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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    This 'invasion' you speak of occurred 1400 years ago. According to Judaism's own history, the Israelites conquered the lands from the Canaanites and other groups maybe 1000 years previous to that.
    So in another 1400 years Arab and all their supporter can not cry about the Jews then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mazigh)
    So in another 1400 years Arab and all their supporter can not cry about the Jews then?
    Probably not no. The only difference really is that the Arab conquests happened in a far distant era when conquest was pretty much a common occurrence. The 1948 creation of Israel and the ethnic cleansing that followed occurred in the aftermath of WW2 when the globe was reeling from the destruction of expansionist powers and during the beginning of new norms of peaceful discussion of conflicting issues.

    The Jewish claim to that land is frankly bunk. The 'return' in the fashion that those original zionists conceived is not grounded in the religion (and in fact is contrary to the religion) which basically means one day some guy who associated with Jewish identity but was not really that religious, decided that lands in the Levante should belong to Jews and Jews only. The idea that the state of Israel and the seizure of that land is legitimate on the grounds of an ancient claim to that land is absolute waffles. Most peoples and ethnic identities have some sort of ancient claim to some other land and if they suddenly tried to seize it back they would be severely reprimanded by the international community. I mean, Serbia was even kicked out of its ancient cultural heartland on the grounds that the majority Kosovans that lived there and that had grown in the last couple of hundred years should have self determination. What about the Kurds? They have a far more recent claim to a homeland and also suffer from lack of rights but where is the call for their own self determination?

    There is no question that the Jews, considering the obvious inability of Europeans to coexist side by side as made evident through history, should have been given their own land but why should it have been at the expense of another peoples, why not at the expense of the very same people that spat on them, persecuted them, isolated them and even murdered them for many hundreds of years?

    Israel exists now and several generations of families have called that place home. For that reason it would be as monstrous to suddenly uproot these innocent people who had no part to play in the prior seizure of their ancestors as it is that Israel continuous to evict Palestinian Arabs from their homes in the west bank on really weak legal pretexts. Those who harbour resentment against the state of Israel should now learn to accept its existence but Israel should also learn not to persecute its Arab population and to grant actual independence to its Palestinian neighbours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miavdbt)
    No, of course not. I'd like to see the 90% HAMAS welfare statistic. I'm pretty sure they spend most of their 'aid' on sucky rockets that they aim at Israel.
    Here.

    What about what Hamas is doing to its own people? Also, do you believe that Hamas has every right to fire rockets into Israel? Because it has been doing so on a regular basis.
    Exactly what do HAMAS do "to its own people"? Are they taking bribes and the aid money destined for the refugees of the conflict? Do they bicker and bow to Israeli demands like Fatah? Do they allow settlers to set up their houses on Palestinian land?

    Exactly, what is HAMAS "doing to its own people"?

    They didn't 'own' anything. The Ottoman Empire 'owned' that land.
    Would it be amiss of me to ask for some evidence before we proceed any further on this point?

    Also, Israeli people have a much higher standard of life. Much more so than Gaza. Let's not forget that some of the infrastructure Gaza has would not even exist without Israel, and Israel still needs to provide it to them.
    That might have something to do with the fact that only around 4,000 items on the "permitted list" are allowed into Gaza?

    I mean, it took a United States Senator, who we all know are no friends of Palestinians to decry the fact that pasta, yes, freaking pasta was banned in Gaza. What was the pasta going to do? Choke an Israeli??????

    Again, Gaza could be thriving right now, if only Hamas used its aid for something else other than elaborate plans on destroying Israel and Jews.
    Or it could be more thriving if Israel didn't use the withholding of Palestinian tax receipts as a means of political coercion because they don't like the opposing government?

    I know Israel only selectively picks when it wants to adhere to international treaties, but that is not an excuse to punish the Palestinians by withholding tax receipts when they do so.

    You know what is the fault of Hamas? Using its own civilian population as human shields to garner support from the 'International Community'. Using its schools and hospitals as gun and terrorist shelters. Brainwashing its youth into hating the entire jewish race.
    As opposed to Israeli's who do not, and have not, brainwashed themselves thinking that the Land of Palestine is theirs because "God promised it to them"?

    Isn't it then ironic that 1 out of every 3 Israeli do not believe in God?

    Furthermore, where do you expect them to place their rockets? In a garden shed? At the back of a sofa? Gaza is the 6th most crowded area (population density) in the world. There's barely enough room to swing a cat in as it is...

    Hamas is an evil which should be eradicated from the face of this Earth. And anyone who is either a Palestinian supporter or an Israeli supporter or who values their own safety (because this evil could spread to the comfort of our homes which seem so far away right now) would call for its destruction.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTJ1MQRnJIM
    But I don't understand. Israeli politicians like Ayalet Shaked, who is smoking hot in her heavily photoshopped picture (see below as to picture, and see further below for relevance) are calling for the complete genocide against the Palestinians.



    Whilst I realize that it is a horrible experience for a race to have targeted another based solely on race, it is saddening to know that those same people who were persecuted in such a manner can now turn around, not 80 years later, and advocate the same treatment that they themselves went under.

    You know, a recent study (I think it was either a study or a survey but I forget) by Stanford found that self-perceived unattractive people care more about equality and hold liberal values whilst self-perceived attractive people tend to care less about equality and hold conservative values.

