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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    To be fair on Israel, it has faced multiple threats to its survival and as is oft-repeated, because it's true, if it dropped its weapons it would be annihilated. Ever since the 2nd intifada, even relatively non-hawkish, leftish Israelis have admitted that the Palestinians don't really want a two-state solution. Now assuming your allegations about Israel intentionally killing civilians are true, nothing would justify that. It would be a war crime. But going back to the topic before, Britain did the same in WW2 (in fact, immeasurably worse, bombing entire cities to the ground).
    My allegations that Israel knowingly causes civilian deaths is backed up by most even moderately reliable news sources. Thus their actions are, as you say, unjustifiable. Please note I don't refer necesserily to the Israeli people, who generally are either misinformed or don't support the nature of the conflict (except in a few cases where a few people are proper *******s).

    Britain's actions in WW2 were definitely terrible, Dresden was a war crime, which is one of the reasons I hate Atlee in spite of him being my 'favourite' Prime Minister. I think Israel would do sonething similair if they could justify it to the international community. Like I said they're a terribly cruel and heavy handed government in their actions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just say as well that I'm really uncomfortable that people believe that the premise for anti-Israeli government sentiment, which I hold, is by any means based on anti-Semitism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacky Hearts)
    My allegations that Israel knowingly causes civilian deaths is backed up by most even moderately reliable news sources. Thus their actions are, as you say, unjustifiable. Please note I don't refer necesserily to the Israeli people, who generally are either misinformed or don't support the nature of the conflict (except in a few cases where a few people are proper *******s).

    Britain's actions in WW2 were definitely terrible, Dresden was a war crime, which is one of the reasons I hate Atlee in spite of him being my 'favourite' Prime Minister. I think Israel would do sonething similair if they could justify it to the international community. Like I said they're a terribly cruel and heavy handed government in their actions.
    Knowingly causing civilian deaths is different from intentionally causing them. If Israel wanted to kill civilians I'm sure it would go about it much more efficiently. Idi Amin and Pol Pot are the kinds of people who intentionally kill civilians. They are very different from the Israelis.

    Clement Attlee wasn't the prime minister in 1944 was he, when Dresden was firebombed? [edit: just checked and it was 1945, my mistake.] Nevertheless I'm sure he supported "area bombing", as it was received wisdom with respect to defeating the Wehrmacht. Such is the nature of defeating barbarism without the use of precision-guided munitions.

    I'm just saying you should judge Israel in context, because it is fighting people with an ideology not very (or at all) different from that of ISIS, or indeed the Nazis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Knowingly causing civilian deaths is different from intentionally causing them. If Israel wanted to kill civilians I'm sure it would go about it much more efficiently. Idi Amin and Pol Pot are the kinds of people who intentionally kill civilians. They are very different from the Israelis.
    To not care that you're causing civilian deaths and to carry on doing what you're doing in spite of those deaths is no morally better or worse than intentionally killing civilians (which Israel has also done on occasion).
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Clement Attlee wasn't the prime minister in 1944 was he, when Dresden was firebombed? [edit: just checked and it was 1945, my mistake.] Nevertheless I'm sure he supported "area bombing", as it was received wisdom with respect to defeating the Wehrmacht. Such is the nature of defeating barbarism without the use of precision-guided munitions.
    Clement Attle's Labour was in coalition with Churchill and the Conservative party during World War 2 (the only time in the 20th century that Britain had a coalition). Attlee ordered the bombing of Dresden with an early version of napalm causing severe destruction and casualties. Churchill was a ******* but he didn't order that, he did come out in support of it after though. The bombing of Dresden was unnecessary, the city wasn't tactically useful for the Wehrmacht or the much more dangerous WaffenSS. It also didn't have any economic contribution to this late stage of Germany's war production; it was a pure and unadulterated revenge killing, taking bitterness out on innocent civilians.
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I'm just saying you should judge Israel in context, because it is fighting people with an ideology not very (or at all) different from that of ISIS, or indeed the Nazis.
    I understand the context fully. Hamas wants the destruction of the Israeli state, justifying that the land is of religious significance to them and was formerly their territory. Israel responds to the actions of Hamas with campaigns which result in civilian suffering on a level that a so-called 'sophisticated society' can't justify.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacky Hearts)
    To not care that you're causing civilian deaths and to carry on doing what you're doing in spite of those deaths is no morally better or worse than intentionally killing civilians (which Israel has also done on occasion).

