Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This guy is wonderful. Absolutely nails it.


    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    Their words are meaningless, like I said, whatever is said in public doesnt reflect the private relations between the two nations at all. All the USA has done is condemn the deaths of civilians, which they have to do.

    The USA has supplied Israel through decades of this already. Israel has as much influence on the USA as vice versa, the two countries go hand in hand.
    Nice of you to now ignore the part that you know you have lost.
    So tell me, why would Israel suddnely listen, you can't use the fall of the British Empire to support your argument because it had reached the end of the line like all Empires before it, which would you rather do, let the empire go peacefully or get into yet another series of wars after your country and military was recovering from the biggest war in history?

    Now, tell me, the US publicly condemns actions, continues to supply, condemns more, continues to supply, and this keeps happening over and over. the US loses the slight moral high ground it could have claimed to have and their standings in the eyes of the world go down; they know war crimes are being repeatedly committed, they condemn the war crimes a lot of the time, yet they still continue to offer the supplies so more war crimes can be committed. Tell me, at what point does the increase in trade stop being worth the funny looks?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Nice of you to now ignore the part that you know you have lost.
    So tell me, why would Israel suddnely listen, you can't use the fall of the British Empire to support your argument because it had reached the end of the line like all Empires before it, which would you rather do, let the empire go peacefully or get into yet another series of wars after your country and military was recovering from the biggest war in history?

    Now, tell me, the US publicly condemns actions, continues to supply, condemns more, continues to supply, and this keeps happening over and over. the US loses the slight moral high ground it could have claimed to have and their standings in the eyes of the world go down; they know war crimes are being repeatedly committed, they condemn the war crimes a lot of the time, yet they still continue to offer the supplies so more war crimes can be committed. Tell me, at what point does the increase in trade stop being worth the funny looks?
    The USA lost the moral high ground years ago, theyre still the most powerful nation in the world, in public they act like it effects them, in reality they really do not care as no one can stand up to them.

    The dream some people have on here that people believe the USA controls Israel entirely, or that they will suddenly support Hamas is an absolute joke, and a pointless discussion to have.

    Edit: The UN have concluded that both parties in the conflict have committed war crimes, not that the USA cares, its still gonna supply Israel with funds.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    The USA lost the moral high ground years ago, theyre still the most powerful nation in the world, in public they act like it effects them, in reality they really do not care as no one can stand up to them.

    The dream some people have on here that people believe the USA controls Israel entirely, or that they will suddenly support Hamas is an absolute joke, and a pointless discussion to have.
    That they're the most powerful could be called into question by China, but that's irrelevant. And the US may be an economic powerhouse, but without trade it would be nowhere.
    But please, if you really do believe that peace will lead to negotiation explain why. Until you do so I shall hold them as empty words being used purely to start an argument.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That they're the most powerful could be called into question by China, but that's irrelevant. And the US may be an economic powerhouse, but without trade it would be nowhere.
    But please, if you really do believe that peace will lead to negotiation explain why. Until you do so I shall hold them as empty words being used purely to start an argument.
    You complain endlessly about the death of innocent Palestinians yet effectively fully support their continuous death by highlighting the need for violence?

    Just look at the situation, Hamas are getting obliterated by the Israelis and you still think they should pursue a violent cause?

    Boils down to plausibility, something no pro-Palestinian poster on here has suggested.

    None of you want to end the violence, you all just want to see Israel destroyed.. Pathetic.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    You complain endlessly about the death of innocent Palestinians yet effectively fully support their continuous death by highlighting the need for violence?

    Just look at the situation, Hamas are getting obliterated by the Israelis and you still think they should pursue a violent cause?

    Boils down to plausibility, something no pro-Palestinian poster on here has suggested.

    None of you want to end the violence, you all just want to see Israel destroyed.. Pathetic.
    Your not answering the question, you're just making assumptions and ad hominem arguments now.
    Clearly you cannot justify the idea that peace would lead to the recognition of the State of Palestine and its sovereignty, because its a very difficult argument to convincingly make. The Israelis clearly have no interest in the State of Palestine.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    New ceasefire. I wonder how long until Hamas breaks it as usual

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/28596609
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinzgauer)
    I think you sum up pro-palestinians.

    There's just no debating with you. The only ones you can debate with are those who are more neutral.

    Guaranteed without fail, every pro-palestinian just uses streams of hyperbole.
    ^^^ Verge of tears (again)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    Hamas only fire rockets into Israel 24/7 because their suicide bombers get a bullet in the head before they reach the border.

