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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)


    There were already Jews living in the area set up for Israel originally, in fact it was majority Jewish. We don't see the same sort of complaining from the Jews who were forced out of the rest of the middle east (there are no Jews in Libya today, for example, and very few left in Iraq). But even so, the main point I want to make is that we are talking about 60-70 years ago. Can we be a bit less racist, accept the people that exist today as all human, and get on with life? We should value ideas, not racial bloodlines, and today Israel has a monopoly on good ideas in the middle east.
    Before the Zionist movement there was a tiny, tiny handful of Jews in Palestine, the population was almost entirely Muslim Arab's with a small group of Arab Christians. Even in the 1940's after decades of illegal immigration Jews only made up about a third.

    Of course we should accept people as human and not on religious or racial groupings, unfortunately that is completely incompatible with Zionism, the idea that the Jews have a God given right to the land of Palestine.

    The cold war was "war games"? What planet are you living on? The cold war was in defence of democracy!
    Neither side represented democracy in the cold war.


    To support neither is the same as supporting neither fascism nor democracy in world war two. Would that make much sense?

    In fact, are you neutral about which side was right in world war two?
    Of course not. Our failure to recognise the legitimate grievances of Germany prior to WW2 made it inevitable though, and it is making peace in the Middle East impossible right now.


    Not really. Arabs have basically the same rights as Jews. There was a scandal concerning sterilisation of some Ethiopian immigrants, but that's a side issue. At its core, Israel is a liberal society, at least compared to its neighbours, where people have individual rights and liberties that they don't have in countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
    Palestinian Arabs do not have the same right as Jews. As far as Israel is concerned they are vermin.

    Only because it took land during defensive wars - hardly "expansionist". And the land it took was not from "Palestine", it was from Britain, Egypt and Jordan. So that map is so misleading it may as well be a fabrication.
    The land it took clearly belonged to the people of Palestine. It also clearly is an expansionist state as it still helps itself to whatever land it likes, in clear violation of international law and it only gets away with it because it's protected by the U.S.. The parallels with the apartheid government in South Africa is remarkable.


    The first peace offering was in 1947. That was perfectly acceptable. They made multiple in fact. Since then it's just got worse and the Israelis have lost patience with the Palestinians. The only Israeli peace offering that would be "acceptable" to someone like Yasser Arafat or Ismail Haniyeh would be self-obliteration.
    No, they have never made an acceptable peace offer and will never offer one until they have strengthened their hand to such a degree that they can take whatever they want from it. This is what is happening right now in East Jerusalem, Arab Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, their homes are being bulldozed and Israeli Jews are moving in. How do you reconcile this with your idea of Israel as a liberal, non-racist state?

    1947 wasn't a peace offering, it was a plan to partition a country by a third body, who had absolutely no authority to do so. Once the population rejected the plan, which they had every right to do so, Israel ignored the wishes of the vast majority of the population and enacted the plan anyway. How do you reconcile this with your view of Israel as a democratic state?

    Even ignoring all of that, how is a plan that gives over half the land to a group that makes up less than a third of the population, the vast majority of which had migrated to that land illegally, anything like fair?

    It is at war with people who support organisations which are out to destroy it. That these people suffer is obvious, but the core reason they suffer is the fault of their leaders.
    No, the core reason they suffer is because a group of people from the other side of the world decided that they have a god given right to live on their land and when the Palestinains said no they took the land anyway.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Nice word play there, very Orwellian. "Anti-liberal democratic" could mean anything. The problem is, your colourful adjectives are often very subjective.

    Britain and the United States voted in Blair and Bush respectively: to many, they are mass murderers, putting oil over hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.
    Which people did Blair and Bush murder? I know who the jihadists murdered. I know they murdered hundreds of thousands in their usual disgusting ways. Which hundreds of thousands did the allies murder?

    Anyway it's quite simple what I mean by liberal democracy. I mean democracy where minorities have rights. So excuse me if I don't count anti-Semitic fascist dictatorships as democracies.

    In Egypt, they held democratic elections. Someone you didn't like won. Poor you, get over it.