    I guess Ayalet Shaked thinks she is the latter...

    I digress but here's some choice quotes from Ayalet Shaked post:

    "This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. "

    "What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? "

    "..in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure."

    "They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads."

    "Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons...They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes"

    Perhaps Israel would not need to spend so much on warfare if it wasn't for the fact that they face rockets from whack jobs like Hamas on a daily basis. God forbid they defend themselves and every single liberal out there gets their panties up in a bunch.
    If I was an Israeli, I think I'd be pretty pissed at the amount of shekels my government were spending on defending these ****ty rockets. I mean, come on, $40,000 to defend an $800 rocket?

    ​Oh look, those evil zionist Israelis, attacking the innocent Hamas 'freedom fighters' just because they fire rockets at them on a daily basis and routinely call for the destruction of the entire jewish race!
    You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension (or I seem to be in which case, you will kindly correct me) that HAMAS, before the instigation of this little skirmish used to send over rockets since the ceasefire agreement of 2012.

    P.S. It's not my place to say whether it's justified to kill 500 civilians in order to kill one terrorist. It depends on the context. If it's a fact that if he is not executed right then and there, he will go on to kill 5000 innocents later, then maybe. Do the ends justify the means? Are 5000 worth more than 500? Either way, we have drone technology now, so that wouldn't even be an issue. It's a hypothetical situation which would be interesting to think about in terms of morality, but it does not hold true in the world we live in today.
    Which is a roundabout way of saying that you think it is justified. Hell, I would bet my bottom dollar (if I had any) that you would feel it would be justified to nuke just one terrorist in a field of 5,000,000.

    EDIT: Which Golda Meir quote? I'm curious.
    Attached Images
       
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Here.



    Exactly what do HAMAS do "to its own people"? Are they taking bribes and the aid money destined for the refugees of the conflict? Do they bicker and bow to Israeli demands like Fatah? Do they allow settlers to set up their houses on Palestinian land?

    Exactly, what is HAMAS "doing to its own people"?



    'JERUSALEM — The call came to the cellphone of his brother’s wife, Salah Kaware said Tuesday. Mr. Kaware lives in Khan Younis, in southeast Gaza, and the caller said that everyone in the house must leave within five minutes, because it was going to be bombed.A further warning came as the occupants were leaving, he said in a telephone interview, when an Israeli drone apparently fired a flare at the roof of the three-story home. “Our neighbors came in to form a human shield,” he said, with some even going to the roof to try to prevent a bombing. Others were in the stairway when the house was bombed not long afterward.'

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html?_r=0


    First of all, Hamas openly advocates human shields. This was a phone interview with a person evacuated from Gaza, who stated that people formed Human Shields to 'prevent' bombs. I don't understand how one can 'prevent' a bomb by forming a human shield. They can't. They can, however, be bombed and become the news story of the day about the brutality of Israel.

    I could not find a more recent, comprehensive report of the Human Rights Watch on the damage that Hamas does to its citizens, such as but not limited to persecuting civilians on the basis of their religious observances and political inclinations. This persecution has resulted in numerous unfair trials, torture, unwarranted arrest and executions. Of course, one could argue that Israel does the same (minus the execution, as Israel has only carried the capital punishment in very rare situations, to the best of my knowledge ONCE).


    http://www.hrw.org/node/82366

    Not to mention the disgusting indoctrination of civilians from a young age in an attempt to create even more unrest and terrorist activity.

    Here is one video on Hamas run television, where children are taught to sing praises to suicide bombers and follow in their footsteps. You can watch from 3:30 onwards, as that's when the song starts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3OYjKZ2Cu8

    Here is one where Hamas tv teaches children to kill all jews (they don't make a distinction between an Israeli jew or a zionist).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Q8K5TmivM

    That might have something to do with the fact that only around 4,000 items on the "permitted list" are allowed into Gaza?

    I mean, it took a United States Senator, who we all know are no friends of Palestinians to decry the fact that pasta, yes, freaking pasta was banned in Gaza. What was the pasta going to do? Choke an Israeli???

    Not the Obama administration. I don't think the Obama administration is pro Israel, it is much more likely to side with the Palestinians from what I've seen in their statements. Except now, when even they acknowledged that Israel has the right to defend itself.



    Or it could be more thriving if Israel didn't use the withholding of Palestinian tax receipts as a means of political coercion because they don't like the opposing government?


    I know Israel only selectively picks when it wants to adhere to international treaties, but that is not an excuse to punish the Palestinians by withholding tax receipts when they do so.


    You mean the terrorist organization Hamas which actively calls for the destruction of Israel and Jews? I wouldn't collaborate with a government which frequently called for the destruction of my own people either.




    As opposed to Israeli's who do not, and have not, brainwashed themselves thinking that the Land of Palestine is theirs because "God promised it to them"?

    Isn't it then ironic that 1 out of every 3 Israeli do not believe in God?

    Furthermore, where do you expect them to place their rockets? In a garden shed? At the back of a sofa? Gaza is the 6th most crowded area (population density) in the world. There's barely enough room to swing a cat in as it is...