    What youre seeing here is Israel being able to repel Hamas from killing innocent Israeli civilians, through means of defence, however they are well within their rights to a counter offensive.

    This however has not always been the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

    And people wonder why Hamas is called a Terrorist organisation :rolleyes:
    ^^^^ Glorifying in the death of innocent civilians
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Let's see what Mahatma Ghandi actually said about Palestine (An except):

    "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred."
    Ghandi lived in india , not palestine.
    someone buy this lad a map
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    Ghandi lived in india , not palestine.
    someone buy this lad a map
    Oh, so people are only allowed to comment on the places they live in now?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Oh, so people are only allowed to comment on the places they live in now?
    if i needed a valid view on british colonial india and the fight for freedom there i could accept ghandis view .
    if its a view on the palestine issue, then his view is no more enlightening than anyone elses. you might as well quote george bush's view on palestine
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    if i needed a valid view on british colonial indian and the fight for freedom there i could accept ghandis view .
    if its a view on the palestine issue, then his view is no more enlightening than anyone elses. you might as well quote george bush's view on palestine
    So, what you're saying, is that the only valid opinions are those of the locals? What If I took all the people in my village and brainwashed them to believe that there is a volcano beneath our feet it must be so, even if the learned in other countries say otherwise?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So, what you're saying, is that the only valid opinions are those of the locals? What If I took all the people in my village and brainwashed them to believe that there is a volcano beneath our feet it must be so, even if the learned in other countries say otherwise?
    im saying highlighting his opinion is pointless simply because he is famous for an entirely unrelated point in history - the only purpose is that tsr1269 is trying to accumulate opinions that make it difficult for jews to establish their right to have a jewish state.
    in ghandis own land, his country was partitioned off to give muslims a home land (??) in a region where islam has no relevance at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    there is a planned Cease-fire early this morning thankfully, this time observed by the Islamists too.
    but it will mean for a few hours tsr1269 wont be able to post regular fabricated images of destruction, s will have to find something else to do.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    im saying his opinion is pointless in highlighting simply because he is famous for an entirely unrelated point in history - the only purpose is that tsr1269 is trying to accumulate opinions that make it difficult for jews to establish their right to have a jewish state.
    in ghandis own land, his country was partitioned off to give muslims a home land (??) in a region where islam has no relevance at all.
    If it had no relevance then why would they be separated? Take a look at this map and then think about why it was decided to cut it as it was:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If it had no relevance then why would they be separated? Take a look at this map and then think about why it was decided to cut it as it was:
    it has no relevance tot he region because islam is a middle eastern religion not an asian one. again it arrived in asia purely by invasion driven by greed of islamic armies.

    the reason it was partitioned was becuase the British decided that muslims could not live peacefully alongside hindus and sikhs and islamists were demanding an 'islamic state' for them to live in. the reality was more muslims actually stayed in india than live in islamic pakistan.

    similarly british realised previously that muslims would not live peacebly around jews in the palestine region and also that the jews and msulims should have their own holy cities, given both faiths orignated in middle east- hence why israel was created in levant, and saudi arabia around mecca/medina
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    it has no relevance tot he region because islam is a middle eastern religion not an asian one. again it arrived in asia purely by invasion driven by greed of islamic armies.

    the reason it was partitioned was becuase the British decided that muslims could not live peacefully alongside hindus and sikhs and islamists were demanding an 'islamic state' for them to live in. the reality was more muslims actually stayed in india than live in islamic pakistan.

    similarly british realised previously that muslims would not live peacebly around jews in the palestine region and also that the jews and msulims should have their own holy cities, given both faiths orignated in middle east- hence why israel was created in levant, and saudi arabia around mecca/medina
    So now religions have to stay where they origninated? I suppose you're going to have fun with the Middle east then, or more specifically Palestine since you have 3 religions to deal with
    The reason it happened is because it was requested, mainly due to Muslims fears of the consequence of an Indian state almost totally run by a Hindu government and is an example of a two state solution that works, albeit with some tension. As is Ireland. Israel just doesn't seem to want to buy the concept that two state solutions are compromises that work.