    That's because they're willing to cooperate with the U.S. Democracies which aren't willing to cooperate with the US will be invaded or interfered with, and the U.S. will spread its totalitarian ideology.
    Would you respect the decision of the German people to elect Hitler to power then? Why not, according to this logic?

    The US has no totalitarian ideology. What a joke. It's been the major force against totalitarianism in the 20th century.

    The Israeli government clearly don't think colonialism went out of fashion a while ago. Palestinian elections are far more liberal than the apartheid system we currently see in the Occupied Territories; as we've seen, the elections have produced a government that accepts a two-state solution. Israel do not. Perhaps we should occupy and annex Israel, because they're closer to being a fascist democracy than a liberal democracy.
    Yeah - "liberal" elections where Islamofascists are elected who subsequently throw their political opponents off rooftops. As opposed to the Knesset which has regularly elected democratic leaders since 1948, and tolerates extreme dissent among its many different MPs.

    I complain more about the Shah than the Ayatollah because everybody knows how bad the Ayatollah is, but people like you will be apologists for totalitarian regimes when it suits you. You have a laughable and pitiful belief that the U.S. and the UK care about democracy: they don't: as history has proven time and time again, they're exporters of a totalitarian ideology.
    I'm not an apologist for totalitarian regimes, and I disagree in principle with the kind of politics which place liberal democracies in the position of being "allied" to tyrannies. But I see why politicians make those decisions, and many times they are necessary. For example, in order to defeat fascism it was necessary for the free world to be temporary allies with the worst murderous state in history - the USSR.

    Really, you mean the elections which the US originally planned and then cancelled at the behest of their tyrannical provisional authority, which then caused a subsequent backlash?
    The US and their allies were the only ones fighting for democracy, although to be fair, they did give up quite quickly when they realised it wasn't going to happen.

    Many of the insurgents supported freedom but opposed the tyranny of the US-led occupation. Many, of course, were anti-freedom, but those who rejected both the US tyranny and the tyranny of the anti-freedom insurgents were to be supported.
    Which insurgents supported liberal democracy?

    I burst out laughing.

    So, in Iran in 1953, when the US and the UK overthrew a democratically elected government and installed the Shah as a dictator, they were fighting totalitarianism?

    In Guatemala, in 1954, when the US overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a dicator, they were fighting totalitarianism?

    In Vietnam in 1954, when the US subverted a democratic election and instead installed a brutal dicator in South Vietnam, were they fighting totalitarianism?

    In Chile, on September 11th 1971, when the US supported an anti-democratic coup against the country's democratically elected President and installed Augusto Pinochet as dictator, they were fighting totalitarianism?

    Was the US-trained dictatorship in El Salvador, responsible for tens of thousands of murders, an example of where the US was fighting totalitarianism?

    In Nicaragua, in the 1980s, when the US supported totalitarian terrorists in their fight against the country's democratically elected government, they were fighting totalitarianism?

    In Indonesia, from the 1960s onwards, when the US gave support to Suharto, the genocidal dictator who killed close to a million people, they were fighting totalitarianism?

    In Brazil, from 1964 onwards when the US supported the overthrow of a democratically elected President and installed a murderous military dictator, were the US fighting totalitarianism?

    In Iraq, when the US supported Saddam Hussein, and helped him gas civilian populations, they were fighting totalitarianism?

    In Indochina, when the UK under Thatcher supported the Khmer Rouge, who had just committed genocide, they were fighting totalitarianism?
    Iran was a mistake, but again, the Shah wasn't nearly as bad as the result of the 1979 revolution, which is why Iran is so bad today. Guatemala was the cold war - US decisions there and in all other South American countries have now been vindicated by their triumph of winning the cold war. Yes, maybe some of their policy was dubious or unnecessary. But it was done in order to defeat the USSR, which they did successfully. It wasn't done in order to export a "totalitarian ideology". Vietnam, again, was about opposing the viciously anti-democratic Viet Cong, and communism in general. Chile - see Guatemala. (Although I do oppose backing Pinochet, I also oppose backing the USSR in WW2, which was worse). El Salvador - see Guatemala. Nicaragua - see Guatemala. Indonesia - okay, maybe the US was in the wrong there. I don't know enough about that particular example to have a debate on it. Brazil - see Guatemala. Iraq - well they did eventually overthrow him, and the US wasn't Saddam's main source of income (that was France and Russia I believe). But obviously I oppose sending any sort of arms or cash to a thug like Saddam, and the US was wrong to do so.

