The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

US senate approves $225 million in aid for Israeli Iron Dome
Original post by well in the dark
That's true, but in these circumstances it is highly probably that Hamas is telling the truth, because Hamas knows that Hamas would be in a position to dictate terms and negotiate with Israel if they had the man. As it happens, he hasn't been found.

British Jews urge government to secure Israeli officer’s release

Did Israeli army deliberately kill its own soldier and destroy Gaza ceasefire?

Alternatively, they're claiming, for the time being, not to have them and will pull them out later when Israel finally grows up enough to go to the negotiating table.
Original post by Jammy Duel
when Israel finally grows up enough to go to the negotiating table.


6 ceasefires either rejected or broken by palestinians.

Hence world leaders are far less critical of Israel. They know that the terrorist entity is at fault.
Ban Ki Moon condemns Hamas violation of ceasefire, capture of IDF soldier
what do you mean by satate ? arabs as people are all with Palestine till death but goverments that are established by America and co arent except Tunisian government (Arab spring country) is supporting Palestine and Hamas.
Original post by miavdbt


Some sense at last from the UN.
Why has Fatah not been able to get a two state solution is over 60 years of non violence ? Fatah has achieved nothing no stop to settlements in the middle of arab cities or removal of illegal checkpoints.


The reason Arab governments dont support Hamas is because Arab govts are not elected have no legitimacy and do everything in their power to curtail people power


also Palestine has plenty of allies, the majority of the UN council voted to let Palestine Join despite strong lobbying by Israel,US and France
It's a shame that most of them aren't speaking up, but I'd postulate that it's more for fear of Israel's power than anything to do with Hamas.
Original post by miavdbt

In other words, 'Ban Ki Moon finally submits to Israeli-cum-US pressure and fully endorses Israeli propaganda'.

It was not Hamas who broke the ceasefire, nor did Hamas, by Hamas's accounts, capture any soldier.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by miavdbt
'HAHA, lol, look it's from Syria as opposed to Gaza. I'm so cool for exposing your propaganda.'

Except the point I was trying to make is that anyone can post disgustingly unreliable, overly biased 'journalism' on here. Which I plainly stated.The 'intifada' in the name of the title of the website should be enough to show this.

I asked you to point out which parts of the article you considered to be unreliable and biased, but you did not do that. I suppose because there exist no such parts?

I don't think you know what the word 'intifada' means...?
Original post by well in the dark
In other words, 'Ban Ki Moon finally submits to Israeli-cum-US pressure and fully endorses Israeli propaganda'.

It was not Hamas who broke the ceasefire.


Well, since your only information comes from the electronic intifada, of course that's what you believe.
Original post by well in the dark
I asked you to point out which parts of the article you considered to be unreliable and biased, but you did not do that. I suppose because there exist no such parts?

I don't think you know what the word 'intifada' means...?


I do:
intifada
ˌɪntɪˈfɑːdə/
noun


•

the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The first intifada lasted from 1987 to 1993, and the second began in 2000.


Read the article. That part.





Original post by miavdbt
I do:
intifada
ˌɪntɪˈfɑːdə/
noun


•

the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The first intifada lasted from 1987 to 1993, and the second began in 2000.


Read the article. That part.




I have read the article. What part?

And I meant the meaning of the Arabic word 'intifada', as in 'electronic intifada'.
Original post by tsr1269
Here's another one for you:

Who do you think the neo-nazi's are supporting in this conflict?

On the one hand, Muslim immigration and all that malarkey and on the other hand, some Jews getting killed.

It must be a real headspinner for these fellas who don't have two brain cells to rub together between them...


neo-nazis are mainly pro palestine, they have been infiltrating pro palestine movements in attempts to make 'anti-Semitism' mainstream, they are loving it.
Original post by miavdbt
Well, since your only information comes from the electronic intifada, of course that's what you believe.

Is there any reason to believe that Hamas broke the ceasefire, apart from IDF propaganda?
Original post by Jammy Duel
Alternatively, they're claiming, for the time being, not to have them and will pull them out later when Israel finally grows up enough to go to the negotiating table.

Not probable, as last time Hamas claimed to have captured a soldier, they made it known widely. Wonder what happened to that one...
Besides, Hamas knows, from experience, that Israel will launch fiercer 'revenge' attacks than usual if they know that Hamas is holding a soldier.
Original post by Pussy Galore
neo-nazis are mainly pro palestine, they have been infiltrating pro palestine movements in attempts to make 'anti-Semitism' mainstream, they are loving it.

[h="1"]German neo-Nazis: We're pro-Israel, condemn anti-Semitism[/h][h="1"]2 Israelis Wore Neo Nazi Shirts During Attack on Anti War Protest in Tel Aviv[/h]
Israeli media is circulating rumours about Hamas claims against ceasefire. Trying to cover up for these remarks by Israeli officials regarding upcoming ceasefire talks:

They forgot to add: 'Because our only concern is the natural resources in Gaza, which will do Israel good in these tight times.'
Why does Israel keep changing its story on Gaza?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Sic semper erat
Yes but the context of our conversation is entirely to do with controlling people's lives.


I disagree. While the impact of the siege on Gazans' daily lives is undoubtedly important, the political/legal status of the territories cannot be dismissed.

Meaning that the PA itself has no legal authority either, if the Accords that established it are pragmatic.


Probably the case initially, but now a case could be made that the PA has legitimacy outside this due to widespread international recognition, including being a non-member UN state.

Nasser blocked the Strait of Tiran, an act of war.


He offered to refer the case to the ICJ, and the Israeli government turned him down.

He also sent away the UN peacekeepers in the Sinai


The UN offered to move the peacekeepers to the Israeli side of the border, and the Israeli government turned the offer down.

and positioned his tanks by the Israeli border. Self-defense does not mean letting your enemy attack you first, Israel had every right to respond to that.

"The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." Nasser in a speech to Arab Trade Unionists on 26 May.

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" - Gamal Abdel Nasser

"The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel."- Cairo Radio

“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio

“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel….The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence”. - Cairo Radio, 1967

Just take a good think about all this..... lol


"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

I watched the original clip of the meeting. The Soviet Union wanted an Israeli withdrawal, but the U.S. and Israel pursuaded on 'no Israeli withdrawal, but rather return of territories in return for peace [and security]'. Worried by Israeli expansions into Syria, the Soviets in order to put a quick end to the war agreed to this.

What you say about the text is innacurate by the way. For starters the text says "territories" and not "the territories", meaning that the emphasis is on a peace agreement rather than territory per se. The second aspect of the resolution is concerned with security and secure borders, meaning that Israel does have legitimacy to have military control over the Jordan Valley for example. Notice how Kerry's recent framework involved Israel keeping control over the Jordan Valley.


Eight of the fifteen SC states said that they were voting for the resolution on the understanding that it meant an Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories.

And the right to security and secure borders applies both ways.
Original post by broscience123
It is funny (actually more sad), how accurate this is, especially on TSR.





To Mods: Please do not merge/delete this topic. This is a greater discussion on the copy-pasta'd "arguments" we see everywhere, and to what effect these "arguments" have on swaying public opinion.


Where is this from?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you