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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    Where on earth do you get the idea that vengeance is emphasised so much as all that in the 'Islamic religious mindset'? How facile a generalisation is that
    Are you serious? It's a fact. Read the Qu'ran, listen to news interviews, take a general interest in different cultures and religions and you will form the same conclusion.

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    And you suppose the recent escalation in settler attacks on Palestinians plays no significant part in this attack, yes?
    Why would you say that if you read my post? I suppose nothing of the sort, but you will agree surely that such an appalling murder spree should be outrightly condemned in itself? Instead of perhaps thinking, 'serves them bloody right' or 'they deserve it' bla bla bla. They were innocent people praying in a church and two Muslims decide to go in and hachet them up. Everyone knows it is a long bitter saga of conflict and tit for tat with juxtaposed views but if you can't begin by condemning this latest outrage against these Jewish victims then you are part of the problem.

    I
    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    Israeli is exerting exactly ZERO efforts towards achievement of peace.
    They've tried and tried and tried but there is an unwillingness on Palestine's part towards reasonable compromise with Israel. All Hamas do is fuel the fires of hatred towards the Israeli people. It's they who don't want peace. It's not in their mandate. They want an end to Israel. But you seem to place all the blame on Israel, those poor oppressed Palestinians and that one-sided, unhelpful stuff.

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    This attack was a direct result of relentless Israeli aggression.
    The synagogue murders are an apt and lucid illustration of the Islamic notion of justified Vengeance at it's most vile.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    The synagogue murders are an apt and lucid illustration of the Islamic notion of justified Vengeance at it's most vile.
    The Synagogue attacks were carried out by the PFLP, who aren't an Islamic group.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Synagogue attacks were carried out by the PFLP, who aren't an Islamic group.
    They're the "Popular Front" aren't they? I heard they a bunch of splitters.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The Synagogue attacks were carried out by the PFLP, who aren't an Islamic group.
    Point taken. After looking them up, the PFLP seem more politically motivated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Are you serious? It's a fact. Read the Qu'ran, listen to news interviews, take a general interest in different cultures and religions and you will form the same conclusion.
    As it happens, you're speaking of my 'culture'. I can speak the Arabic language and I was raised a Muslim and I can assure you that there is no special emphasis on revenge in Islam or the Quran.
    Be that as it may, it is an undeniable fact that it is Netanyahu who is for ever calling for vengeance. He killed the two attackers but that wasn't enough for him: he also arrested their family members and bulldozed their homes. He's now seeking to ease gun restrictions in Israel. He's publicly vowing that people who commit such acts will pay a heavy price. Are you blind?

    Also: 'listen to news interviews' - lol.

    Why would you say that if you read my post? I suppose nothing of the sort, but you will agree surely that such an appalling murder spree should be outrightly condemned in itself? Instead of perhaps thinking, 'serves them bloody right' or 'they deserve it' bla bla bla. They were innocent people praying in a church and two Muslims decide to go in and hachet them up. Everyone knows it is a long bitter saga of conflict and tit for tat with juxtaposed views but if you can't begin by condemning this latest outrage against these Jewish victims then you are part of the problem.
    They were not just 'two Muslims', they were more than that. They were Palestinian Muslims living under oppression and occupation, and they were desperate. If all was fine and dandy for them they would never have resorted to such an act of violence.
    I certainly do not think that such an act of violence should be 'outrightly condemned in itself' whatever that means, especially in light of the conspiracy of silence surrounding similar and much more numerous acts of violence against Palestinians. On Friday Israeli police shot two young Palestinians, 10 and 11 years respectively. This week and last week Israeli police have kidnapped tens of Palestinians, which really represents business as usual for them anyway. Media coverage of those events was exactly zilch. I will not be selective in my condemnation nor will I endorse such selectivity. The Jews who were killed in the synagogue were not just 'Jews', they were British and American citizens. I will not sympathise with them. Fancy wantonly sitting on top of a live volcano and expecting no explosion.