    Say whatever you want, but ultimately when a shelter is used for military activities or storage of armaments, it becomes a legitimate target under International Law. The IDF has been warning civilians of attacks, and some Gazans have left to seek refuge in Israel.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07...?__federated=1

    But I don't understand. Israeli politicians like Ayalet Shaked, who is smoking hot in her heavily photoshopped picture (see below as to picture, and see further below for relevance) are calling for the complete genocide against the Palestinians.



    Whilst I realize that it is a horrible experience for a race to have targeted another based solely on race, it is saddening to know that those same people who were persecuted in such a manner can now turn around, not 80 years later, and advocate the same treatment that they themselves went under.

    You know, a recent study (I think it was either a study or a survey but I forget) by Stanford found that self-perceived unattractive people care more about equality and hold liberal values whilst self-perceived attractive people tend to care less about equality and hold conservative values.

    I guess Ayalet Shaked thinks she is the latter...

    I digress but here's some choice quotes from Ayalet Shaked post:

    "This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. "

    "What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? "

    "..in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure."

    "They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads."

    "Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons...They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes"

    ​I'm not the ambassador of crazy politicians. Neither am I going to comment on her photoshopped picture or the study, because I think that is beside the point. I don't believe the entire Palestinian people are the enemy, that is not the opinion I hold. I believe Hamas is the enemy of Palestinians and of Israelis and of the world (that time will also come)


    If I was an Israeli, I think I'd be pretty pissed at the amount of shekels my government were spending on defending these ****ty rockets. I mean, come on, $40,000 to defend an $800 rocket?o

    Well, when your home is being constantly targeted by rockets, I think you would be happy to know that your government is doing something about it.


    You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension (or I seem to be in which case, you will kindly correct me) that HAMAS, before the instigation of this little skirmish used to send over rockets since the ceasefire agreement of 2012.

    The little skirmish? The one that Hamas started?


    http://www.timesofisrael.com/170000-...df-intel-head/

    This should clear things up:

    http://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures...-toward-israel

    Who started firing rockets first? Was it Israel? No. It was Hamas. It is the right of every sovereign state to protect itself against those who launch offensives against it. So Hamas is weaker than Israel.

    If a mosquito kept biting you, you would swat it away eventually, despite the fact that it's much weaker, right?


    Which is a roundabout way of saying that you think it is justified. Hell, I would bet my bottom dollar (if I had any) that you would feel it would be justified to nuke just one terrorist in a field of 5,000,000.


    Nope, I did not say that at any point in time. You should work on your reading comprehension skills, and think about what you say before you start with your emotional responses to things. I posed some questions which you could think about and then decide for yourself whether in some cases it would be justifiable or not. Instead, you made a quick, emotion based judgement without putting any thought into what you're saying.




    Beautiful quote. On point.



    As for the Ottoman Empire proof:
    http://0.tqn.com/d/asianhistory/1/0/...manMap1700.jpg

    This is simply a map of the Ottoman Empire. This land didn't have an Islamic Arabic Palestinian rule before it became Israel. It was part of the Ottoman Empire, then when the British Mandate over it ended, it was decided that it would be given to the Jews to create their own autonomous state (there had been jews there already, as well as Arabs, it was undecided who would own the land and what kind of governing body would take over it). It was mandated that Israel would be a Jewish state in the previously Ottoman land. That didn't sit too well with the Arab countries who started a war, which Israel subsequently won.

    If you feel I have not addressed any of your points, feel free to point it out. I tried to address all of them, but may have ignored some as there were many.

    Here is the Hamas charter in English. Read it, make what you will of it.


    http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www....ml?chocaid=397
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It seems like the Palestinians are "cleaning house"...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you mind separating the points out so I know what you have responded to which allows the discussion to flow much more easily as it will be more coherent?

    (Original post by miavdbt)
    First of all, Hamas openly advocates human shields. This was a phone interview with a person evacuated from Gaza, who stated that people formed Human Shields to 'prevent' bombs. I don't understand how one can 'prevent' a bomb by forming a human shield. They can't. They can, however, be bombed and become the news story of the day about the brutality of Israel.
    Something doesn't make sense. You are saying that HAMAS "advocates human shields" but then you are saying that people, seemingly voluntarily, "formed human shields.

    Could you clear this up for us? Are people willingly "becoming human shields" or are HAMAS "forcing people to become human shields" because there are vital differences?

    I could not find a more recent, comprehensive report of the Human Rights Watch on the damage that Hamas does to its citizens, such as but not limited to persecuting civilians on the basis of their religious observances and political inclinations. This persecution has resulted in numerous unfair trials, torture, unwarranted arrest and executions. Of course, one could argue that Israel does the same (minus the execution, as Israel has only carried the capital punishment in very rare situations, to the best of my knowledge ONCE).
    Please do not worry about being able to source a "recent, comprehensive report" when any old source would do...

    "This 26-page report documents a pattern since late December 2008 of arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, maimings by shooting, and extrajudicial executions by alleged members of Hamas security forces."

    Something about propaganda
    You've posted these before and you are posting them again.

    Not the Obama administration. I don't think the Obama administration is pro Israel, it is much more likely to side with the Palestinians from what I've seen in their statements. Except now, when even they acknowledged that Israel has the right to defend itself.
    You completely ignored the point about Gaza Imports and the "permitted list"? Was that deliberate?