    Clement Attle's Labour was in coalition with Churchill and the Conservative party during World War 2 (the only time in the 20th century that Britain had a coalition). Attlee ordered the bombing of Dresden with an early version of napalm causing severe destruction and casualties. Churchill was a ******* but he didn't order that, he did come out in support of it after though. The bombing of Dresden was unnecessary, the city wasn't tactically useful for the Wehrmacht or the much more dangerous WaffenSS. It also didn't have any economic contribution to this late stage of Germany's war production; it was a pure and unadulterated revenge killing, taking bitterness out on innocent civilians.

    I understand the context fully. Hamas wants the destruction of the Israeli state, justifying that the land is of religious significance to them and was formerly their territory. Israel responds to the actions of Hamas with campaigns which result in civilian suffering on a level that a so-called 'sophisticated society' can't justify.
    Well they don't just want the destruction of Israel, they also want to establish a theocracy in its place. Basically Israel's (and by extension the IDF's) core principle is the protection of Israeli citizens, which includes IDF soldiers since they have conscription. Hamas do their best to make Israel's protection of its own citizens result in Palestinian deaths (e.g. by forcing people not to take shelter) which it then uses in its propaganda war. Israeli war crimes, to the extent that they exist, account for a small fraction of total civilian casualties in its wars with both Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel's argument in defence of this policy is that it is only trying to protect its own citizens, and civilian casualties which occur are, in the main, the moral responsibility of Hamas, the principle (but weak) aggressors. Whether or not you agree with this argument, you have to concede that it is ludicrous to claim that Israel is trying to cause civilian casualties. A much better argument (though one which I would still disagree with) is that Israel is fighting a losing battle or that it should not try so hard to protect its own citizens.

    Back to WWII - well I didn't know that it was Attlee who ordered the bombing of Dresden. I have also stated previously that the bombing was a war crime, so we're agreed on that one.

    I'm sure Israel does care about civilian casualties. If it doesn't, why does it spend so much money trying to avoid them? Surely if it doesn't care, it would just drop bombs all over the place and quite quickly the war would be over?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Being anti-Zionist does not equate to being anti-Semitic, and I've seen a number of calls for the genocide of the Palestinians on the Israeli side (even on this site).

    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    I agree. Israel can hardly be blamed for the fact that the Arabs repeatedly resorted to violence, and then found to their dismay that the Israelis are bloody tough soldiers
    And yet, before the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, violent forced expulsions were already being perpetrated by Israelis, and indeed the same Israelis who, during the 1930s and the early 1940s, were carrying out terrorist attacks in Palestine.

    Israel, too, has repeatedly resorted to violence. The occupation itself is maintained by the threat of violence, for one. And, even the latest conflict in 2014 was started by Israel: Hamas had not fired a single rocket into Israel since the 2012 ceasefire, whilst Israel had broken it on numerous occasions. Israel then started the conflict when they presided over the unlawful mass arrest of hundreds of Hamas political officials in the West Bank and the assassination of two officials in Gaza. Hamas then responded.

    Similarly, before the 2008-09 Gaza War, Hamas was abiding by an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, while Israel had violated it on numerous occasions. Israel continued to kill Palestinian civilians, including children, and obviously Hamas then fired indiscriminate rockets in violation of international law.
    .