    It was also somewhat necessary since, as Ambedkar argues, in the event of an invasion of India by a Muslim country "[W]hom would the Indian Muslims in the army side with?"
    As for who lived where, do you have any figures, because the ones I have imply that there were large shifts (about 7.25m Muslims moving from India to Pakistan and a similar number of non-Muslims going the other way post partition), depending on population distribution this could theoretically result in a situation that contradicts your claim. On the other hand, if the population of what is now India was many times greater than that of Pakistan would the simple matter of practicality not explain the discrepancy? For example, there are more Muslims in India now than there are in Pakistan, why? Because their population is that massive, consider the percentages, a different picture is painted.

    Similarly, the Jews were calling for their own nation and they were given lands in Palestine, as were the Muslims. Although, should there not also have been a chunk cut out for the Christians too? Well, they didn't particularly want one. The Arabs disagreed, the Jews obviously agreed because that's what they wanted, at the same time many didn't. In many respects, it probably would have been better for it to be a single unified state, even if it would have necessitated a Jewish revolution. There was no real way to carve up Palestine that would have been agreeable, maybe the best thing would have been for some exterior power to rule over it to keep it under control.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So now religions have to stay where they origninated? I suppose you're going to have fun with the Middle east then, or more specifically Palestine since you have 3 religions to deal with .
    thats largley the reason the middle east has been so ****ed up with war all this time. and no, religions dont have to stay where originated - im saying the reasoning to create new religious staes were base don their origins (islam judaism in mid east). pakistan was an aboration, purely becuase islamists threatened more death and destruction if they didnt get an islamic state in asia.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Israel just doesn't seem to want to buy the concept that two state solutions are compromises that work. .
    i think its happy to be where it is and the arabs where they are, subject to being left alone by the arabs- that hasnt happened for a single day yet in last 60 years though

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It was also somewhat necessary since, as Ambedkar argues, in the event of an invasion of India by a Muslim country "[W]hom would the Indian Muslims in the army side with?", .
    well india fought a war with paksistan with signifcant muslim armed forces, and they also liberated muslim bangladesh from the islamic leaders of pakistan committing genocide there of intellectuals and people not 'islamic enough'

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As for who lived where, do you have any figures, because the ones I have imply that there were large shifts (about 7.25m Muslims moving from India to Pakistan and a similar number of non-Muslims going the other way post partition), depending on population distribution this could theoretically result in a situation that contradicts your claim. On the other hand, if the population of what is now India was many times greater than that of Pakistan would the simple matter of practicality not explain the discrepancy? For example, there are more Muslims in India now than there are in Pakistan, why? Because their population is that massive, consider the percentages, a different picture is painted. .
    there were massive population movements, both ways you obviously dont realise, seeing as in paksitan there were huge hindu, sikh and buddhist resident populations too that most moved to india. but 100s of millions of muslims chose to remain in india.

    but if you agree with the partition to suit one relgions group in a region which has no link for islam- what is your problem with the same for a relgiion that is the original faith in levant and jerusalem ie judasim ?

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Similarly, the Jews were calling for their own nation and they were given lands in Palestine, as were the Muslims. Although, should there not also have been a chunk cut out for the Christians too? Well, they didn't particularly want one. .
    yes but the sad reality of many thousand years of islamic rule is both christian and jewish populations in middle east dwindelled signifcantly to waht they were. the jews were given a homeland becuase they didnt have one. christanity already had a' homeland '- essentially that of the ex roman empire.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    he Arabs disagreed, the Jews obviously agreed because that's what they wanted, at the same time many didn't. In many respects, it probably would have been better for it to be a single unified state, even if it would have necessitated a Jewish revolution. There was no real way to carve up Palestine that would have been agreeable, maybe the best thing would have been for some exterior power to rule over it to keep it under control.
    well palestinians went some 2000 years without a 'palestinian state' all of sudden they have to have one? i agree it didnt need to be carved up, jsut call it all israel and let the palestinains live where they are now without all the blockades . however this requires the eradication of islamic terrorism - which will never happen as long there are islamist groups
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by well in the dark)
    Don't much want to proceed with this pointless convo but jsyk, that isn't true, he was actually using popular Zionist-propagandist tactics. People were talking about Palestinians being massacred, he tried to divert people's attentions to 'anti-Semitism in Europe'. He was told Israel was committing a massacre, he said no, because if that were true so many more Palestinians would have died.
    They are commiting war crimes, certainly.

    But the death-toll is very, very, very, very small compared to pretty much any other major human rights breach in the past hundred years.

    Hell ISIS have killed more Muslims in the past two months than Israel has killed in forty years. That's a massacre, Israel just has questionable war-tactics.

    For the record, I am a huge Anti-Semite, I am not defending Israel.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.