    The general point, which you miss entirely, is that if it weren't for the US, the world would be totalitarian. So even if it has made mistakes in its foreign policy, which it has, it is still the main fighter of totalitarianism in the world and the only reason you and I are free today.

    It was unlikely to make the country better, yes, and the act of illegally invading Iraq in the first place largely for reasons concerning oil means that the allies were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and a massive outburst of sectarian violence. And, from torture to often random kidnappings of innocent people in the middle of the night, the allies were responsible for horrendous atrocities. It was the supreme crime against humanity, to quote the Nuremberg Prosecutors.
    We've had this debate before so I'm not going to bother going round in endless crop circles with you.

    In the case of Israel-Palestine, you've still failed to justify the oppression of the Palestinian people. Israel should end the occupation and annexation of Palestinian land and stop preventing the international consensus on the two-state solution from being enacted, otherwise peace will never be achieved. Anybody who does not support one, or both, of these propositions, is deluding themselves that they support a peaceful, two-state solution. That's all I'm going to say on this thread, at least for a while, because the solutions are as simple as that. This isn't some overly complex issue - the steps that need to be taken are clear for any objective observer to see.
    I don't justify the oppression of the Palestinian people; their leaders do. Hamas does. Israel's position is that it can't maintain its security without oppressing the Palestinians, and it has the evidence of history on its side, unfortunately.

    I support a peaceful two-state solution, with one caveat: that both states are liberal democracies with regular elections and minority rights. You are right about one thing though - this is a simple conflict.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Before the Zionist movement there was a tiny, tiny handful of Jews in Palestine, the population was almost entirely Muslim Arab's with a small group of Arab Christians. Even in the 1940's after decades of illegal immigration Jews only made up about a third.

    Of course we should accept people as human and not on religious or racial groupings, unfortunately that is completely incompatible with Zionism, the idea that the Jews have a God given right to the land of Palestine.
    Actually there was quite a large population of Jews in Palestine, many of whom were refugees from European and middle eastern persecution. The point is, these people don't complain about a "right of return" to Europe and the middle east, even though their ancestors faced just as much injustice as the innocent people who were forced out of Palestine during the 1948 war ("nakba").

    I agree with your point about Zionism, and I'm no Zionist (unless by Zionist you mean somebody who accepts that Israel has a right to exist). But that's irrelevant to the issue today, which is liberal democracy vs. tyranny.

    Neither side represented democracy in the cold war.
    The US represented democracy, and won. That is why democracy exists today.

    Of course not. Our failure to recognise the legitimate grievances of Germany prior to WW2 made it inevitable though, and it is making peace in the Middle East impossible right now.
    Yes but once the fascists were elected, what would have been the point of bellyaching about what we could have, should have done?

    Palestinian Arabs do not have the same right as Jews. As far as Israel is concerned they are vermin.
    As far as Israel is concerned, its own existence and ensuring that its citizens aren't suicide bombed is more important than whether or not Palestinians have a wall built in their back garden. Blame the jihadists for the situation.

    The land it took clearly belonged to the people of Palestine. It also clearly is an expansionist state as it still helps itself to whatever land it likes, in clear violation of international law and it only gets away with it because it's protected by the U.S.. The parallels with the apartheid government in South Africa is remarkable.
    But the original intention wasn't to displace large numbers of people. That happened as a result of the war. They could have just accepted the 1947 partition plan and everything would have been fine. Generally an expansionist state doesn't make the kinds of concessions that Israel has made. Generally an expansionist state doesn't settle for a small sliver of land.

