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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    What I do find interesting is how these anti-semites become quite rankled when you point out their anti-semitism.

    They tell you they support "armed resistance" against Israel. You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.

    This indicates the relevant factor here is whether the victim is Jewish. Thus, they support killing people for their Jewish identity. But then they complain when others point this out
    Indeed. Last year ISIS attacked and overran a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. I could not see one collective care from any of the usual crowd who hold mass protests to demand boycotts and sanctions of Israel anytime a Palestinian gets so much as looked at by a Jew.
    When they show as much vigour in protesting any other foreign nation as much as Israel, which coincidently happens to be the world's only Jewish state, I'll believe that they aren't anti-semitic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Actually, it's hard to deny.
    I'm glad you don't deny being a dupe anymore. It does say a lot that you are so desperate to avoid this debate that you will say anything to change the subject.

    "I'm losing the debate, better throw a dead cat on the table", and so on
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Indeed. Last year ISIS attacked and overran a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. I could not see one collective care from any of the usual crowd who hold mass protests to demand boycotts and sanctions of Israel anytime a Palestinian gets so much as looked at by a Jew.
    Good point. Note how the hard left will claim to be appalled by Israel's bombing of Hamas targets in Gaza (where even Hamas admitted Israel tries to avoid civilian targets by mentioning that their "human shield" tactic works), but suddenly when it comes to Russia' bombing in Syria suddenly the hard left claims to be very concerned about jihadism and terrorism and they support it. Pretty hypocritical

    When they show as much vigour in protesting any other foreign nation as much as Israel, which coincidently happens to be the world's only Jewish state, I'll believe that they aren't anti-semitic.
    Indeed. In fact, I think the hard left's support for the Burgas bombing in 2012 in Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing) is what cinches the charge of anti-semitism. If it was 30 Israeli Arabs on the bus, would Hezbollah have bombed it? Of course not. "But for" the Jewish identity of the victims, would they have been attacked? The answer is no, which means it is an anti-semitic attack. The hard left supports this stuff. Also note how they are now starting to adopt neo-Nazi terms like "Zio", talking about Rothschild conspiracies and the like
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Indeed. Last year ISIS attacked and overran a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. I could not see one collective care from any of the usual crowd who hold mass protests to demand boycotts and sanctions of Israel anytime a Palestinian gets so much as looked at by a Jew.
    When they show as much vigour in protesting any other foreign nation as much as Israel, which coincidently happens to be the world's only Jewish state, I'll believe that they aren't anti-semitic.
    We're talking about the same people who don't care that Egypt jointly enforces the blockade, that the other states in the region view Palestinians as unwanted pests and that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields and forces them to ignore evacuation warnings knowing they'll die.

    What do you expect?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    :pal:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    Good point. Note how the hard left will claim to be appalled by Israel's bombing of Hamas targets in Gaza (where even Hamas admitted Israel tries to avoid civilian targets by mentioning that their "human shield" tactic works), but suddenly when it comes to Russia' bombing in Syria suddenly the hard left claims to be very concerned about jihadism and terrorism and they support it. Pretty hypocritical



    Indeed. In fact, I think the hard left's support for the Burgas bombing in 2012 in Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing) is what cinches the charge of anti-semitism. If it was 30 Israeli Arabs on the bus, would Hezbollah have bombed it? Of course not. "But for" the Jewish identity of the victims, would they have been attacked? The answer is no, which means it is an anti-semitic attack. The hard left supports this stuff. Also note how they are now starting to adopt neo-Nazi terms like "Zio", talking about Rothschild conspiracies and the like
    This reminds me of when the BDS lobbied to have Jewish rapper Matisyanu banned from that Spanish music festival, even though he's American, not Israeli and never makes political statements. It's incredible for them to continue to claim they're not anti-Semitic. There was a thread about it on here. Many people read it and commented on it. They still support BDS. What does that say about them?

    Brb, writing to the boxing federations to demand they ban Amir Khan because of Saudi Arabia.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    This reminds me of when the BDS lobbied to have Jewish rapper Matisyanu banned from that Spanish music festival, even though he's American, not Israeli and never makes political statements. It's incredible for them to continue to claim they're not anti-Semitic. There was a thread about it on here. Many people read it and commented on it. They still support BDS. What does that say about them?

