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

I am pro-Israel, ask me anything Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    See, my support for the country comes only from the fact that it is a liberal democracy fighting tyrannies. If it were fighting liberal democracies then I would not support it.
    Fair enough and I largely agree with you there.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DouglasAdams)
    X
    How many more operations do you think israel will undertake before they decide to go for peace talks?
    So far we have had:
    -operation hot winter
    -operation summer rains
    -operation returning echo
    -operation cast lead
    operation pillar of defence
    -......etc
    secondary question: where do they come up with these fancy operation names
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    How many more operations do you think israel will undertake before they decide to go for peace talks?
    So far we have had:
    -operation hot winter
    -operation summer rains
    -operation returning echo
    -operation cast lead
    operation pillar of defence
    -......etc
    secondary question: where do they come up with these fancy operation names
    Israel have agreed to several ceasefires this conflict which Hamas has broken.
    Israel also agreed to a truce on Hamas' terms, which they then refused to accept. Who is unreasonable now?

    And the operation names are actually rather cool.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamante06)
    -In 2008, Israel sent soldiers into Gaza. An estimated 1,300 people, many of them civilians, were killed in Gaza before a ceasefire was declared; 13 Israeli soldiers also died.
    -In 2012, at least 167 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed during an Israeli operation. After eight days a ceasefire was declared with both sides promising to stop attacks.
    -Most recently in July 2014, Palestinian authorities said over 200 people were killed by Israeli air strikes and many more injured. Israel says more than 1,100 rockets were fired from Gaza, seriously injuring at least four Israelis, with one Israeli man killed. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20436092)

    -Around 7000 Palestinians have been killed since 2001 compared to 1000 Israelis. (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html )

    -Almost 90,000 Palestinians have been killed compared to 24,000 Israelis since 1920.(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...tiestotal.html)

    Maybe these figures may not be accurate but they all show a significantly higher number of deaths in Palestine.
    What do you think of Palestinians irredentist claims?
    Do you know any Zionists?
    Do you agree with the way Israel was formed?
    I will go with the questions there. I think quoting civilian numbers is a bit unfair when all the conflicts are considered in context. Israel should also not be penalised for having an Iron Dome which saves lives, just because the casualties are no longer equal.

    I do not agree with Palestinian irredentist claims or aren't we essentially pitting the Islam against Judaism? For the same reason, I am not sure the creation of the state was done in the best way either,.
    Nonetheless, Israel have set up a brilliantly functioning democracy and the only one in the region where anyone peaceful can live in safety. I do not that type of country should not be written off.

    And yes, I know many Zionists. I support the State of Israel's right to exist so I suppose that in a sense I am a form of Zionist too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Would you support every action a liberal democracy carried out just because it is a liberal democracy?

    What about when a liberal democracy carries out actions on people not from within said liberal democracy? The people facing the consequence of these actions had no part to play in the democratic process you are so fond of. It is entirety possible for a "freedom loving" country to behave horrendously to people outside of it's borders.

    I also have problems with describing Israel as a liberal democracy for the same reasons I would america, but that is for another thread and I can't be arsed going down that road again. (when using the dictionary definition of 'liberal' and 'democracy')
    I would support any liberal democracy's efforts to destroy tyranny, and that is what Israel is trying to do in Gaza. Obviously I do not support everything the IDF has done, but I support their side in the war.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blues Clues)
    I'm not sure eradicating terrorists is the best way to do that - Vietnam war? Surely there are other ways to protect themselves sans violence?

    OP - why do you support Israel?
    1. Israel has a right to the land
    2. Israel is a hard working productive nation who wants whats best for humanity.
    3. Hamas is a terrorist organisation deliberately trying to kill innocent civilians, they are not aiming for Israeli air sites but just anyone. Thank god for the iron dome.
    4. Israel has a right to protect itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DouglasAdams)
    This is exactly the type of ignorance that is impossible to argue with.
    The might of the USA spent more on its defence forces in Vietnam, and still manged to kill 587,000 civilians. You cannot fight against guerrilla tactics without civilian lives being lost. The fact that so few Palestinian civilian lives have been lost is wonderful.
    Are you holding up the Vitnamese War as the paradigm of a successful military operation?

    Jesus wept...

    The highlighted sentence makes me feel queasy. You clearly have a high tolerance for civilian carnage.

    I feel I have to clarify that I'm not a supporter of Hamas and I believe in Isarel's right to exist but some of the attitudes on the pro-Israel side are chilling.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DouglasAdams)
    And stretch it back a bit futher and Israel start losing land. The decision to give Israel their own land was a UN-decision long ago decided and Israel gained a lot of land since then through wars it did not start.
    Plus, the only ones who no longer support Israel's right to exist are terrorists although you are welcome to side with them if you so wish.
    lol. the Jews were given land to call home in 1948. Ever since they have taken more and more of Palestine.