    They've tried and tried and tried but there is an unwillingness on Palestine's part towards reasonable compromise with Israel. All Hamas do is fuel the fires of hatred towards the Israeli people. It's they who don't want peace. It's not in their mandate. They want an end to Israel. But you seem to place all the blame on Israel, those poor oppressed Palestinians and that one-sided, unhelpful stuff.
    Oh, yes, they've tried and tried to wipe out the Palestinians of the West Bank, refusing the yield Palestinian land under International Law, building homes for settlers and demolishing Palestinian homes. What fantastic ignorance you do display.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    In that case, why are the surrounding countries unfree? They were never "oppressed" by Israel.

    The surrounding countries are unfree because the people don't believe in freedom.
    It's illogical to extrapolate from other countries - the Palestinians have held elections and their current President is a secularist. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas were elected, but considering how close the election was, the logical explanation is not that they don't want freedom, but rather that they've been driven to desperation.

    And, in many cases in the Middle East, dictatorships have been actively supported by Israel and its allies, most prominently the United States. In Iran, the democratically elected leader was overthrown by Britain and the United States in 1953, leading to 23 years of a brutal dictator followed by a backlash leading to today's leadership. In Egypt, we supported Hosni Mubarak, and when a leader was democratically elected, he was overthrown in a move supported by Israel and the United States, leading to this dictatorship again. In Iraq, we supported the regime of Saddam Hussein, and supported military coups in that country earlier as well. In Tunisia, we supported Ben-Ali until the people managed to overthrow him and they've recently held a democratic election.

    So, yet again, not a very good reason for refusing to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    As it happens, you're speaking of my 'culture'. I can speak the Arabic language and I was raised a Muslim and I can assure you that there is no special emphasis on revenge in Islam or the Quran.
    Does that signify an objective opinion then?

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    Be that as it may, it is an undeniable fact that it is Netanyahu who is for ever calling for vengeance. He killed the two attackers but that wasn't enough for him: he also arrested their family members and bulldozed their homes. He's now seeking to ease gun restrictions in Israel. He's publicly vowing that people who commit such acts will pay a heavy price. Are you blind?
    No, my eyesight is fine thanks. Netanyahu is hardcore old school sure, hewn from bitter experience no doubt. The Israelis tolerate no crap without punitive action. They are an island in a sea of ill will. My point was vengeance is part of the Islam way. It is condoned and even sanctified, as it were, in certain instances. In Christianity, Vengeance per se, is never ever a justification of bloodshed. This is because vengeance as a notion is an animal instinct, not a reasonable action, certainly no human virtue.

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    They were not just 'two Muslims', they were more than that. They were Palestinian Muslims living under oppression and occupation, and they were desperate. If all was fine and dandy for them they would never have resorted to such an act of violence.
    Right, so you are justifying what they did. That is disappointing.

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    I certainly do not think that such an act of violence should be 'outrightly condemned in itself' whatever that means
    In itself means taken on its own, as one incident - without recourse to other incidents of the past. It was a disgusting cowardly merciless attack. Admit it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Does that signify an objective opinion then?



    No, my eyesight is fine thanks. Netanyahu is hardcore old school sure, hewn from bitter experience no doubt. The Israelis tolerate no crap without punitive action. They are an island in a sea of ill will. My point was vengeance is part of the Islam way. It is condoned and even sanctified, as it were, in certain instances. In Christianity, Vengeance per se, is never ever a justification of bloodshed. This is because vengeance as a notion is an animal instinct, not a reasonable action, certainly no human virtue.
    I'm not going to reply to any future posts of yours reiterating a sad old conviction with no substantiation at all. You told me to 'read the Quran and take an interest in cultures' in order to arrive at the conclusion that Islam sanctifies vengeance. I told you that I have and indeed I am part of these 'cultures' that you referred me to, and you find that unsatisfactory. And I am supposed to believe at once your claim that Christianity never justifies vengeance per se. If you have any evidence to back what you say about 'the Islam way' (gosh, do you realise how uneducated you come across?) by all means do present it. Until you do, I will stick with the facts that I am aware of and which run thus: that though Islam may have a number of Achilles Heels, a sanctification of vengeance certainly is not one of them.