    No, they have never made an acceptable peace offer and will never offer one until they have strengthened their hand to such a degree that they can take whatever they want from it. This is what is happening right now in East Jerusalem, Arab Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, their homes are being bulldozed and Israeli Jews are moving in. How do you reconcile this with your idea of Israel as a liberal, non-racist state?

    1947 wasn't a peace offering, it was a plan to partition a country by a third body, who had absolutely no authority to do so. Once the population rejected the plan, which they had every right to do so, Israel ignored the wishes of the vast majority of the population and enacted the plan anyway. How do you reconcile this with your view of Israel as a democratic state?

    Even ignoring all of that, how is a plan that gives over half the land to a group that makes up less than a third of the population, the vast majority of which had migrated to that land illegally, anything like fair?
    It wasn't over half of the land. Originally Israel was going to be the entirety of Transjordan. Then they went for 20% of that. Then they went for half of that 20% - so 10% of the original planned area.

    All of the countries in the middle east right now were put there by third parties (Britain and France). Yet the only one everyone goes on about not having a right to exist is Israel. This is perverse, since Israel is the only real democracy in the region. Arguably all the others don't have a right to exist!

    My view of Israel as a (flawed, like every other) democracy stems from the fact that it has held regular, peaceful elections since 1948, supported the allies in the cold war, and has minority rights.

    No, the core reason they suffer is because a group of people from the other side of the world decided that they have a god given right to live on their land and when the Palestinains said no they took the land anyway.
    They weren't all from the other side of the world. Many of them were from the other side of the river Jordan. Huge numbers came from North Africa and Eastern Europe, fleeing persecution.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Before I start, just noting that I'm not going to bother with the Cold War stuff as it's not only largely irrelevant, but also, based on what I've seen so far, very unlikely to see any sort of real critical debate.

    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Actually there was quite a large population of Jews in Palestine
    Not pre-Zionism there weren't. In the early 19th century the Jewish population in Palestine probably didn't even make 10,000. It's true that in the late 19th century there was a noticeable amount of (mostly European) Jewish immigration to Palestine, but even by the time Zionism became a political movement in the 1890s, they were still less than 10% of the population.

    The point is, these people don't complain about a "right of return" to Europe and the middle east, even though their ancestors faced just as much injustice as the innocent people who were forced out of Palestine during the 1948 war ("nakba").
    This is kind of a mixed bag. Yes, in some cases there were expulsions with return prevented, but in many cases Jews did indeed have the equivalent of a 'right of return' - for example, for the most part there was nothing preventing Holocaust survivors from returning to the countries they'd lived in before the war. Many of them didn't want to, but that's a different question.

    But it's also worth noting that this doesn't really fit with the Zionist narrative. It's kind of hard to present yourself as 'the Jewish state', the state which epitomises Jewish identity and where all Jews in the world ideally should be, if really most of your population doesn't actually want to be there and instead wants a 'right of return' to the countries they lived in before.


    As far as Israel is concerned, its own existence and ensuring that its citizens aren't suicide bombed is more important than whether or not Palestinians have a wall built in their back garden. Blame the jihadists for the situation.
    Yep, generally states think their citizens are more important than all other people. Doesn't mean they are.

    But the original intention wasn't to displace large numbers of people. That happened as a result of the war.
    Yes, it was the original intention. Zionist leaders had been promoting the idea of large-scale population transfer of Palestinian Arabs since at least the late 1930s. The war simply gave them the opportunity.

    They could have just accepted the 1947 partition plan and everything would have been fine.
    Yep, in hindsight the Palestinians would have been a lot better off if they'd accepted the Partition Plan. But easy to see why they didn't, and they could hardly have predicted what was to come..

    Generally an expansionist state doesn't make the kinds of concessions that Israel has made.
    What 'kinds of concessions' would these be?

    Generally an expansionist state doesn't settle for a small sliver of land.
    'Small' is a subjective and relative term, and has no bearing on being expansionist, which as the name suggests, simply means a policy of trying to expand, regardless of what the size of the state currently is or what it intends to expand to.