    Brb, writing to the boxing federations to demand they ban Amir Khan because of Saudi Arabia.
    Yes, all very good points. BDS' demands on Matisyahu were purely based on the fact that Jews are expected either to denounce Israel (in which case they become a "good Jew" ) or they will be labelled as a Zionist appeaser. This additional expectation on Jewish people is indeed anti-semitic

    Also, it is quite bizarre that one user above claimed that there is an occupation of Gaza. There is not a single Israeli soldier in Gaza. The fact that Israel has troops on its borders with Gaza is not some amazing revelation, many countries have troops on their frontiers with other nations.

    Furthermore, it's bizarre to claim that the fact that Israel regulates goods going over the border with Gaza somehow makes it an occupation (or even more inanely, a "siege" ). One country has no right to force another country to trade with it, trade with another country is a privilege not a right. In any case, I thought these people were always talking about how they will boycott Israel.

    I think what's most telling is that Israel allows around 30,000 Gazans to enter Israel each year for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals, even though this privilege has been repeatedly abused to infiltrate terrorists into Israel. Israel also allows close to a million tonnes of supplies to go into Gaza each year, so the idea there is some kind of siege stretches credulity. What kind of siege in history had the besiegers sending goods in and allowing the people inside to leave for medical treatment?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xelfrost)
    But seriously, just return to the 67 borders and leave each other alone, even if the Palestinians wanted to start a full scale war Israel can just play defensively. No needs for more bloodshed.
    Palestinian lands penetrate deep into Israeli territory. Give them independence and they will use that time to recover, build up arms, and take revenge, and/or allow a foreign armada to attack from it right into Israel's hotspots.


    Israel cannot exist with Palestine. It is way too dangerous. Peace in the middle east can only be achieved if someone HEAVILY polices both countries down to weapon flow and border defence, or you just let one completely destroy the other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertyMan)
    Palestinian lands penetrate deep into Israeli territory. Give them independence and they will use that time to recover, build up arms, and take revenge, and/or allow a foreign armada to attack from it right into Israel's hotspots.

    Israel cannot exist with Palestine. It is way too dangerous. Peace in the middle east can only be achieved if someone HEAVILY polices both countries down to weapon flow and border defence, or you just let one completely destroy the other.
    These things can cut both ways. It's true that after pulling out of Gaza, Israel got nothing but more rockets etc. Since pulling out of Southern Lebanon in 2000, they've had one major war with Hezbollah in 2006. But equally, Israel has saved large amounts of money and lives not having to police southern Lebanon. And there have been pretty much no suicide bombings in Israel since the walls went up (compare to the early 2000s during the Second Intifada where 1,000 Israelis died in repeated suicide bombings, compared to 3,000 Palestinians. Since the wall has been built, the number of Israelis dying during flare-ups has plummeted)

    With advances in ballistic missile defence technologies like Iron Dome, David's Sling and now new directed-energy/laser weapons, it could be the better move to sit safe behind the walls, zapping and shooting down any rockets the Palestinians lob over and hitting them with airstrikes as a backhander rebuke. Eventually the Palestinians will see there is no benefit as every rocket they fire gets shot down, and every time a rocket is fired they get hit again

    There would no longer be any occupation that can be complained of, it will lead to much greater legitimacy for Israel internationally. My view is that this would be the ideal way to proceed, even if it has to be imposed unilaterally on the Palestinians. There will of course be the BDS-types who will not be happy whilst Israel continues to exist, but with the end of the occupation of the West Bank they will lose any credibility they may have had
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Around 500 children were killed in Gaza in 2014 by Israeli airstrikes and soldiers. 3 boys aged 5-6 were bombed while playing football on the beach. And people still don't think they are terrorists?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    These things can cut both ways. It's true that after pulling out of Gaza, Israel got nothing but more rockets, more terror etc. Since pulling out of Southern Lebanon in 2000, they've had one major war with Hezbollah in 2006. But equally, Israel has saved large amounts of money and lives not having to police southern Lebanon

    With advances in ballistic missile defence technologies like Iron Dome, David's Sling and now new directed-energy/laser weapons, it could be the better move to sit safe behind the walls, zapping and shooting down any rockets the Palestinians lob over and hitting them with airstrikes.