    You mean the terrorist organization Hamas which actively calls for the destruction of Israel and Jews? I wouldn't collaborate with a government which frequently called for the destruction of my own people either.
    Point A) HAMAS calls for the destruction of Israel, not Jews. I understand why you would conflate the two but that is no excuse to falsely attribute something to them which is not in their Charter.

    Point B) The reports stated that tax receipts were withheld from the Palestinians including Fatah. Are Fatah a "terrorist organisation"?

    Say whatever you want, but ultimately when a shelter is used for military activities or storage of armaments, it becomes a legitimate target under International Law.
    Reference please?

    The IDF has been warning civilians of attacks,
    How do they "warn civilians"?

    and some Gazans have left to seek refuge in Israel.
    I presume you have a source for this?

    Do you like randomly posting links when you reply or something?

    ​I'm not the ambassador of crazy politicians. Neither am I going to comment on her photoshopped picture or the study, because I think that is beside the point. I don't believe the entire Palestinian people are the enemy, that is not the opinion I hold. I believe Hamas is the enemy of Palestinians and of Israelis and of the world (that time will also come)
    And you were saying that the Palestinians were "brainwashed"...

    Well, when your home is being constantly targeted by rockets, I think you would be happy to know that your government is doing something about it.
    Get the **** out of the land which you know you have no right to be in?

    The little skirmish? The one that Hamas started?
    I don't think HAMAS started anything but no doubt, you will correct me on this...

    More random links?

    The USSR had rockets "pointed at" America and America had rockets "pointed at" the USSR. Didn't come to anything, did it?

    Who started firing rockets first? Was it Israel? No. It was Hamas. It is the right of every sovereign state to protect itself against those who launch offensives against it. So Hamas is weaker than Israel.
    This time, I would need you to provide some evidence...

    If a mosquito kept biting you, you would swat it away eventually, despite the fact that it's much weaker, right?
    Not if I went and purposefully trod in the lair of mosquitoes...

    Nope, I did not say that at any point in time. You should work on your reading comprehension skills, and think about what you say before you start with your emotional responses to things. I posed some questions which you could think about and then decide for yourself whether in some cases it would be justifiable or not. Instead, you made a quick, emotion based judgement without putting any thought into what you're saying.
    "Emotional responses"? That's a new one. I've never had an ardent Zionist, nor an Israeli for that matter call me that.

    However, I asked you a simple question. Do you believe killing what one perceives to be a "terrorist" standing in a field of 500 people to be justified given the fact that the final death toll would be 500?

    It is a simple yes or no.

    Beautiful quote. On point.
    Which makes it all the situation even more saddening. I mean, just imagine it:

    A population which hates another so much that they would rather have their own children die for the cause than live must have had a very terrible atrocity committed upon them.

    The anger, the hate and the emotions that the activities that such an oppressor must have engaged in must have been one which was truly atrocious.

    I could have done that on google myself. I wanted evidence that the land was "Ottoman". Not that the Ottoman Empire had tentacles in large swathes of area but the land was actually that of the Ottoman State.

    If you feel I have not addressed any of your points, feel free to point it out. I tried to address all of them, but may have ignored some as there were many.
    Just the one. Using your guidance to another poster about the prudence in engaging in a dictionary before coming to a conclusion whether someone is a terrorist or not, I have done so and have concluded that, using the dictionary definition, Israel does seem to fit the definition of a "terrorist" state. Do you have a response to this?

    Here is the Hamas charter in English. Read it, make what you will of it.

    http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www....ml?chocaid=397
    Thank you. In it, you will find that HAMAS simply calls for the destruction of Israel, which I do not believe is illegal in itself...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The terrorist remark, if Israel fits under the definition of terrorist state based on the one that you've provided, then so does the US and other states. Depends on your interpretation.



    The links I've provided have been called 'random', the proof insufficient. Your only comment on the blatantly racist Hamas videos was that I posted them again (yes, to reiterate a point).

    As far as International Law, sorry, I will not find you a source. Pick up an International Law textbook and you will see what constitutes a military target. This is not some debate, this is law. I don't need to educate you or prove that it exists. This is something you can do yourself.

    I don't know what else you want but a map. Obviously, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Once again, I'm not responsible for your education of facts. For opinions and controversies, I will gladly provide sources, but for facts, I trust you can find a history or law book on your own.

    I will not argue anymore with you, because you can't even agree that Israel is a legitimate state. I can't argue with someone who won't even acknowledge that. I personally agree that some of their foreign policy is debatable, but as far as their legitimacy they do deserve to be there.

    Furthermore, you don't think it's illegal to call for the destruction of Israel. I will not be communicating with terrorists.

    You have conveniently ignored my points and twisted my opinions in ways to suit your new post, whilst I addressed as many of your points as I could and asked whether you felt any of your points were ignored. I expected the same back, but did not receive it. Very typical, I guess, of terrorist supporters to pick and choose what the opposing side says in order to make their own case stronger. Well done, Hamas will be proud.

    Oh and, I may be what you define to be a zionist, but I am not an Israeli. Also, I did not have an opinion on the issue until about a year ago when I started doing my own research and hearing people from both sides, as well as reading sources from both sides until I made up my own mind. One side made sense, the other did not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's a wonder that I have received a notification that you have quoted me when clearly you haven't. Please make sure to quote me so it makes it easier for me to reply.