    Right, so you are justifying what they did. That is disappointing.



    In itself means taken on its own, as one incident - without recourse to other incidents of the past. It was a disgusting cowardly merciless attack. Admit it!
    I will take all incidents that occur in context of the wider picture and keep to a sense of perspective, thank you very much.
    And oh dear, saying things such as 'Israelis are surrounded by ill will' when the only internationally recognised state in the Middle East upholding the only occupation on the fact of the earth and the only recognised state to be granted full impunity when butchering its neighbours in Gaza to death is Israeli itself is nonsensical gob; all of that only discredits your non-arguments all the more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    I'm not going to reply to any future posts of yours reiterating a sad old conviction with no substantiation at all. You told me to 'read the Quran and take an interest in cultures' in order to arrive at the conclusion that Islam sanctifies vengeance. I told you that I have and indeed I am part of these 'cultures' that you referred me to, and you find that unsatisfactory. And I am supposed to believe at once your claim that Christianity never justifies vengeance per se. If you have any evidence to back what you say about 'the Islam way' (gosh, do you realise how uneducated you come across?) by all means do present it. Until you do, I will stick with the facts that I am aware of and which run thus: that though Islam may have a number of Achilles Heels, a sanctification of vengeance certainly is not one of them.


    I will take all incidents that occur in context of the wider picture and keep to a sense of perspective, thank you very much.
    And oh dear, saying things such as 'Israelis are surrounded by ill will' when the only internationally recognised state in the Middle East upholding the only occupation on the fact of the earth and the only recognised state to be granted full impunity when butchering its neighbours in Gaza to death is Israeli itself is nonsensical gob; all of that only discredits your non-arguments all the more.
    preach.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Can you provide any evidence of that? If Israel wanted to kill Palestinians tehre would be a lot more dead. The numbers killed right now compared to hostiles killed is typical for war. If there was deliberate targeting of civilians it would be higher.
    the recent summer conflicts - when Palestinian death toll reached 2000 in the space of just over a month, when the israeli death tolls barely made 100. are you seriously telling me that repeated bombs and airstrikes at homes, UN schools, camps, markets, hospitals etc is not deliberate? don't you dare try and say it is typical of war when war should not involve innocent civilians in the first place - it is never okay. your attempts to justify israel's war crimes and disgusting acts over the past 10 years are fickle, pathetic and sickening - dont reply to me again.

    if you want more evidence search for it yourself with a bloody open mind that is willing to look past the media's blatant propaganda, you'll easily find loads. the evidence of israel's crimes have always been available.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's illogical to extrapolate from other countries - the Palestinians have held elections and their current President is a secularist. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas were elected, but considering how close the election was, the logical explanation is not that they don't want freedom, but rather that they've been driven to desperation.

    And, in many cases in the Middle East, dictatorships have been actively supported by Israel and its allies, most prominently the United States. In Iran, the democratically elected leader was overthrown by Britain and the United States in 1953, leading to 23 years of a brutal dictator followed by a backlash leading to today's leadership. In Egypt, we supported Hosni Mubarak, and when a leader was democratically elected, he was overthrown in a move supported by Israel and the United States, leading to this dictatorship again. In Iraq, we supported the regime of Saddam Hussein, and supported military coups in that country earlier as well. In Tunisia, we supported Ben-Ali until the people managed to overthrow him and they've recently held a democratic election.