    In 2008 when Israel began carpet bombing Gaza, they did so at the exact time that the streets would be full of children. Coincidence? I think not
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I appreciate your response even if I don't think you answered my questions in a manner I envisaged.

    (Original post by DouglasAdams)
    The answer to all of those questions ultimately comes down to the differences between Israel and Iran.
    The first question concerned only Israel so no mention of Iran is necessary. Although as for the double standards in dealing with Israel and Iran I can, to some extent, sympathise with that POV.

    There are many problems with Iran which include the fact that although they may elect a more moderate president, it is ultimately the Ayatollah who is in charge. This is the same Ayatollah who sit back and let, or more like sided with, Ahmadinejad when he made statements such as pledging to wipe Israel off the face of the map, or effectively declaring possible war on the West and the USA. This makes it incredibly difficult to trust Iran.
    Ahmadinejad never pledged to wipe Israel off the face of the map, he called to 'eliminate the zionist regime'. I hope you'll agree that these are not the same things.

    What of the deputy speaker of the Knesset who recently supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza? Does this make it difficult to trust Israel? There are extremists in all countries, and I daresay Israel has almost as many as Iran.

    Even without that, there are still doubts about whether one can trust the new president Rouhani and significant doubts surround him despite being called a moderate, the suicide statement of his son included amongst them.
    There are many people who hate the regime in Iran, this is indisputable. Perhaps most noteworthy is Hussein Khomeini (grandson of ex Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah).

    And whichever way you look at it, Iran have lied to the West for years about the purposes of their nuclear research and it is extremely difficult to trust them now.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you please provide some evidence of this? The IAEI state in every report of Iran's nuclear facilities that they have no suspicions of a plan to achieve nuclear weapons and all the US's intelligence corroborates this.

    Iran are also doing this less out of their free will, and more buckling in the face of extreme sanctions.
    Doing what, negotiating? I believe you are mistaken if you believe that Iran can be brought to negotiate through sanctions and economic hardship.

    Lest us forget the 'grand bargain' offered to the USA in 2003 from Iran (where they pledged to cease support for militant groups such as Hamas/Hezbollah and severely limit their nuclear programme in exchange for the normalisation of relations), which was rejected by the Bush administration.

    Lest us also not forget how Iran provided intel and physical support for the USA in Afghanistan, only to be repaid by being labelled as part of an 'axis of evil'.

    Israel has most likely had its nukes for years, and has never even threatened, let alone contemplated using them. Iran by contrast are a liability and could do anything when they get theirs. No-one is declaring war on Iran so they do NOT need them.
    I more of less agree with the first statement, I disagree with the second and the third is simply false.

    It would not be in Iran's interests to use nuclear weapons (if they developed them, which I believe will never happen as a result of the fatwa issued against it), and most experts agree on this matter.

    As for Iran not needing nuclear weapons, Israel and the USA have threatened to bomb Iran for several years now and the assassination of its top nuclear scientists (almost certainly by Mossad) would both provide a reasonable incentive to provide a balance of power in the region.

    I do not see that Israel would ever eradicate its stock seeing as it has so many foreign enemies, and I, like the democracies, do not trust Iran either for the reasons above.
    Plus the Western countries that effectively control all of these international regulatory bodies have no motivation for Israel to eradicate its stock so once again it will never occur.
    And Iran does not have foreign enemies? The USA/Israel/Saudi Arabia are perhaps three of Iran's most determined enemies.

    Countries cannot ask Israel to eradicate its stockpile, because Israel refuses to ratify the NPT and/or allow IAEA inspections of its facilities.

    Regardless, the question I was asking was which of the two scenario do you think would you preferable, I did not ask about how you rated the likelihood of either.

    I hope I answered your questions in that ramble.
    See above.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    Are you holding up the Vitnamese War as the paradigm of a successful military operation?

    Jesus wept...

    The highlighted sentence makes me feel queasy. You clearly have a high tolerance for civilian carnage.

    I feel I have to clarify that I'm not a supporter of Hamas and I believe in Isarel's right to exist but some of the attitudes on the pro-Israel side are chilling.
    I have first hand witness statements of civilians giving themselves up as human shields for targets that Israel warned were about to be hit. I doubt you have the same evidence.

    And I do not uphold Vietnam whatsoever, but I am proving to you that regardless of how powerful your military is, it is always impossible not to lose civilian lives when the opposition employs guerrilla tactics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DouglasAdams)

    I do not agree with Palestinian irredentist claims or aren't we essentially pitting the Islam against Judaism? For the same reason, I am not sure the creation of the state was done in the best way either,.
    Nonetheless, Israel have set up a brilliantly functioning democracy and the only one in the region where anyone peaceful can live in safety. I do not that type of country should not be written off.