    (Original post by miavdbt)
    The terrorist remark, if Israel fits under the definition of terrorist state based on the one that you've provided, then so does the US and other states. Depends on your interpretation.
    The actions of the "US and other states" are not in contention. The actions of Israel are in contention.

    Would you say, that based on the definitions given, Israel is a "terrorist state"?

    A yes or no would suffice...

    The links I've provided have been called 'random', the proof insufficient. Your only comment on the blatantly racist Hamas videos was that I posted them again (yes, to reiterate a point).
    Forgive me if I do not take MEMRI seriously but you will understand that one has to be careful especially with all these inaccurate reports, bias and general warmongering floating around.

    As far as International Law, sorry, I will not find you a source. Pick up an International Law textbook and you will see what constitutes a military target. This is not some debate, this is law. I don't need to educate you or prove that it exists. This is something you can do yourself.
    No, you need to prove that what you are saying is backed up by "International Law" as you have claimed.

    Until you do so, it will remain an unfounded opinion and makes you look rather foolish to hold such a position.

    I don't know what else you want but a map. Obviously, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Once again, I'm not responsible for your education of facts. For opinions and controversies, I will gladly provide sources, but for facts, I trust you can find a history or law book on your own.
    I'm not having a discussion with a history or a law book. I am having a discussion with YOU because you are coming out with all of these opinions.

    I will not argue anymore with you, because you can't even agree that Israel is a legitimate state. I can't argue with someone who won't even acknowledge that. I personally agree that some of their foreign policy is debatable, but as far as their legitimacy they do deserve to be there.
    I'm sorry. Are you imposing pre-discussion terms in this exchange? I thought only Palestinians engaged in such malarkey?

    In any case, could you explain to me WHY "they do deserve to be there"?

    Furthermore, you don't think it's illegal to call for the destruction of Israel. I will not be communicating with terrorists.
    Just as I don't think it'll be illegal to call for the destruction of America, or Canada, or Nigeria or the UK, or Iraq or Iran, China, Russia or Japan, how about Australia, maybe Greenland, Antarctic could do with demolishing their borders, South America would look nicer if the Amazon was in one country, the EU is self-imploding and the Earth should be a free movement zone.

    I'm sorry, does that make me a "terrorist". Am I er, using "violence" to achieve political aims? Maybe it's time you "picked up a dictionary?

    You have conveniently ignored my points and twisted my opinions in ways to suit your new post, whilst I addressed as many of your points as I could and asked whether you felt any of your points were ignored. I expected the same back, but did not receive it. Very typical, I guess, of terrorist supporters to pick and choose what the opposing side says in order to make their own case stronger. Well done, Hamas will be proud.
    I have addressed every single one of your points and more. You can't seem to hold a discussion except refer to superficial arguments commonly churned out whenever Israel decides to eradicate the "Palestinian problem".

    Oh and, I may be what you define to be a zionist, but I am not an Israeli.
    Maybe it was a little unclear to you but I wasn't calling you a Zionist, nor an Israeli. However, you do seem to be of the same caliber as a Zionist so maybe I'm not too far off the mark...

    Also, I did not have an opinion on the issue until about a year ago when I started doing my own research and hearing people from both sides, as well as reading sources from both sides until I made up my own mind. One side made sense, the other did not.
    You have not said one good thing about HAMAS so forgive my skepticism when you tell me you "read sources from both sides". I mean, you can't even begin to congratulate HAMAS for spending 90% of their activities in the field of welfare...

    You sound like another Israeli/Zionist supporter who has been brainwashed to swallow the IDF propaganda and to regurgitate it at every opportunity.

    I mean, your "HAMAS uses civilians as shields...HAMAS fires rockets so we have to defend...civilians are unavoidable...God gave this land to us...Israel is best democracy...Western states support Israel...HAMAS are terrorists" arguments are not fooling anybody.

    I can smell a person like you a mile off. You held your own for a couple of posts (as the exchange wasn't too in depth) but once it started to get down to the itty gritty, you can't get away fast enough.


    I pity you and your brainwashed mind. How you have managed to delude and brainwash yourself into accepting Israel's propaganda as Gospel is the real sad fact that I have garnered from our flurry of exchanges...

    Nevertheless, it's certainly been "interesting"...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As I said to you in the message I sent you, I will not be continuing this discussion.

    My sources are all biased and fake apparently, and my opinions that of a brainwashed person. Look in the mirror. Or try critical thinking.

    The reason why I refuse to discuss this further isn't because I can't provide sources to refute this person's points, but because I believe that such an exercise will be one in futility. None of the sources I've provided, even ones of Hamas tv shows (not altered, just translated) clearly showing them hating an entire race of people, have been treated as reliable.


    I will not spend my time writing out long responses refuting each point and using sources to do so just to be told that I've been brainwashed, my sources are unreliable and I've fallen for propaganda.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miavdbt)
    As I said to you in the message I sent you, I will not be continuing this discussion.
    With your acquiescence, I have decided to respond to your PM here.

    http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/legitimate-military-targets/

    Here, read what constitutes a legitimate military target.
    "The definition of a legitimate target is central to the laws of armed conflict. Additional Protocol I, Article 52, defines a legitimate military target as one “which by [its] nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Any attack requires that it be justified, in the first place, by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. And if there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian."

    How was the disabled school a "legitimate target"?