    So, yet again, not a very good reason for refusing to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.
    Palestinian elections were not free, fair or regular. Yasser Arafat stayed in power for decades. He was an awful man and the enemy of any advocate of any two state solution. The current wolf in sheep's clothing in the West Bank is "secularist" but not secularist enough to refuse to govern with a bunch of religious totalitarians. It is perfectly logical to assume that since none of the surrounding Arab states are free, a Palestinian Arab state would not be free either. There is something deeply wrong with Arab culture which prevents a free society from functioning. We've seen that in Egypt, in Palestine, in Iraq and everywhere else where democracy has been attempted. (It is a cultural problem, not a genetic one.)

    The Shah in Iran was nowhere near as bad as the Ayatollah. Iran in the 70s was bliss compared to now. The decision to overthrow Mossadegh might not have been the wisest, but it wasn't done in order to create the disgusting tyranny that currently exists - that is firmly the responsibility of those who supported the revolting 1979 revolution.

    You mention Iraq, but fail to mention that when Saddam was overthrown (by the West), more tyranny erupted. Clearly the people there don't believe in freedom, otherwise they would have chosen it.

    Similar stories throughout.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Israel is the only country in the world that pays students to propagrate myths online.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Utter nonsense. In the late 1940s, the UN voted to make the Jewish majority areas in the Palestine mandate a Jewish state. How exactly is that unreasonable? That Jewish majority areas shall be ruled according to the democratic will of that majority?
    Does the UN own Palestine? Did it ever?

    Only the UN security council **** is binding.

    What if the UN vote to make Muslim majority areas in Britain into an Islamic State? Utter hypocrisy here. Hey give democracy and self - determination to these areas huh?

    What about the UN's plan to internationalise Jerusalem? What about the hundreds or so UN resolutions Israel has broken? What about illegal settlements?

    I believe that any settler or squatter who lives in Palestinian owned land whether armed or not is a legitimate target. They are criminals and international law breakers.

    International law allows a nation under military occupation to defend and reconquer their rights using violence.

    In response to that, the Arabs commenced a war of annihilation against the Jews in Israel, and they lost. Following that, millions of Jews were expelled from the middle eastern countries and fled to Israel, which is why a majority of Israeli Jews are descended from middle Eastern Jews.
    Less than 2/3 of the population of Israel has Jewish fore fathers and only a minority are Judaism by faith and religion and that too after occupation. What if Britain calls itself a "White Christian" nation? What if Muslim majority areas declare independance through a referendum? You're right. They'll be driven to the sea.

    Israel was founded through terrorism. The military occupation should be resisted by violence. Israel is the most dangerous country for a Jew to live in and was throughout recent history. Still Jews from all over the world come to share the blame.

    So you don't believe in the right to self-determination? You believe, for example, the Scots should be forced to be part of the UK?
    What about the Palestinians? When has Israel recognised their right to self-determination?

    "Jewish people" have said it? Like, all Jewish people?

    Give us a citation. Who said it, and when? IF you think Jews were happy being dhimmi, then you are sadly ignorant of history
    The only Jewish cultural Golden Age after the destruction of their Temple was in Islamic Spain. Jews have lived with Muslims way better than they have ever lived with Christians.

    Its Zionism that destroyed the peace.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Palestinian elections...
    The 2006 Palestinian election was declared free and fair by international observers, and it was, in fact, Israel which attempted to obstruct the election. The same story occurred with the 1996 election, although again, Israel significantly obstructed it. You know, I think there's something about Western and Israeli culture which simply can't accept it when others try to implement democracy (!)

    (Original post by felamaslen)

    The Shah in Iran was nowhere near as bad as the Ayatollah. Iran in the 70s was bliss compared to now. The decision to overthrow Mossadegh might not have been the wisest, but it wasn't done in order to create the disgusting tyranny that currently exists - that is firmly the responsibility of those who supported the revolting 1979 revolution.
    By even acknowledging that the decision in 1953 was not the "wisest", you've completely disproven your argument that there's something about Arabia which means that democracy can't function. It has functioned, but it has been the West and Israel which has supported brutal dictators and kept them in total control of their countries. Incidentally, you understate the situation - it wasn't the wisest, it was an imperialist crime perpetrated by the United States and its junior partner, Britain.

