment of the Jewish people is shockingly stupid, and lacks all sense of judgment, proportion

Leave your personal feelings at the door, please.

Address the point made and if you can't, let it stand.

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Almost inevitable that this picture would crop up.

However, please don't remain ignorant.

I'm sorry but after that previous comment, I don't think I really want to debate with you anymore. If you are so confused that you think Hitler's actions towards the Jews and the Allies actions towards the Jews are comparable, you are beyond help and beyond serious debate. In short, you've lost the plot

Please don't resort to hyperbole. Although this may be an emotionally charged debate for some, let's stick to the facts and leave the hysterics elsewhere.

Furthermore, I don't really care whether you want to engage in a debate or not.

Reply 7179