    My sources are all biased and fake apparently, and my opinions that of a brainwashed person. Look in the mirror. Or try critical thinking.
    Your reasoning does not tally with your sources. An important distinction which you have failed to appreciate throughout this discussion...

    The reason why I refuse to discuss this further isn't because I can't provide sources to refute this person's points, but because I believe that such an exercise will be one in futility.
    Except the sources that you were supposed to provide either turned out to be not even what you were talking about (Ottoman Map, HAMAS using civilians as shields etc etc) whilst the sources you were supposed to provide evidence of (HAMAS fired first rocket, destruction =/= genocide, "Israel is a terrorist state") were not produced.

    None of the sources I've provided, even ones of Hamas tv shows (not altered, just translated) clearly showing them hating an entire race of people, have been treated as reliable.
    I'm just following in the footsteps of greater people have denounced MEMRI for the reasons that I posted in my previous post.

    Yet, you're more than willing to accept what Hamas spews out, or believe that it actually spends money on the welfare of its people.
    I don't actually. None of the sources, bar the one about that Israeli politician, actually wasn't from HAMAS or HAMAS friendly website.

    I will not spend my time writing out long responses refuting each point and using sources to do so just to be told that I've been brainwashed, my sources are unreliable and I've fallen for propaganda.
    There's no need to. Your inability to defend or even stand by your points, never mind sources, demonstrates that your just either full of hot air or were brainwashed.

    One can only conclude from your dogged insistence to retain the original propaganda material as legitimate arguments even when it has been "debunked" is that it is the latter and not the former...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    With your acquiescence, I have decided to respond to your PM here.



    "The definition of a legitimate target is central to the laws of armed conflict. Additional Protocol I, Article 52, defines a legitimate military target as one “which by [its] nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Any attack requires that it be justified, in the first place, by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. And if there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian."

    How was the disabled school a "legitimate target"?



    Your reasoning does not tally with your sources. An important distinction which you have failed to appreciate throughout this discussion...



    Except the sources that you were supposed to provide either turned out to be not even what you were talking about (Ottoman Map, HAMAS using civilians as shields etc etc) whilst the sources you were supposed to provide evidence of (HAMAS fired first rocket, destruction =/= genocide, "Israel is a terrorist state") were not produced.



    I'm just following in the footsteps of greater people have denounced MEMRI for the reasons that I posted in my previous post.



    I don't actually. None of the sources, bar the one about that Israeli politician, actually wasn't from HAMAS or HAMAS friendly website.



    There's no need to. Your inability to defend or even stand by your points, never mind sources, demonstrates that your just either full of hot air or were brainwashed.

    One can only conclude from your dogged insistence to retain the original propaganda material as legitimate arguments even when it has been "debunked" is that it is the latter and not the former...


    Okay, I'm sorry but I will not be accused of not being able to defend my points or being brainwashed. I take back the fact that I wasn't going to reply anymore.

    1. Hamas fired the first rocket.


    Now, the article below states that Israel's main reason for Operation Protective Edge is a response to numerous Hamas attacks on Israel in the previous weeks (referring to rocket attacks)

    'Israel launched its offensive last Tuesday in what it says was a response to weeks of heavy rocket attacks out of Gaza. It has carried out hundreds of airstrikes, systematically targeting what it says is Hamas' rocket-launching production and launching capabilities.'

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/mideast-conflict_n_5583502.html

    It is difficult to pinpoint exactly which attack led Israel to begin its Operation Protective Edge, as there were many in the previous weeks. Of course, you'll be wanting sources from reliable news websites which back this claim up.

    This video from the BBC, explains why the rocket firing left Israel with no alternative:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28208675

    This article from the BBC shows Hamas taking responsibility for rockets being fired at Israel the day before, which then prompted airstrikes from Israel.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28192747


    If these are insufficient for you and you still believe Israel started it, perhaps you could provide sources stating that the aggression was started by Israelis.


    2. Ottoman Empire.



    Now, this is the image that I provided in order to illustrate that these lands were previously under Ottoman Empire rule. This was insufficient, apparently. I suppose you want more. Here is a brief article by the Encyclopedia Britannica claiming that the Palestine of Ottoman times was an area run by Ottoman governors, at times directly and at other times indirectly. It fell under Ottoman influence, it was part of the Empire. I'm not sure exactly what else you're looking for, what kind of proof will be enough for you to accept that this land was part of the Ottoman Empire.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...5/Ottoman-rule

    3. "Israel is a terrorist state"

    terrorism
    ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
    noun
    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

    • the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
      [COLOR=#878787 !important]"the fight against terrorism"[/COLOR]






    According to a quick google search for a definition of terrorism, it is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. That would make sense, because if it was just the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, then every war ever fought would be 'terrorist'.

    There is nothing unofficial or unauthorized about Israel's attacks on Gaza. For this reason, I don't believe Israel is a terrorist state. I believe it is a sovereign nation which has the right to defend itself against perceived threats.

    4. Disabled school - I looked at your link, and found it was by Al Jazeera. Please don't expect me to take Al Jazeera links seriously, it's like posting from HamasNews and expecting me to think they're reliable sources. Unlike you, though, I will not just dismiss what was said just because I don't like the source and think it's biased and unreliable. I did find another source:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/wo...aza-strip.html

    The New York Times tells the whole story, including the Israeli side. It's apparent that they weren't able to provide information on the intel on the spot, but will provide evidence later. It would be abhorrent if this was a civilian target that was bombed for no reason, of course. However, if the spokesperson is able to provide intel or an explanation as to why which is reasonable, this might help explain the choice of target.