    And, today too, democracy is functioning, namely in Tunisia: it shows what can happen when the West is not interfering and when one of the West's corrupt totalitarians is overthrown by the people.

    The 1979 revolution consisted not just of conservative Islamists, but of people from many different backgrounds and with many different views. The disgusting tyranny of the Shah, supported by Britain and the United States, proves only one thing: you're putting your faith in the wrong countries if you claim to support democracy. You're simply an apologist for revolting totalitarian regimes when it suits you.

    Why don't we occupy and annex all the Arab countries seeing as they don't have democracy? The answer is simple - we, including Israel, support the totalitarian regimes. This has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with colonialism.

    (Original post by felamaslen)
    You mention Iraq, but fail to mention that when Saddam was overthrown (by the West), more tyranny erupted. Clearly the people there don't believe in freedom, otherwise they would have chosen it.
    Actually, they did want to choose it. The irony is that you're correct, in a manner of speaking - tyranny did erupt, as the United States refused to allow elections to occur and installed its own provisional authority during the occupation which then led to anger among the Iraqi people and the subsequent insurgency, which in turn led to sectarian violence which we're seeing today. The Iraqi people are fighting against Islamic State militants - they believe in freedom, but, once again, the United States and Britain do not when it suits them. Britain and the United States may have some form of democracy in their own countries, but around the world they export a totalitarian ideology and state terror. (This cultural issue isn't genetic, of course.)

    Yet again, your rationalisation of the oppression of the Palestinian people fails.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    I'm not going to reply to any future posts of yours reiterating a sad old conviction with no substantiation at all. You told me to 'read the Quran and take an interest in cultures' in order to arrive at the conclusion that Islam sanctifies vengeance. I told you that I have and indeed I am part of these 'cultures' that you referred me to, and you find that unsatisfactory.
    You said, "I can speak the Arabic language and I was raised a Muslim and I can assure you that there is no special emphasis on revenge in Islam or the Quran". I didn't say 'special emphasis' at all. But there is no doubt that justified vengeance is part of Islamic teaching. C'mon, there's plenty of related quotes in the Qu'ran to back that up.

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    And I am supposed to believe at once your claim that Christianity never justifies vengeance per se.
    You're supposed to entertain the thought enough to think about it a little and research it to find out for yourself.

    (Original post by intheTSRspirit)
    (gosh, do you realise how uneducated you come across?)
    You undermine your credibility when you recourse to smug jibes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    justified vengeance
    Not supposed to reply to your post in accordance with my previous avowal but I feel I really must thank you for allowing, and very rightly may I add, for a justification of the perceived vengeance the killers were pursuing. Common ground, Freudian slip, etc etc
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, late reply as I have been busy.

    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Right, so you admit it wasn't about "oppression" and "hopelessness". It's an ideology of destruction. The only ones making Gaza oppressed and hopeless are Hamas! (Well, they aren't the only ones. Islamic Jihad and other Islamist supporters do so as well.)
    It's an ideology that wants people to be able to return to where they lived before people with guns came and chased them out. If you see that as an ideology of destruction then so be it.

    Are the Palestinians who live in the West Bank not oppressed them? There's no Hamas there.


    What country? There wasn't a Palestinian country. It was part of the British empire. Before that, the Ottoman empire.
    Nope, we had a mandate there, Palestine was never apart of the British Empire. Just because something didn't exist as a nation state doesn't mean it doesn't exist, try telling a Kurd that there is no such thing as Kurdistan and that there are no Kurdish people.