    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    Regarding that, don't you think it is a relevant consideration that the only reason Israel is now being bombarded by Hamas rockets is because they did the right thing in 2005 and completely pulled out of the Gaza Strip, pulled all the soldiers out, forcibly evicted the Israeli settlers at great political cost, to hand it over entirely to the Palestinians as a first step / peace gesture with a view to moving on to a West Bank disengagement next.

    And then their reward for pulling out of Gaza is to see it fall to Hamas, who immediately start bombarding Israel with rockets. Do you not think that is a relevant consideration here? Do you not have any sympathy for the extraordinary difficulty Israeli policy-makers are in when they are under rocket bombardment; they can either do nothing, in which case it just gets worse, or they can retaliate and unfortunately civilians will be killed. What do you propose they do?
    They didn't hand it over entirely to the Palestinians at all. Since the so-called disengagement, they still retain effective control of the Gaza Strip, they control its borders, airspace and implement severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, along with an economic stronghold on the funding of civil services. Essentially, they still occupy both the West Bank and Gaza.

    The reasons behind the disengagement itself were explained by one of Sharon's senior advisers, Dov Weisglass: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process... And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."

    This is unsurprising, given that, before Hamas were even elected, the United States and Israel had been blocking the international consensus on the two-state solution for decades.

    And, as I demonstrated earlier, their actions - which include numerous war crimes - aren't motivated by "rocket bombardment". Independent human rights organisations have consistently found that Israel deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, strongly suggesting that they want to make the Gaza Strip in particular economically dependent on Israel.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Well they don't just want the destruction of Israel, they also want to establish a theocracy in its place. Basically Israel's (and by extension the IDF's) core principle is the protection of Israeli citizens, which includes IDF soldiers since they have conscription. Hamas do their best to make Israel's protection of its own citizens result in Palestinian deaths (e.g. by forcing people not to take shelter) which it then uses in its propaganda war. Israeli war crimes, to the extent that they exist, account for a small fraction of total civilian casualties in its wars with both Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel's argument in defence of this policy is that it is only trying to protect its own citizens, and civilian casualties which occur are, in the main, the moral responsibility of Hamas, the principle (but weak) aggressors. Whether or not you agree with this argument, you have to concede that it is ludicrous to claim that Israel is trying to cause civilian casualties. A much better argument (though one which I would still disagree with) is that Israel is fighting a losing battle or that it should not try so hard to protect its own citizens.

    Back to WWII - well I didn't know that it was Attlee who ordered the bombing of Dresden. I have also stated previously that the bombing was a war crime, so we're agreed on that one.

    I'm sure Israel does care about civilian casualties. If it doesn't, why does it spend so much money trying to avoid them? Surely if it doesn't care, it would just drop bombs all over the place and quite quickly the war would be over?
    Israel and Hamas share a moral responsibility on every single civilian death; that I will give you. But Israel cannot be excused as its actions go far beyond protecting its civilians. I don't think I need evidence for that, but when example which particularly sticks in my head was the demolition of the homes of I believe two or three Palestinians who murdered several people in a Synagogue. Obviously the actions of these Palestinians was vile. However, they were shot on sight and the issue from there should have been one about future prevention. Instead Israel opted to leave the innocent families of these men (consisting of several children) homeless.