    5. Israel actually cares about the civilians of Gaza. - This is why I find it difficult to believe that they actively sought to bomb the disabled center.

    sraeli leaflets dropped on Beit Lahiya, where 70,000 Palestinians live, said civilians in three of its 10 neighbourhoods were "requested to evacuate their residences" and move south, deeper into the Gaza Strip, by 12 p.m. (0900 GMT).
    The Gaza Interior Ministry, in a statement on Hamas radio, dismissed the Israeli warnings as "psychological warfare" and instructed those who left their homes to return and others to stay put.
    The warnings cited roads that residents could use safely and said Israeli forces intended to attack "every area from where rockets are being launched".
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101831952


    Note that while Israel is trying to save civilians, Hamas is telling them to stay where they'll be bombed. Sure, it's not proof that Hamas is using them as Human Shields, but why is Israel trying to protect the civilians of Gaza, whilst Hamas is telling them that they should stay in sights which will be bombed by Israel?


    Human Shields:The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.


    Again, it's not necessarily proof that Hamas is using its civilians as human shields, but if you look at the definition and the article, then it sure sounds that way. Not to mention, in a previous article the Canadian Prime Minister stated that there was evidence that this was done.


    As for your point on destruction =/= genocide. Fine, the call for the destruction of a country may not seem illegal to you, but the actions taken by Hamas to destroy Israel are illegal, since they include the targeting of civilians.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miavdbt)
    Okay, I'm sorry but I will not be accused of not being able to defend my points or being brainwashed. I take back the fact that I wasn't going to reply anymore.
    Did you go back to "IDF school" and have them fill your head with more nonsense? You remind me of this guy:



    1. Hamas fired the first rocket.

    Now, the article below states that Israel's main reason for Operation Protective Edge is a response to numerous Hamas attacks on Israel in the previous weeks (referring to rocket attacks)

    'Israel launched its offensive last Tuesday in what it says was a response to weeks of heavy rocket attacks out of Gaza.It has carried out hundreds of airstrikes, systematically targeting what it says is Hamas' rocket-launching production and launching capabilities.'

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/mideast-conflict_n_5583502.html
    Two INDEPENDENT statements but the way they are presented gives the impression that they are linked.

    Show me explicit evidence that HAMAS fired the first rocket. (Note the emphasis on "HAMAS")

    It is difficult to pinpoint exactly which attack led Israel to begin its Operation Protective Edge, as there were many in the previous weeks. Of course, you'll be wanting sources from reliable news websites which back this claim up.

    This video from the BBC, explains why the rocket firing left Israel with no alternative:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28208675

    This article from the BBC shows Hamas taking responsibility for rockets being fired at Israel the day before, which then prompted airstrikes from Israel.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28192747
    You should always read the articles before you post:

    "A Hamas spokesman had earlier accused Israel of killing the five militants during air strikes on Sunday and called it a "grave escalation".

    "Sunday" being 6th July. A day before the rocket attacks were launched from the Gaza Strip...

    If these are insufficient for you and you still believe Israel started it, perhaps you could provide sources stating that the aggression was started by Israelis.
    Your wish is my command:

    "Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid said that the military operation in the West Bank has three goals, namely returning kidnapped settlers, destroying Hamas, and dismantling the Palestinian unity government."

    Of vital importance, is the 2nd objective.

    Operation Brother's Keeper, being the precursor to Operation Protective Edge made it clear that Israel were going to be targeting HAMAS and seeking to destroy them.

    Just like HAMAS states that they "will destroy Israel", Israel is now playing the same card and saying they will "destroy HAMAS". I can't see how you continue to support one's destruction but not the other when both have made the same statement.


    2. Ottoman Empire.



    Now, this is the image that I provided in order to illustrate that these lands were previously under Ottoman Empire rule. This was insufficient, apparently. I suppose you want more. Here is a brief article by the Encyclopedia Britannica claiming that the Palestine of Ottoman times was an area run by Ottoman governors, at times directly and at other times indirectly. It fell under Ottoman influence, it was part of the Empire. I'm not sure exactly what else you're looking for, what kind of proof will be enough for you to accept that this land was part of the Ottoman Empire.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...5/Ottoman-rule
    I'm simply waiting you to prove that the Ottoman State "owned", not governed or controlled, that piece of land called Palestine...

    3. "Israel is a terrorist state"

    terrorism
    ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
    noun

    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
    the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
    [COLOR=#878787 !important]"the fight against terrorism"[/COLOR]

    According to a quick google search for a definition of terrorism, it is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. That would make sense, because if it was just the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, then every war ever fought would be 'terrorist'.

    There is nothing unofficial or unauthorized about Israel's attacks on Gaza. For this reason, I don't believe Israel is a terrorist state. I believe it is a sovereign nation which has the right to defend itself against perceived threats.
    Link to the definition?