    That theory doesn't work very well with the evidence. We have the Arab spring, which resulted in dictators being elected. The Islamist Muslim brotherhood in Egypt got elected. Hamas got elected in Gaza, which is essentially an arm of the Muslim brotherhood. The Egyptian people elected to oppress the Egyptian people. In Iraq, you have Sunni fanatics bombing voting stations and Shia mosques. This has nothing to do with colonial borders. Sure, maybe the borders in the middle east could have been drawn a bit better, but come on - that is not the root cause of the lack of freedom. The root cause is a lack of belief in freedom.
    This has always been the way of revolutions unfortunately. The idea that the troubles in Iraq have nothing to do with the west is absurd though, you think that the U.S. selling Sadam Hussein (who only came to power because of a U.S. backed military coup) chemical weapons to use for the purposes of ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the sectarian nature of Iraq today?


    If you're against both Israel and Hamas then you're not contributing to the conversation. It's like being against both Britain and Germany during the second world war.
    If you're of the opinion that everything is black and white then you are part of the problem.

    I would say that you are wrong, and Israel represents hope for the middle east. It represents a free society, where you don't get arrested for voicing an opinion or having a different lifestyle or believing in some strange religion. It represents liberalism, as far as it exists in the middle east. It isn't perfect but it's the only thing we have, and we have to work with what we've got. Denouncing Israel is like denouncing Britain in 1936, while the rest of Europe comes under the grip of fascism with only Britain (and the United States) as its hope for a better future.
    But Israel is a racist, expansionist, murderous state. It is in no way liberal and in no way free. Israel will not stop destroying Palestinian homes and it will not stop killing Palestinian civilians until it has forcibly taken East Jerusalem from the Palestinians and any other land that they think their entitled to based on some ancient fairy tale.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Israel is undoubtedly in the wrong. But it's ok, they will just continue to milk the holocaust and cry 'antisemitism' whenever you try to sanction them in the court of law.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The 2006 Palestinian election was declared free and fair by international observers, and it was, in fact, Israel which attempted to obstruct the election. The same story occurred with the 1996 election, although again, Israel significantly obstructed it. You know, I think there's something about Western and Israeli culture which simply can't accept it when others try to implement democracy (!)
    Hang on, if you're talking about the 2006 election in Gaza, that went to Islamists. So it was anti-democratic, or at least anti-liberal democratic.

    Didn't the 1996 election go to the dictator and mass murderer Yasser Arafat?

    By even acknowledging that the decision in 1953 was not the "wisest", you've completely disproven your argument that there's something about Arabia which means that democracy can't function. It has functioned, but it has been the West and Israel which has supported brutal dictators and kept them in total control of their countries. Incidentally, you understate the situation - it wasn't the wisest, it was an imperialist crime perpetrated by the United States and its junior partner, Britain.

    And, today too, democracy is functioning, namely in Tunisia: it shows what can happen when the West is not interfering and when one of the West's corrupt totalitarians is overthrown by the people.

    The 1979 revolution consisted not just of conservative Islamists, but of people from many different backgrounds and with many different views. The disgusting tyranny of the Shah, supported by Britain and the United States, proves only one thing: you're putting your faith in the wrong countries if you claim to support democracy. You're simply an apologist for revolting totalitarian regimes when it suits you.

    Why don't we occupy and annex all the Arab countries seeing as they don't have democracy? The answer is simple - we, including Israel, support the totalitarian regimes. This has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with colonialism.
    The revolution in Egypt was a popular movement for tyranny. So was the 1979 revolution in Iran, or at least, the part of it that came through. Of course, these countries can be democratic, but you've got all your work ahead of you if you're trying to say that democracy has failed despite a will for it. (Liberal) democracy has been opposed by the people and that is the principle reason it doesn't work. Do you ever notice how oil-rich liberal democracies (such as Norway) are not invaded by the USA? That is because the people are willing to create a free society.

    Occupying and annexing countries is far from an optimal solution. It isn't democracy, even if it may be more liberal than allowing elections in some of these places. As for the actual reasons why the West doesn't annex the entire middle east, well colonialism went out of fashion quite a long time ago.

    The fact that you complain more about the Shah than the Ayatollah - despite the fact that the Ayatollah is a thousand times worse - betrays your true interest, which is to go on a tirade against the West - the civilisation which holds the key to the middle east's freedom.