    Israel also has control of the Palestinian's water and other essentials in many areas supply and if Hamas does perform one of their meager attacks of a rocket or what have you, guess what gets cut to the civilians. Is it any wonder Palestinians believe the Propaganda about an 'evil Jewish state' fed to them by their political leaders? Israel's government gives them no evidence to the contrary.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The killing of Palestinians is also 'Anti-Semitism'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Israel is run by a white supremacist zionist government who do not care about anyone but world domination and money. Ask yourself why they treat Black Jews like Sh*t, going as far as giving Ethiopian jews contraception shots without their permission in order to decrease their birth rate in Israel and keep a pure white Jewish state. "Benjamin Netanyahu, who also holds the health portfolio, warned that illegal immigrants from Africa “threaten our existence as a Jewish and democratic state”. - Funny that considering they are also immigrants in the so-called state of Israel as the country is made up of Europeans ho immigrated there. I find it funny how countries like Israel, Australia and America treats immigrants like **** when they are the true immigrants who took over the land by killing and harming the indigenous people. :unimpressed:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QueenSI)
    Israel is run by a white supremacist zionist government who do not care about anyone but world domination and money. Ask yourself why they treat Black Jews like Sh*t, going as far as giving Ethiopian jews contraception shots without their permission in order to decrease their birth rate in Israel and keep a pure white Jewish state. "Benjamin Netanyahu, who also holds the health portfolio, warned that illegal immigrants from Africa “threaten our existence as a Jewish and democratic state”. - Funny that considering they are also immigrants in the so-called state of Israel as the country is made up of Europeans ho immigrated there. I find it funny how countries like Israel, Australia and America treats immigrants like **** when they are the true immigrants who took over the land by killing and harming the indigenous people. :unimpressed:
    yeah but it's "easy to criticise the new world countries..."

    rep.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QueenSI)
    The killing of Palestinians is also 'Anti-Semitism'.
    yo palestinians are mainly muslims though yeah?

    anti-semitism = anti-judaism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    yo palestinians are mainly muslims though yeah?

    anti-semitism = anti-judaism.
    Semitism does not have a religion. Semitic means a race of people who come from prophet noahs son Shem. Semitic people tend to be people from the middle east.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacky Hearts)
    Israel and Hamas share a moral responsibility on every single civilian death; that I will give you. But Israel cannot be excused as its actions go far beyond protecting its civilians. I don't think I need evidence for that, but when example which particularly sticks in my head was the demolition of the homes of I believe two or three Palestinians who murdered several people in a Synagogue. Obviously the actions of these Palestinians was vile. However, they were shot on sight and the issue from there should have been one about future prevention. Instead Israel opted to leave the innocent families of these men (consisting of several children) homeless.

    Israel also has control of the Palestinian's water and other essentials in many areas supply and if Hamas does perform one of their meager attacks of a rocket or what have you, guess what gets cut to the civilians. Is it any wonder Palestinians believe the Propaganda about an 'evil Jewish state' fed to them by their political leaders? Israel's government gives them no evidence to the contrary.
    Well for quite a long time now Israel has had a policy of harsh retaliation for crimes such as the one you mentioned. It can't afford to let things like that get out of hand, so (and I'm playing devil's advocate here - I wouldn't personally have ordered those demolitions) from its point of view it needs to show an example to anyone else considering doing the same. Do you agree that if Israel is perceived as "soft" by its enemies, it won't last long? Yes, it's sad for innocent people caught up, but ultimate moral responsibility in my view is with the ones carrying out the aggression, and in the example you gave, the aggression was clearly in the animals who murdered worshipers in the synagogue.

    The problem is that Hamas governs the Palestinians in Gaza. Any action that Israel takes against Hamas is therefore going to harm innocent Palestinians. I don't think Palestinians were ever very sympathetic to the existence of Israel, and Israel has just come to accept that it is no point trying to make peace so it does all it can to make sure its own citizens remain safe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Well for quite a long time now Israel has had a policy of harsh retaliation for crimes such as the one you mentioned. It can't afford to let things like that get out of hand, so (and I'm playing devil's advocate here - I wouldn't personally have ordered those demolitions) from its point of view it needs to show an example to anyone else considering doing the same. Do you agree that if Israel is perceived as "soft" by its enemies, it won't last long? Yes, it's sad for innocent people caught up, but ultimate moral responsibility in my view is with the ones carrying out the aggression, and in the example you gave, the aggression was clearly in the animals who murdered worshipers in the synagogue.

