Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rate Sharon as a greater '*******' then Arafat, you only have to look at the massacre of Sabra that earned him the name 'butcher of Sabra' due to the 110,00 Palestinians murdered; an event that even though recognised fully by Israels report on Sabra as being entirely down to Sharon does not see him punished.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well, I sat next to the daughter of a palestinian activist for half a year in my old school in Norway. We were actually quite good friends. My dad took his university degree in Israel and has a few friends there still. Btw: the palestinians also dislike Arafat.
    Good for you, no doubt it was interesting. I'm sure you'll agree with my logic then: that if one must have spoken to a certain amount of Israelis to comment on the situation then one must also have spoken to Palestinians (who don't all dislike Arafat btw, I have spoken to some too!)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G4ry)
    Why? The guy's a terrorist who has no intention of making peace. His organisation targets civilians. That organisation deserves everything they get.
    He was defending his land and his people against Israel. I don't think you can call him a terrorist because they have got no other option to fight Israel.
    If Israel goes and kills women and children with a TANK it is not terrorism right? But when someone kills Israeli people with a Bomb then that’s called TERRORISM.
    "Terrorism" is just a word that some government like to use so it makes them look like the good guys and others the bad guys.
    Israelis and Palestinians are both what you might like to call Terrorists because they are both init together.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HamaL)
    If Israel goes and kills women and children with a TANK it is not terrorism right? But when someone kills Israeli people with a Bomb then that’s called TERRORISM.
    But the targets are different. The Israelis target members of the organisation and the injuries are sometimes civilians. Hamas targets civilians, not the Israeli army.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G4ry)
    But the targets are different. The Israelis target members of the organisation and the injuries are sometimes civilians. Hamas targets civilians, not the Israeli army.
    In my view both isreali and Palistinian actions can be seen to fit under the heading terrorism deffinition being

    "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

    And in response to your point ETA target judges and other officials and sometimes hit civilians but they are terrorists. So in my view Both the Isreali government and hamas are terrorists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HamaL)
    He was defending his land and his people against Israel. I don't think you can call him a terrorist because they have got no other option to fight Israel.
    If Israel goes and kills women and children with a TANK it is not terrorism right? But when someone kills Israeli people with a Bomb then that’s called TERRORISM.
    Yes, the Israelis have killed alot of innocent Palestineans. Yes, it is very sad. Yes, they have done many things that can be considered quite atrocious. But if you look at all the suicide bombers, they're never against military targets, but civilians. How is this not worse?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    So in my view Both the Isreali government and hamas are terrorists.
    That's your view, and i respect that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Good for you, no doubt it was interesting. I'm sure you'll agree with my logic then: that if one must have spoken to a certain amount of Israelis to comment on the situation then one must also have spoken to Palestinians (who don't all dislike Arafat btw, I have spoken to some too!)
    I dont think you neccessarily have to have spoken to them directly, but it sure helps. The main problem is that people fail to recognise that they need to check several different media in order to form their own opinion. Britain is quite lucky to have a rather objective news agency (The BBC) but in other countries (Such as Sweden from which I come) objective news is a luxury good. Also, without knowing thebackground for the conflict you are as lost as a blind and deaf mouse with a plugged nose.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajoruna)
    I'd rate Sharon as a greater '*******' then Arafat, you only have to look at the massacre of Sabra that earned him the name 'butcher of Sabra' due to the 110,00 Palestinians murdered; an event that even though recognised fully by Israels report on Sabra as being entirely down to Sharon does not see him punished.
    If you want to bring up crimes that has happened decades ago, I can ensure you that Arafat will not be the one who comes out better out of teh two respective leaders. I have spoken to former palestinian activists who previously acted directly under Arafats command. Btw, did you know that the same day that Arafat went to norway to receive his nobel price, a palestinian was handed over to Germany for a Airplane hijacking she performed on Arafats direct order? Arafat founded the Fateh movement, the main terrorist organisation which has caused the most deaths of innocent civilians in the ME since the conflict started. During the 60s and 70s he sent men armed with machine guns into Israeli schools and pre schools with orders to shoot anything that moved. He is also responsible for countless of suceide bombings and killings since the late 50s. If you compare this with the conviction Sharon carries, that he failed to prevent a christian separatist organisation from performing atacking a palestinian refugee camp, Arafat is several magnitudes worse.

    Btw: Sharon was teh one who STOPPED teh massacre in the above mentioned refugee camp. His conviction was based on teh fact that he did not manage to forsee it. If Sharon is to be held responsible for that massacre, then Arafat is to be held responsible for the crimes of Hamas, Fateh and PLFP during teh last decades.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I dont think you neccessarily have to have spoken to them directly, but it sure helps. The main problem is that people fail to recognise that they need to check several different media in order to form their own opinion. Britain is quite lucky to have a rather objective news agency (The BBC) but in other countries (Such as Sweden from which I come) objective news is a luxury good. Also, without knowing thebackground for the conflict you are as lost as a blind and deaf mouse with a plugged nose.
    I don't think you do either, but Gary seemed to think so and if you have to speak to Israelis to legitimately comment, then in the interests of objectivity you have to speak to Palestinians too. Having only spoken to Israelis is hardly likely to make one unbiased, you'd have to hear both sides. No less important then looking at many news channels, or knowing the history.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I don't think you do either, but Gary seemed to think so and if you have to speak to Israelis to legitimately comment, then in the interests of objectivity you have to speak to Palestinians too. Having only spoken to Israelis is hardly likely to make one unbiased, you'd have to hear both sides. No less important then looking at many news channels, or knowing the history.
    Could not agree any more. People far to often just slip away with political correctness without even trying to think about whether what people tell them is accurate or not. In fact, I think I will considder giving you a rep for that message (Have to wait til tomorrow though, as I am out of my quota)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    are you trying to justify terrorism? agreed the israeli actions are totally illegal however the killing of innocent by the sucide bombers is totally immoral and is far worse.
    youre right even though their actions are legal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The israeli troops have also been known to shoot people on the borders for no apparent reason (see british peace activist killed a while back).
    i wouldnt say no apparent reason. that is your judgement not a fact.