    Actually, they did want to choose it. The irony is that you're correct, in a manner of speaking - tyranny did erupt, as the United States refused to allow elections to occur and installed its own provisional authority during the occupation which then led to anger among the Iraqi people and the subsequent insurgency, which in turn led to sectarian violence which we're seeing today. The Iraqi people are fighting against Islamic State militants - they believe in freedom, but, once again, the United States and Britain do not when it suits them. Britain and the United States may have some form of democracy in their own countries, but around the world they export a totalitarian ideology and state terror. (This cultural issue isn't genetic, of course.)

    Yet again, your rationalisation of the oppression of the Palestinian people fails.
    Hang on - elections were put in place, then the voting stations were bombed by fanatics. And you blame the United States! :lol:

    The whole point of the insurgency was to oppose freedom and establish Sharia. That is still the point of the insurgency today, in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and everywhere else.

    The US and UK do not export totalitarianism, they fight it. Their enemies are the totalitarians.

    By the way, the Iraq war was probably a bad idea for practical reasons, i.e. it was unlikely to make the country better, and risked making it worse - but not because of the actions of the Allies; because of the actions of the fascists.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    It's an ideology that wants people to be able to return to where they lived before people with guns came and chased them out. If you see that as an ideology of destruction then so be it.

    Are the Palestinians who live in the West Bank not oppressed them? There's no Hamas there.
    They are all oppressed, what I am saying is that if Israel gave in to their demands, the oppression would not end since they do not believe in liberal democratic society.

    The ideology of destruction is about ideas, not people. It is about destruction of the liberal democracy of Israel. That matters far more today than which people live where. If the Palestinians wanted to create a free, democratic society then I would support them, but they don't.

    Nope, we had a mandate there, Palestine was never apart of the British Empire. Just because something didn't exist as a nation state doesn't mean it doesn't exist, try telling a Kurd that there is no such thing as Kurdistan and that there are no Kurdish people.
    Whatever. Britain had control of the area after the defeat of the Ottoman empire, at which point the area was under Ottoman control. (You are really splitting hairs here!). There was never a country of Palestine, although I would support the creation of one as long as it were liberal and democratic.

    The point is, a state of Palestine had no more or less right to be created than a state of Israel, in 1948. And Israel accepted a solution from the UN which involved creating both a state of Palestine and a state of Israel. But the people who wanted to create the state of Palestine rejected this and instead went to war.

    This has always been the way of revolutions unfortunately. The idea that the troubles in Iraq have nothing to do with the west is absurd though, you think that the U.S. selling Sadam Hussein (who only came to power because of a U.S. backed military coup) chemical weapons to use for the purposes of ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with the sectarian nature of Iraq today?
    I'm not saying that the West hasn't made mistakes and committed crimes in its foreign policy - but it is equally absurd to say that the root cause of the sectarianism etc. is the West. Moreover, it is the West which the middle east should look up to if it wants to become free and prosperous.

    If you're of the opinion that everything is black and white then you are part of the problem.
    Everything is not black and white but that shouldn't stop you from recognising that one side is clearly more worth supporting than the other.

    But Israel is a racist, expansionist, murderous state. It is in no way liberal and in no way free. Israel will not stop destroying Palestinian homes and it will not stop killing Palestinian civilians until it has forcibly taken East Jerusalem from the Palestinians and any other land that they think their entitled to based on some ancient fairy tale.
    It is less racist than the rest of the middle east. The penalty for selling land to a Jew in Palestine is death. The penalty for selling land to an Arab in Israel doesn't exist. (Correct me if I'm wrong about those facts.)

    Israel is not expansionist. The occupied territories were acquired from Jordan and Egypt after defensive wars with them. Come on - if Israel really were expansionist, why would it settle for such a tiny sliver of land? Why did it offer the Sinai peninsula to Egypt as a peace offering if this is an expansionist country? Why didn't it take over Lebanon after invading it in 1982? Why did it offer independence to Gaza in 2005? Why did it create the Palestinian Authority rather than directly administering the West Bank?