    4. Disabled school - I looked at your link, and found it was by Al Jazeera. Please don't expect me to take Al Jazeera links seriously, it's like posting from HamasNews and expecting me to think they're reliable sources. Unlike you, though, I will not just dismiss what was said just because I don't like the source and think it's biased and unreliable. I did find another source:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/wo...aza-strip.html

    The New York Times tells the whole story, including the Israeli side. It's apparent that they weren't able to provide information on the intel on the spot, but will provide evidence later. It would be abhorrent if this was a civilian target that was bombed for no reason, of course. However, if the spokesperson is able to provide intel or an explanation as to why which is reasonable, this might help explain the choice of target.
    A) My source does not detract from the point that a disabled school was bombed.

    B) Israel have been quick to tell of the person they were intending to bomb when they have launched other airstrikes, so why is there hesitancy and reluctance at this stage?

    5. Israel actually cares about the civilians of Gaza. - This is why I find it difficult to believe that they actively sought to bomb the disabled center.

    sraeli leaflets dropped on Beit Lahiya, where 70,000 Palestinians live, said civilians in three of its 10 neighbourhoods were "requested to evacuate their residences" and move south, deeper into the Gaza Strip, by 12 p.m. (0900 GMT).
    The Gaza Interior Ministry, in a statement on Hamas radio, dismissed the Israeli warnings as "psychological warfare" and instructed those who left their homes to return and others to stay put.
    The warnings cited roads that residents could use safely and said Israeli forces intended to attack "every area from where rockets are being launched".
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101831952
    Where should these Palestinians evacuate TO? Where are they going to go? The borders are closed. The sea is blocked. There is no ****ing airport and it's not like the Gaza strip stretches for miles on end.

    Where do you "evacuate to" if the whole area is under bombardment?

    Note that while Israel is trying to save civilians, Hamas is telling them to stay where they'll be bombed. Sure, it's not proof that Hamas is using them as Human Shields, but why is Israel trying to protect the civilians of Gaza, whilst Hamas is telling them that they should stay in sights which will be bombed by Israel?
    HAMAS is telling them to stay within their homes because apparently, Israel is really good at carrying out precision airstrikes.

    Oh yes, I forgot. When they carry out a precision airstrike, they normally level the entire block.

    Human Shields:The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.
    Irrelevant. Why are you quoting this when you have just said that it's not been proven that HAMAS are using human shields?

    Again, it's not necessarily proof that Hamas is using its civilians as human shields, but if you look at the definition and the article, then it sure sounds that way. Not to mention, in a previous article the Canadian Prime Minister stated that there was evidence that this was done.
    Yes, Tony Blair and George Bush also said that "Iraq had WMD's and Saddam could launch them in 45 mins".

    Oh, and it's amazingly ironic that Tony Blair is the "MEPE" and we have hardly heard a flutter of activity from his camp about the latest Israeli imitative to get rid of the "Palestinian problem"...

    As for your point on destruction =/= genocide. Fine, the call for the destruction of a country may not seem illegal to you, but the actions taken by Hamas to destroy Israel are illegal, since they include the targeting of civilians.
    What do you expect them to target? Everywhere in Israel there is people...
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itsmyname)
    You're back tracking here. You were calling out those who support the Palestinian cause as being Islamists or Islamist sympathisers.

    Now you're saying that islamism is a global problem. Well that's a totally different topic to the subject matter at hand.
    no :rolleyes: i said the palestinian issue is hijacked by islamists and their agendas, as is the case in most disputes involving muslim populations round the globe - checnya, uighur china, kashmir, nigeria, somalia, sudan etc. what are are stuggling to understand
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is a state made up of civilians. There is a difference between wanting to destroy Hamas and wanting to destroy a state filled with people of different political leanings.

    2. As for your last sentence, note the irony. It could apply to either side.

    K, thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Did you go back to "IDF school" and have them fill your head with more nonsense? You remind me of this guy:





    Stop taking selfies!

    I also replied but did not quote you above.

    Also, Palestinians have been evacuating further south, or even to Israel. Those with dual citizenship, are leaving altogether.

    Oh, and for you defending your source. The same could apply to my sources with the videos. They did not detract from the point, they just weren't up to your standard of reliability.

    And I suppose your irrelevant Stanford study about people's looks was somehow relevant of course.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If they controlled the land, if it was part of the Ottoman Empire, they owned it, too. It was under their control. They could do as they like with it. I have no idea what you want exactly.


    Interesting how every source which backs up Israel is propaganda and brainwash, yet every source supporting Hamas and terrorists is the Gospel in your world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ARABS NATIONS sHOULD be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.



    where is Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE??? Palestinians have been reduced to ask help from a non arab army whilst there own arab brethren are turning a blind eye
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Israel accepts ceasefire, Hamas doesn't

    Israel has accepted an Egyptian truce proposal for the conflict with Gaza.

    Hamas, which controls Gaza, is still discussing the plan, but its armed wing has rejected it as a "surrender".
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28305830


    Hamas have fired 25 rockets since the ceasefire.



    Even the Arab world is so utterly fed up with them

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the Arab world itself is sick and tired of them?




    Israel has accepted a ceasefire, Hamas has rejected it.

    25 rockets fired at Israel since Israel accepted the ceasefire.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miavdbt)
    1. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is a state made up of civilians. There is a difference between wanting to destroy Hamas and wanting to destroy a state filled with people of different political leanings.

    2. As for your last sentence, note the irony. It could apply to either side.

    K, thanks.
    Was this a response to me? If so, is it so difficult to quote or at least say "TO"?
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.