    It wasn't over half of the land. Originally Israel was going to be the entirety of Transjordan.
    No, it wasn't. The Mandate promised a "Jewish national home" in Palestine. This 'national home' was not considered at the time to necessarily mean a separate state at all, never mind one in all of Mandatory Palestine. Furthermore Transjordan was never included in the area of Mandatory Palestine eligible for the 'Jewish national home' - its exclusion had been agreed well before the time the Mandate had been enacted.

    All of the countries in the middle east right now were put there by third parties (Britain and France).
    Egypt? Iran? Turkey?

    Yet the only one everyone goes on about not having a right to exist is Israel.
    For a start, states don't have a 'right to exist'. States stop existing pretty often - see Soviet Union, East Germany, Yugoslavia, South Yemen, South Vietnam, etc. And specifically in the Middle East, talking about the possibility that Iraq might cease to exist as a state is pretty common, given the current situation.

    States have an legal right to sovereignty and not to be aggressed upon, but that's rather different from a 'right to exist'.


    My view of Israel as a (flawed, like every other) democracy stems from the fact that it has held regular, peaceful elections since 1948, supported the allies in the cold war, and has minority rights.
    What about the minority rights of the Palestinians? To pre-empt the inevitable response to this (that they are PA citizens, not Israeli citizens), Black South Africans were officially not South African citizens, but citizens of the Bantustans. What's the difference in the two situations?

    They weren't all from the other side of the world. Many of them were from the other side of the river Jordan.
    Unless by 'the other side of the river Jordan' you mean anywhere east of the Jordan, then no they weren't. In fact it seems unlikely there were any Jews at all in what is now Jordan at the time (and there probably hadn't been for several centuries).

    Huge numbers came from North Africa and Eastern Europe, fleeing persecution.
    Possibly an exaggeration on the part of the previous poster to call these places the other side of the world, but far away nevertheless.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Before I start, just noting that I'm not going to bother with the Cold War stuff as it's not only largely irrelevant, but also, based on what I've seen so far, very unlikely to see any sort of real critical debate.
    Well I don't claim that the West didn't make mistakes in the cold war, I only claim that it was on the right side - the side for democracy - much as it was in the second world war.

    Not pre-Zionism there weren't. In the early 19th century the Jewish population in Palestine probably didn't even make 10,000. It's true that in the late 19th century there was a noticeable amount of (mostly European) Jewish immigration to Palestine, but even by the time Zionism became a political movement in the 1890s, they were still less than 10% of the population.
    But what about in the 1940s, when Israel was actually created?

    Anyway I'd like to move on from all this bloodline bull****, since the reason I support Israel's side in the war is because I support democracy against tyranny, not because I'm a Zionist of any kind. I want the rest of the middle east to become more like Israel, but by that I don't mean for it to become Jewish.

    This is kind of a mixed bag. Yes, in some cases there were expulsions with return prevented, but in many cases Jews did indeed have the equivalent of a 'right of return' - for example, for the most part there was nothing preventing Holocaust survivors from returning to the countries they'd lived in before the war. Many of them didn't want to, but that's a different question.

    But it's also worth noting that this doesn't really fit with the Zionist narrative. It's kind of hard to present yourself as 'the Jewish state', the state which epitomises Jewish identity and where all Jews in the world ideally should be, if really most of your population doesn't actually want to be there and instead wants a 'right of return' to the countries they lived in before.
    Instead of going back to Europe and the middle east, from which they were expelled or fled as refugees, the Jews built a functioning and prosperous and free state where they were. That's what the Palestinians should do in Gaza and the West Bank, rather than carrying on with the pointless and destructive dream of removing Israel from the map.

    Yep, generally states think their citizens are more important than all other people. Doesn't mean they are.
    The PA or whoever else runs Palestine has a responsibility to punish those who engage in terrorism against Israel. But since the people running Palestine have engaged in, and continue (in Gaza) to engage in terrorism against Israel themselves, this will never happen, which is why Israel resorts to things like the divisive wall.

    Yes, it was the original intention. Zionist leaders had been promoting the idea of large-scale population transfer of Palestinian Arabs since at least the late 1930s. The war simply gave them the opportunity.
    It doesn't really matter to me what the truth is in this, if any. See my point above.