    And yes, I know many Zionists. I support the State of Israel's right to exist so I suppose that in a sense I am a form of Zionist too.
    The issue doesn't lie with religion, it is about land that once was occupied by Palestinian's and essentially taken over by Israel who then drove them out. I understand Israel wanting a homeland, but do you not think Palestine deserves the right to the land?
    Israeli's may be living peacefully but Palestine is not - And that can not all be blamed on Hamas
    Why is there an inequality of rights between Palestinians and Israelis?
    Why was Israel given 55% of land and Palestinians given only 45.. and why did 55% of land move to 78% being occupied by Israelis?

    (by the way I'm not intentionally trying to sound harsh, I just want to increase my understanding on what Israelis believe)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DouglasAdams)
    I have first hand witness statements of civilians giving themselves up as human shields for targets that Israel warned were about to be hit. I doubt you have the same evidence.

    And I do not uphold Vietnam whatsoever, but I am proving to you that regardless of how powerful your military is, it is always impossible not to lose civilian lives when the opposition employs guerrilla tactics.
    Define guerilla tactics? Often guerilla tactics are employed by an indigenous force with popular local support fighting a wealthier, better resourced, imperialist force. See the Irish War of Independence (followed as a template by Zionist Guerilla forces like Irgun incidentally) as an example.

    That's fine if you have witness statements. I can't discuss them as I don't have your witness statement and can't verify them either way. I have no doubt some civilians sympathise with Hamas however. That still doesn't explain away Israeli shelling of hospitals and beaches.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Law-Hopeful)
    I appreciate your response even if I don't think you answered my questions in a manner I envisaged.
    The first question concerned only Israel so no mention of Iran is necessary. Although as for the double standards in dealing with Israel and Iran I can, to some extent, sympathise with that POV.
    Ahmadinejad never pledged to wipe Israel off the face of the map, he called to 'eliminate the zionist regime'. I hope you'll agree that these are not the same things.
    He promised to wipe off the Zionist regime of Israel, so effectively he did pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

    What of the deputy speaker of the Knesset who recently supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza? Does this make it difficult to trust Israel? There are extremists in all countries, and I daresay Israel has almost as many as Iran.
    I do not think that makes Israel untrustworthy at all, in much the same way that an MP for BNP being elected does not mean all of Britian is racist. I condemn that way of thinking entirely. Although we seem to be dealing with nuclear weapons, so not quite sure why a Palestinian point is being brought up.

    There are many people who hate the regime in Iran, this is indisputable. Perhaps most noteworthy is Hussein Khomeini (grandson of ex Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah).
    I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you please provide some evidence of this? The IAEI state in every report of Iran's nuclear facilities that they have no suspicions of a plan to achieve nuclear weapons and all the US's intelligence corroborates this.
    It has long been the suspicions of the USA or else why sanction Iran just to stop them gaining nuclear power?
    Iran have actively pursued technologies not needed for nuclear energy, but needed for nuclear weapons. Enriching uranium to 90% was not necessary for example.
    And the UN 2006-2010 being concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons production is enough to make it a significant point. Plus, as you will admit, Iran have an obvious agenda to gain such weapons.

    Doing what, negotiating? I believe you are mistaken if you believe that Iran can be brought to negotiate through sanctions and economic hardship.
    Iran was far less willing to negotiate a few years ago when sanctions had not yet fully taken their toll..

    Lest us forget the 'grand bargain' offered to the USA in 2003 from Iran )where they pledged to cease support for militant groups such as Hamas/Hezbollah and severely limit their nuclear programme in exchange for the normalisation of relations), which was rejected by the Bush administration.

    Lest us also not forget how Iran provided intel and physical support for the USA in Afghanistan, only to be repaid by being labelled as part of an 'axis of evil'.


    I more of less agree with the first statement, I disagree with the second and the third is simply false.
    It would not be in Iran's interests to use nuclear weapons (if they developed them, which I believe will never happen as a result of the fatwa issued against it), and most experts agree on this matter.
    As for Iran not needing nuclear weapons, Israel and the USA have threatened to bomb Iran for several years now and the assassination of its top nuclear scientists (almost certainly by Mossad) would both provide a reasonable incentive to provide a balance of power in the region.
    And Iran does not have foreign enemies? The USA/Israel/Saudi Arabia are perhaps three of Iran's most determined enemies.
    Countries cannot ask Israel to eradicate its stockpile, because Israel refuses to ratify the NPT and/or allow IAEA inspections of its facilities.
    Regardless, the question I was asking was which of the two scenario do you think would you preferable, I did not ask about how you rated the likelihood of either.