    The upshot of this is that there is no longer any occupation that can be complained of, it will lead to much greater legitimacy for Israel internationally.
    While I am no expert on military strategies, I believe it's safe to say the Israeli army would choose whatever strategy they calculated to be the best for themselves. Now maybe very new technologies will make them recalculate and become defensive, but otherwise, an element of aggression can be ultimatly a better defence than pure defence. Certainly it makes sense to police neighbouring states like southern Lebanon in order to know what is going on while at the same time keeping them as buffer states from other invaders.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by umarr)
    Around 500 children were killed in Gaza in 2014 by Israeli airstrikes and soldiers. 3 boys aged 5-6 were bombed while playing football on the beach. And people still don't think they are terrorists?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What's your opinion on Hamas using children as human shields?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Good faith wears thin after 18 months of failure in which dozens of rocket and mortar attacks were launched against Israel. You have to deliver results to claim to be abiding by a ceasefire, not just 'try' to.
    A ceasefire is two-ended. Good faith also wears thin when you're at least trying to keep to it (and managing to reduce violations) and the other side doesn't seem to care about it (and raising violations).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    Furthermore, it is inane to claim Israel is occupying Gaza, there is not a single Israeli soldier inside of Gaza
    Occupation is not legally determined by the presence or lack of ground troops. Israel continues to control Gaza's air and maritime space, as well as a buffer zone inside Gazan territory. Most importantly, sovereignty has not been re-established. Thus legally, the occupation continues, as the UN and even the US have affirmed. Not looking like a conventional occupation doesn't change this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    This reminds me of when the BDS lobbied to have Jewish rapper Matisyanu banned from that Spanish music festival, even though he's American, not Israeli and never makes political statements.
    Except that's ********, he's made plenty of political and anti-Palestinians statements. He has also routinely performed at benefit gigs for pro-Israeli groups - and I'm talking quite hardline right-wing ones here, not just generic Israeli NGOs.

    Now, I would accept there's an argument to be made that some BDS groups and activists are a bit over-eager, even cultish at times, and deliberately go looking for events to protest so they can feel they've got a 'victory' every so often. But that's a rather different question.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Seeing as the threads have kind of overlapped anyway, I'll quote myself from here:


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Going to leave this here a sec. Apologies for small print, but the article is in a student newspaper and unfortunately not published online. You'll see where I'm going with this shortly.

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    A ceasefire is two-ended. Good faith also wears thin when you're at least trying to keep to it (and managing to reduce violations) and the other side doesn't seem to care about it (and raising violations).
    Israeli violations are always responsive. The blockade (which Egypt also enforces) continued as Palestinian rocket attacks continued, in violation of the ceasefire which called on all Palestinian factions to halt attacks. Pretty much every instance of Gazan deaths during the ceasefire are a result of them attacking Israeli soldiers or ignoring warning shots and approaching too close. Almost every instance I've seen would have been acceptable use of force under the British Army's card Alpha rules of engagement. It literally takes the Palestinians firing rockets and mortars to be logged as a ceasefire violation, while any Palestinian death or injury seems to be automatically regarded an Israeli violation, regardless of circumstances.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Israeli violations are always responsive.
    Israeli violations in early 2013 (well, in general, but it's particularly apparent in those few months) dwarfed those of Gazan groups. Not a single rocket was fired in January 2013, yet the Israeli army detained Gazan fishermen, opened fire at people, etc on numerous occasions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Israeli violations in early 2013 (well, in general, but it's particularly apparent in those few months) dwarfed those of Gazan groups. Not a single rocket was fired in January 2013, yet the Israeli army detained Gazan fishermen, opened fire at people, etc on numerous occasions.
    Well you've pretty much proved one of the points I said. Apparently it takes firing a rocket for Palestinians to break the ceasefire, while anything involving Israeli actions is automatically an Israeli violation.
    What were the circumstances of those Israeli 'violations'? I'd wager a penny to a pound an Israeli soldier didn't just randomly start firing into a crowd of people for the giggles. Did they rush him with a knife, throw stones at him or ignore warning shots? Were those fishermen trying to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I'd wager a penny to a pound an Israeli soldier didn't just randomly start firing into a crowd of people for the giggles.
    What else can be expected of the Zionists?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.