    Yep, in hindsight the Palestinians would have been a lot better off if they'd accepted the Partition Plan. But easy to see why they didn't, and they could hardly have predicted what was to come..
    It's not that easy to see. They never had a state before, and here were two previously oppressed groups who were being offered by the UN a peaceful two state solution on a plate. Israel gladly accepted. The Palestinians should have too.

    What 'kinds of concessions' would these be?
    Multiple offers of a state, the Oslo accords, giving independence to Gaza all come to mind.

    'Small' is a subjective and relative term, and has no bearing on being expansionist, which as the name suggests, simply means a policy of trying to expand, regardless of what the size of the state currently is or what it intends to expand to.
    Well clearly it hasn't tried to expand. The only times it has expanded is when it has been at war with hostile third parties, such as Syria when it took the Golan heights. It was always content with its small strip of land.

    No, it wasn't. The Mandate promised a "Jewish national home" in Palestine. This 'national home' was not considered at the time to necessarily mean a separate state at all, never mind one in all of Mandatory Palestine. Furthermore Transjordan was never included in the area of Mandatory Palestine eligible for the 'Jewish national home' - its exclusion had been agreed well before the time the Mandate had been enacted.
    Nevertheless, it wasn't over half of the land. Israel accepted a two state solution which gave it significantly less than half of the remaining land with Jordan cut off, IIRC.

    Egypt? Iran? Turkey?
    I was using a more narrow definition of the middle east, i.e. the Levant, where Israel is. So, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon etc.

    For a start, states don't have a 'right to exist'. States stop existing pretty often - see Soviet Union, East Germany, Yugoslavia, South Yemen, South Vietnam, etc. And specifically in the Middle East, talking about the possibility that Iraq might cease to exist as a state is pretty common, given the current situation.

    States have an legal right to sovereignty and not to be aggressed upon, but that's rather different from a 'right to exist'.
    Some states have a right to exist, while others should be aggressed upon in some circumstances (e.g. Nazi Germany, the USSR). The states which have a right to exist are principally the liberal democracies, of which Israel was and is a member.

    What about the minority rights of the Palestinians? To pre-empt the inevitable response to this (that they are PA citizens, not Israeli citizens), Black South Africans were officially not South African citizens, but citizens of the Bantustans. What's the difference in the two situations?
    Are you arguing that Palestinians in Palestine should all be given Israeli citizenship? I'd be fine with that since it would end their oppression under PA and Hamas rule, but I don't think that's what they want.

    Unless by 'the other side of the river Jordan' you mean anywhere east of the Jordan, then no they weren't. In fact it seems unlikely there were any Jews at all in what is now Jordan at the time (and there probably hadn't been for several centuries).
    I was using it in a figurative sense - i.e. anywhere in the middle east and Arab world, i.e. in close proximity. Also, Iraq (from where many Jews emigrated) could be called "the other side of the river Jordan", just about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's hard to say if either side is right or wrong in the debate. My sympathies do lie with Israel, due to my religious Jewish upbringing, and I would call myself a "Zionist" if the definition of Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people should have a country which they can call home, and that the capital should be Jerusalem. However, I do think that Israel should be and remain an equal society for all, a beacon of democracy in what is, at the moment, and area which I would call un-free.
    That being said, I can't support everything Israel does. Illegal Settlements, Controversial operations and what seems to be a blockade or siege are all unacceptable in my eyes. There is certainly a problem with Israel and the hatred of Gaza and Palestinian people has grown throughout the years, and though this probably isn't a fair representation of all Israeli Jews, it is a prominent problem.
    Yet, I know that fault lies with Hamas and other Arab nations peoples as well. With two countries or areas with a history of violence neither side can be right. For example, the Arab nations attacking on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for jews, is abhorrent. And it does seem that some Palestinians do not wish for peace. In the Oslo Accords, when Rabin offered over 90% of the land to the Palestinians that they had demanded (he excluded Jerusalem and some key strategic positions), they refused. This was land that they wanted, land that was offered to them, and they refused it.
    When both countries are at each others throat in this atrocious manner you know this won't end soon. But god so help us I hope it will.
    (Now watch as I get ripped apart by both sides of the argument...)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    or some of you agree with the US/Netanyahu?
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a fan of the Israeli government as I feel they don't show signs of wanting peace alongside Palestine. I also dislike Hamas and their aggressive style, I'd rather two new leaders for both states to come to a peaceful solution (two state solution?) but that's just me.