    If Israel is not liberal then why has it held regular, free and fair elections since 1948? Why is it the only country in the middle east with proper gay rights? It's not paradise and there are things wrong with it, but compared to the rest of the region it may as well be San Francisco!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    They are all oppressed, what I am saying is that if Israel gave in to their demands, the oppression would not end since they do not believe in liberal democratic society.

    The ideology of destruction is about ideas, not people. It is about destruction of the liberal democracy of Israel. That matters far more today than which people live where. If the Palestinians wanted to create a free, democratic society then I would support them, but they don't.
    How do we know what a free state of Palestine would look like? Palestine has been at war for over half a century.


    Whatever. Britain had control of the area after the defeat of the Ottoman empire, at which point the area was under Ottoman control. (You are really splitting hairs here!). There was never a country of Palestine, although I would support the creation of one as long as it were liberal and democratic.

    The point is, a state of Palestine had no more or less right to be created than a state of Israel, in 1948. And Israel accepted a solution from the UN which involved creating both a state of Palestine and a state of Israel. But the people who wanted to create the state of Palestine rejected this and instead went to war.
    But if you're going to create a nation state why ship in a load of people from the other side of the world to do it? Why not create a state from the group of people who already live there? To go back to the Kurdistan example, how do you think they would react if you told them that they could have an independent Kurdistan, but they half to give over half of their land to a bunch of Mexicans? How do you think Kurdistan would react when the Mexicans went and established their state and took their land even after the Kurds had said no?

    The Arab states only went to war after Israel declared their independence, this declaration was the first act of war.


    I'm not saying that the West hasn't made mistakes and committed crimes in its foreign policy - but it is equally absurd to say that the root cause of the sectarianism etc. is the West. Moreover, it is the West which the middle east should look up to if it wants to become free and prosperous.
    Why should it look at the west when we have continually instilled and propped up the most brutal of totalitarian dictators, when we have continually invaded them, when we used their homes as a playground for war games with the USSR? The west cares absolutley nothing for the lives of people in the middle east and they recognise that.

    Everything is not black and white but that shouldn't stop you from recognising that one side is clearly more worth supporting than the other.
    It doesn't, I support the Palestinian people in their fight for freedom. You're the one making it black and white by insisting that you either have to support Hamas or you either have to support Israel. The only morally defensible position in this conflict is to support neither.


    It is less racist than the rest of the middle east. The penalty for selling land to a Jew in Palestine is death. The penalty for selling land to an Arab in Israel doesn't exist. (Correct me if I'm wrong about those facts.)
    So? It's still a racist country.

    Israel is not expansionist. The occupied territories were acquired from Jordan and Egypt after defensive wars with them. Come on - if Israel really were expansionist, why would it settle for such a tiny sliver of land? Why did it offer the Sinai peninsula to Egypt as a peace offering if this is an expansionist country? Why didn't it take over Lebanon after invading it in 1982? Why did it offer independence to Gaza in 2005? Why did it create the Palestinian Authority rather than directly administering the West Bank?
    Israel has continually been expanding it's border since it's creation



    Israel has never offered an acceptable peace offer to the Palestinians and the creation of the Palestinain National Authority has not stopped Israel taking whatever land it wants from Palestinians in the West Bank. Right now in East Jerusalem Israel is bulldozing Palestinian homes, turfing out the Palestinians and shipping in Israeli's, all so that when a peace deal is finally negotiated it can make a claim for the whole of Jerusalem.

    If Israel is not liberal then why has it held regular, free and fair elections since 1948? Why is it the only country in the middle east with proper gay rights? It's not paradise and there are things wrong with it, but compared to the rest of the region it may as well be San Francisco!
    Israel is not illiberal for it's election or it's gay rights, its illiberal because it treats Palestinian Arab's like vermin.
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.