    The problem is that Hamas governs the Palestinians in Gaza. Any action that Israel takes against Hamas is therefore going to harm innocent Palestinians. I don't think Palestinians were ever very sympathetic to the existence of Israel, and Israel has just come to accept that it is no point trying to make peace so it does all it can to make sure its own citizens remain safe.
    of course they aren't sympathetic of Israels existence considering they forcefully took their land and keep taking until there's nothing left for the Palestinians.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    It is a legitimate point of view, and also I think the most important information I got from it was Natan Sharansky's framework for assessing whether criticism of Israel comes from an anti-semitic origin (that is, if it involves delegitimisation, demonisation or double-standards)
    Which doesn't really work, at least as the video presents it. At best, they are potential symptoms, but even this is rather different to them being anti-semitic in and of themselves. And the only one that really makes any sense is double standards. Delegitimisation and demonisation of various states goes on all the time. Irish nationalist and Republican arguments have always focused on demonising and delegitimising the UK, but no-one (possibly besides extreme loyalists) has ever seriously suggested that this constitutes or is indicative of a deeply held, ethnically-based hatred for British people as a population group.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    In 1948, the UN partitioned it into two-states; one state was made up of the areas which were majority Jewish.
    Not just the Jewish-majority areas, but also most areas which were Arab-majority but had a notable Jewish minority, such as Safed. Only areas which were almost exclusively Arab were assigned to the Arab state in the 1947 Plan; and the Negev was assigned to the Jewish state despite being almost exclusively Arab.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    Indigenous? Where do you think the word Jerusalem comes from? Is it an Arabic word?
    The word 'China' is originally Persian. What's your point?

    Also, archaeology isn't entirely clear on the etymology of Jerusalem anyway, though what appear to be the earliest known roots of the term predate Ancient Israel and Judah, and indeed the existence of Hebrew.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    I think there are a few issues with that narrative.

    First, there was no existing country. There had never been a state called "Palestine",
    That isn't quite the same thing. 'Country' is a broader, more vague term than 'state'. There has never been a state called 'Wales', but try telling a Welshman it's not a country. The vast bulk of states in the Americas and Africa had never existed prior to their decolonisation either, but that didn't justify their colonisation in the first place.

    Second, when Palestine was partitioned in 1948, the UN (who took responsibility from the British mandate that came out of the League of Nations and their defeat of the Ottoman Empire who previously controlled Palestine). At that point in 1948, there were about 500,000 Jews and 1.1 million Muslims. The UN sensibly decided that it was not plausible they could live together, and so partitioned the state into a Jewish majority state and a Palestinian majority state, with Jerusalem as an international zone.
    Ethnically-based partitions aren't sensible, they're overly simplistic and generally lead to tragedy. Cases in point: Ireland, Bosnia, India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey (admittedly not a partition in the same sense, but a redrawing of borders based on similar principles), the several messes in the Caucasus since the fall of the USSR, etc.

    The Palestinians, as they had more people, were given more land.
    No, they were given less land. The 1947 Plan was about 55-45 in favour of the Jewish side.

    Instead of accepting this, the Arab world (with an explicitly genocidal policy) rejected the partition and tried to seize 100% of the land by force.
    Firstly, 'The Arab World' was not and is not some monolithic blob. Its various leaders had various aims. And by and large, what the leaders of the neighbouring Arab states (all of which were largely at odds with the aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs) were actually hoping for was to take a chunk of Palestine for themselves (as the King of Jordan took the West Bank in the end).

    Secondly, the claim of 'genocidal policy'. This claim is made largely on the basis of pretty selective, vague quotes. For example, an oft-quoted figure here is Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, but he also said in a far more specific quote:

    "Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QueenSI)
    of course they aren't sympathetic of Israels existence considering they forcefully took their land and keep taking until there's nothing left for the Palestinians.
    Well then there isn't going to be peace, is there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Well then there isn't going to be peace, is there.
    Sadly not. Not until they get their rights and their land back. When the apartheid has ended then there will be peace. But there cannot be peace if Israel continues taking land illegally and forcing the Palestinians to live in poor conditions with no freedom and no where to go. These people cannot even flee to another country for refuge. Israel is holding them captive in the world's largest open air prison.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.