    They may use precision attacks but how offten on the news do you hear that a child has also been killed in the attack? Hamas uses what it has to make their point to the world I am not saying that they are right because terrorism is never right. But then I deffinately don't agree with the stance that the Israelis are taking. They are killing spiritual leaders and then not expecting retaliation. There will be retaliation if you MURDER someone who is important to a group of people.
    ...who already concentrate 110% on your extermination. what do you want them to do, negotiate? hope it all goes away?


    "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

    Personally I believe that this describes what the Ireali government is doing just as much as it describes the actions of Hamas
    unlawful?
    person/organised group?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    There is a difference between attack and defence every one knows that. The isrealis are doing more than just protecting themselve they are also on the offensive.
    are they? where?

    An interesting survey that I just saw carried out by AOL showed that 80% or people they asked felt that Isreal were now a danger to the world.
    thats cast iron then..this was in Europe by any chance?

    Our government is also openly condeming these recent attacks.
    but supports the Sharon government. Britain has a liberal majority to appease.

    [QUOTE}
    I am not saying that the hamas attacks are any better than the Isreali attacks but they aren't any worse either.
    [/QUOTE]

    oh lord..

    Isreal won't go into peace talks with palistine when they willing so really Isreal need to take this chance to go into peace talks and sort someting out
    dont you mean, 'Palestine is not interested in peace when Israel is willing"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    First of all, there is a HUGE difference between Israeli incursions and Hamas atacks. namely that teh IDF atempts to minimise the amount of civilian victims (though it is quite difficult seing as Hamas and Fateh pretty much try to hide among them causing a vast number of civilians to get caught in crossfire) whereas Hamas and Fateh are outright targeting civilians. Regarding the number of people seing Israel as a danger to the world, I could mention that Israel was regarded as a greater threat by that investigation than both the US, Iraq , North Korea, and Iran. Id say this sais more about teh investigation and our media than the situation in teh ME. Seriously. A country with less than 10 million inhabitants only a fraction of britains geographic area, is NOT a therat to the world. The only way Israel can be regarded as a therat to the world would be if you include in teh calculation the posssibility that teh Arab world would atack the rest of the world when trying to cease Israels existance.
    agreed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Well unlike last time, where they quickly publicised the name of the new leader, they're being far quieter over announcing the successor to Rantissi.

    Seems they're scared
    As well they should be. Two Hamas leaders in less than a month;their exact whearabouts so well known to the Israeli's that they have helicopter gunships in the area exactly when needed; sounds like Hamas have a very serious infiltration problem to me!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    are they? where?
    Recently they have been killing Hamas leaders (not the problem) In built up urban areas where there will also be many civillian casualties.



    (Original post by vienna95)
    thats cast iron then..this was in Europe by any chance?
    Does it matter if it is Europe? it is an oppinion poll and all I was trying to point out is that people questioned think that Isreal are in the wronge.


    (Original post by vienna95)
    but supports the Sharon government. Britain has a liberal majority to appease.?
    Which is a good thing and the reason why Britain is condeming the attacks the attacks are wronge and many British people now see this I don't see why that is a bad thing.

    oh lord..
    They both kill civilians so why is what the Palitinians are doing any worse that what the Isrealies are doing? The isrealies have killed more people in the last 3-4 years than palistine.

    dont you mean, 'Palestine is not interested in peace when Israel is willing"?
    The isrealies are the ones who have said that they won't negatiate with terrorist and have moved away for the road map changing it so it is no longer an ever partially good deal for the palistinans. I mean the isrealies are on palistinian land how is that right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I consider both moral and historical arguments on this issue to be an irrelevancy. Both sides have suffered terribly; both have acted in immoral ways. Trying to prove one side is either "morally right" or "historical right" is thus futile - both sides are right.

    Unfortunately, though these matters are irrelevant, they are extremely damaging. Instead of attempting to construct a a way forward, whole lives and careers are dedicated to claiming the moral high ground. It is yet another of the tragedies of this conflict.

    The state of Israel will not tolerate attacks on its citizens. This is a fact. Whether it's morally right or not is irrelevant. Consequently, the only way to stop the targeted assasinations is to reduce the scale of suicide bombings. At present, the PA simply isn't strong enough (or willing enough) to do this. The international community must attempt to remedy this; I would suggest a system whereby each month which passes without a suicide boming sees $10,000,000 deposited in the PA's bank accounts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Stupid Israelis. A ten year old can understand that if you kill a palestinian of that authority there will be a hundres of his followers willing to die to avenge him. These aren't normal circumstances, and either they can continue the death or realise that perhaps giving up some land they stole 50 years ago would put an end to the almost daily violence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    Stupid Israelis. A ten year old can understand that if you kill a palestinian of that authority there will be a hundres of his followers willing to die to avenge him. These aren't normal circumstances, and either they can continue the death or realise that perhaps giving up some land they stole 50 years ago would put an end to the almost daily violence.
    It's so nice to be able to discuss these topics with well informed, interested people who are more than willing to carefully consider the situation.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.