    I'm a human first and hate seeing conflict like this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cake_lover)
    I'm not a fan of the Israeli government as I feel they don't show signs of wanting peace alongside Palestine. I also dislike Hamas and his aggressive style, I'd rather two new leaders for both states to come to a peaceful solution (two state solution?) but that's just me.

    I'm a human first and hate seeing conflict like this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hamas exists because Israel has denied the right to Palestine to exist and to have its own armed forces. Without Hamas Palestinians would be the only population with no defence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalMarine)
    x
    The constant killing of my innocent Muslim brothers and sisters would be one reason to as why I hate Israel.

    People may bang on about a two state solution but it's not happening lol, Israel is making more new settlements every month.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    The constant killing of my innocent Muslim brothers and sisters would be one reason to as why I hate Israel.
    What about the few percent of Palestinians who are Christian? Do you care about them or does it not matter much to you if Israel kills them?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    The constant killing of my innocent Muslim brothers and sisters would be one reason to as why I hate Israel.
    High five??

    Do you wanna go on a tour of Israel fellow Muslim? Lets take over their most beloved mosque and claim it is ours. When they beat the **** out of us, rape us, imprison us. Why shouldn't we stand up?! Were "British" citizens right?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cake_lover)
    I'm not a fan of the Israeli government as I feel they don't show signs of wanting peace alongside Palestine. I also dislike Hamas and his aggressive style, I'd rather two new leaders for both states to come to a peaceful solution (two state solution?) but that's just me.

    I'm a human first and hate seeing conflict like this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is just like the time my friend asked me why we "hadn't killed that guy Al-Qaeda yet?".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Achaea)
    What about the few percent of Palestinians who are Christian? Do you care about them or does it not matter much to you if Israel kills them?
    Of course Donkey! Settle down before I get Shrek to eat you cause apparently we're all ogres. You, me... and Will Smith apparently
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Achaea)
    What about the few percent of Palestinians who are Christian? Do you care about them or does it not matter much to you if Israel kills them?
    Them too. Aslong as someone is "innocent", I will feel speak out against their killing(e.g. how I don't like ISIS either due to their activities)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. I do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    The constant killing of my innocent Muslim brothers and sisters would be one reason to as why I hate Israel.

    People may bang on about a two state solution but it's happening lol, Israel is making more new settlements every month.
    Lol forget every month brah, its every day. Ive never felt so helpless in all of my medical career.... I cant even enter Palestine because
    "your name you will receive brutal treatment. Israel are getting crazier and crazier by the day" (November, 2014) Avigail, ex Israeli forces, psychotherapist, lecturer and very good friend.
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Them too. Aslong as someone is "innocent", I will feel speak out against their killing(e.g. how I don't like ISIS either due to their activities)
    So then why did you feel the need to specify your 'innocent Muslim brothers and sisters'? Why not just say that you condemn the killing of innocents in Palestine, regardless of religion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, indeed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Achaea)
    So then why did you feel the need to specify your 'innocent Muslim brothers and sisters'? Why not just say that you condemn the killing of innocents in Palestine, regardless of religion?
    Because the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslim. When I think Palestinian, I think Muslim. Do you have a problem with this?





    (Original post by katbob)
    Lol forget every month brah, its every day. Ive never felt so helpless in all of my medical career.... I cant even enter Palestine because
    "your name you will receive brutal treatment. Israel are getting crazier and crazier by the day" (November, 2014) Avigail, ex Israeli forces, psychotherapist, lecturer and very good friend.
    Indeed, it's stupid.
 
 
 
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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.