    See above.
    I am realist so I cannot view one option as preferable over the other unless I believe both (or even one) is/are practical.
    Iran do not need nuclear weapons if they never will use them; the US and Israel are long past the stage of wanting to start a nuclear war, or getting the public opinion necessary for nuking a country. The public opinion would only be there if the country felt Iran was trying to gain nuclear weapons in order to fire at Israel or the USA - you see the paradox I am sure.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I would support any liberal democracy's efforts to destroy tyranny, and that is what Israel is trying to do in Gaza. Obviously I do not support everything the IDF has done, but I support their side in the war.
    Which includes supporting the correct western backed tyrannies I would assume from our past discussions. (Not that I am including Isreal in that).

    It is also no good destroying tyranny if you have killed everyone you are supposedly liberating. Also phrases like "destroying tyranny" reek of double speak. Carpet bombing entire population points is very liberating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    Define guerilla tactics? Often guerilla tactics are employed by an indigenous force with popular local support fighting a wealthier, better resourced, imperialist force. See the Irish War of Independence (followed as a template by Zionist Guerilla forces like Irgun incidentally) as an example.

    That's fine if you have witness statements. I can't discuss them as I don't have your witness statement and can't verify them either way. I have no doubt some civilians sympathise with Hamas however. That still doesn't explain away Israeli shelling of hospitals and beaches.
    Guerrilla warfare as defined by Google, I believe correctly: Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregularwarfare in which a small group of combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

    Israel builds other hospitals so civilians do not have to enter into the ones with weapons and terrorists inside. And I, and the IDF, do not know what happened on that beach where 4 children were killed. They are looking into it.
    Although regularly, beaches are a popular spot to fire rockets from.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diamante06)
    The issue doesn't lie with religion, it is about land that once was occupied by Palestinian's and essentially taken over by Israel who then drove them out. I understand Israel wanting a homeland, but do you not think Palestine deserves the right to the land?
    Israeli's may be living peacefully but Palestine is not - And that can not all be blamed on Hamas
    Why is there an inequality of rights between Palestinians and Israelis?
    Why was Israel given 55% of land and Palestinians given only 45.. and why did 55% of land move to 78% being occupied by Israelis?

    (by the way I'm not intentionally trying to sound harsh, I just want to increase my understanding on what Israelis believe)
    Firstly, I am not an Israeli.
    Then we should point out that Israel have an historical, documented claim to the land as well before Palestinians live there so the argument works both ways...
    Israel is prepared to negotiate with Abbas, but not whilst he has affiliations with Hamas.
    I do not know why there is an inequality in rights, and condemn it wholeheartedly.
    And remember for your land percentage claims, that 90% of land owned by Israelis today was purchased legally at full price from Palestinians and you can ask most Israelis today for that documentation, which many keep in their homes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DouglasAdams)
    Enriching uranium to 90% was not necessary for example.
    As far as I know they have never done this, I am open to being proved wrong though.

    And the UN 2006-2010 being concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons production is enough to make it a significant point. Plus, as you will admit, Iran have an obvious agenda to gain such weapons.
    If you take UN to be the righteous judge of right and wrong then what do you say of the fact that Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country since the inception of the UN?

    Thanks for your responses so far.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Do you understand that both the governments of Israel and Palestine are breaking international law?

    Do you understand why that might be a bad thing?

    Do you approve of the Universal Declaration of Human rights and the 4th Geneva convention?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    What is your opinion on the use of white phosphorus gas to kill Palestinian civilians, as is being done now and has been done in the past?

    What is your opinion on the Israelis who cheer and celebrate when they see a rocket hit Gaza?

    What is your opinion on Israel refusing international aid to enter Palestine? There are many videos showing Israelis outright refusing humanitarian aid into Palestinian land, search it up on YouTube.

    Do you consider ex-IDF soldiers who are speaking up about the atrocities they were forced to commit (such as Breaking The Silence) traitors?

    What is your opinion on the treatment of African migrants in Israel?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which includes supporting the correct western backed tyrannies I would assume from our past discussions. (Not that I am including Isreal in that).

    It is also no good destroying tyranny if you have killed everyone you are supposedly liberating. Also phrases like "destroying tyranny" reek of double speak. Carpet bombing entire population points is very liberating.
    Supporting tyrannies is sometimes necessary to defeat a larger tyranny. E.g. it was necessary to support the Soviets in order to defeat the Nazis.

    Carpet bombing Germany aided the liberation of Germany, even though the bombing itself was obviously a crime of abject proportions, from the perspective of an innocent German.

    Israel is not killing all Palestinians, so I don't know what you're trying to say anyway.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.