Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Israel or Palestine?

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic
rdemel
  • rdemel

    R_ de_ Mel

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#1

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:32 PM Edited by rdemel, 04 February 2013 - 06:30 PM.

I support Palestine because i feel sorry for them. Israeli jewish terror groups were the first terror groups in the conflict. Groups like irgun, lehi, hagannah and stern gang killed so many innocent Palestinians was back in 1948 to the 1970's.

Israel does indeed target civilians as opposed to their propaganda and i also feel that Israel is an artificial democracy. In my opinion Israel claims to be as democratic as other western democracies but the behaviour of Israel proves otherwise. When a Palestinian kills innocent Jews then he is immediately caught and sentenced to prison for life. However, when it is the other way round, let's say if a Israeli settler in the occupied territories kills a Palestinian then he is hardly ever charged. In the rare event he is charged then he will initially be given life sentence when the issue is all over the global media but when things die down and the international community moves on to something else then they would quickly release the Jewish perpetrators after a much shorter prison sentence. Look up the case of Ami Popper.
Also look up the case of Eden Natan zada. An Israeli soldier who went into Palestinian territory and gunned down innocent Palestinians just for the sake of it. The whole incident ended when Palestinian bystanders got raged at what they saw and lynched him. As a result of this the Palestinians who stopped the rampaging Israeli were sentenced to prison with the charge of murder. The mad thing is that there have been numerous occasions when Jews in Israel have stopped Palestinian attackers by themselves and the authorities did not charge those Jews. Basically, what Israel was trying to say to the Palestinians was ''how dare you filthy people stop this Jew from killing your people. we wanted to be the ones to arrest him so that we can later release him.'' Disgusting double standards.
There are just so many examples of Israeli tyranny which cause me to believe that Israel is not really a democracy. I will provide one last example. The Kafr Qasim massacre where Israeli soldiers enforced a cufew on a Poor Palestinian village and this curfew meant that no Arab was to walk on the streets after 5 pm. The orders were to shoot any Arab dead if he was seen outside. The Israelis did not even inform the Arabs of the curfew and when innocent people were returning home from work they were gunned down.
So i want to ask you if you believe Israel is a legitimate democracy?

Also What do you think of hamas and do you support what they do?
i personally feel that while what they do can sometimes be labelled as extremist , Israel is the one who creates the '' terrorists'' it complains of. If Palestinians were treated properly in gaza and west bank then there would be no need for hamas. Obviously the man whose daughter was shot dead when she was trying to buy sweets is going to lose control of his emotions and join hamas and try to get revenge.

Colonel_Buttfuck
  • Colonel_Buttfuck

    Destroyer Of Worlds

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2012

#2

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

Claiming rights to a land because a story book says you're the "chosen" people doesn't seem legit. Palestine all the way. If jews have the right to a country of their own, than so does the palestines.

Radoonhagaydoon
  • Radoonhagaydoon

    Ignorance lives everywhere.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2012

#3

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

YouTube needs to change it from West Bank to Palestine tho

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#4

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:08 PM

This has been discussed before at greater depth. There's also a similar topic in General Chat where these opinions have been voiced. Please edit your initial post to expand on your views to a greater degree; this isn't General Chat. If you can expand on your initial post, I'll keep the thread open. My two cents- it's idiotic to support either side wholly. Israel is an established state whereas despite having designs on statehood Palestine isn't. Nor has it ever been, for that matter. Palestine in history has always been part of a great empire, with varying states of indigenous-ness. I don't support much of Israel's recent activities, but on the other hand I understand them given the historical context. Both sides have squandered numerous opportunities for a proper peace settlement and both sides must hold equal responsibility for the current impasse in my view.

In the long term, I support a two-state solution based on 1947 borders. I'm abhorrently against the continued settlement of Israeli citizens on occupied land and detest the recent behaviour of the right-leaning government, but by the same token Hamas are a disgusting abomination with just as much to answer for in the suffering of the Palestinian people as Israel.

Raavi
  • Raavi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Antarctica
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#5

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

Israel is a developed country while "Palestine" is the total opposite. Israel is a real democracy with a legitimate non terrorist government unlike "Palestine". They turned dry land into a fully developed modern country in a matter of decades, imagine what they can do if they don't have to blow so much on defense. Sure there are some exceptions but regions like Tel Aviv are very westernized. They have an amazing good military power and the backing of the United States. Those Palestinians don't have it that bad on Israeli soil, in a huge part of the Middle East they are looked upon as less than human. I am 100% convinced Israel is the rightful owner of the land. But i'm also of the opinion that the hate they display for each other is indoctrinated and a jew can perfectly live next to a Palestinian. In fact there have been tests with kids letting them grow up next to each other, they became friends.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#6

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

I support Israel until such a time as the other Middle Eastern states become fully secular democracies and the political wing of Islam is demolished completely.
Until that time, they are an important ally in a very unstable region. But an ally I find detestable. Their arrogance, their ham-fisted diplomacy, their indifference to the rights of the Palestinians are the first thing that springs to mind when I consider this nation.

And it's funny because I really don't give a damn about the Palestinians, I don't care how many are killed, their plight mean nothing to me. But Israel is so tactless, so stupid and obviously brutal that I can't help but be disgusted - murder and ethnic cleansing are acceptable policies for any nation provided they are used sparingly and well hidden. But the Israelites go about the task with all the elegance of a blind butcher. It's not how an intelligent state conducts itself, that is my point.

But at the moment, we need this blind butcher, they are important to us. When they outlive their usefulness, it's a different matter and I would not be adverse to some action taken against them to hold their leaders accountable for all they have done.
Speaking candidly, I very much look forward to the day when we no longer need them and relish the prospect of them being taken down a notch or two.

Radoonhagaydoon
  • Radoonhagaydoon

    Ignorance lives everywhere.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Mar 2012

#7

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:39 PM

Why is everybody obsessing over politics - I don't understand what a Middle Eastern is. I thought this sh*t was West Asian. These people are Asian as any other part of Asia.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#8

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:20 PM Edited by sivispacem, 04 February 2013 - 08:22 PM.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
In my opinion Israel claims to be as democratic as other western democracies but the behaviour of Israel proves otherwise. When a Palestinian kills innocent Jews then he is immediately caught and sentenced to prison for life. However, when it is the other way round, let's say if a Israeli settler in the occupied territories kills a Palestinian then he is hardly ever charged. In the rare event he is charged then he will initially be given life sentence when the issue is all over the global media but when things die down and the international community moves on to something else then they would quickly release the Jewish perpetrators after a much shorter prison sentence.

The rule of law doesn't relate directly to democracy in this sense. The fact that there's a (perceived) legal prejudice against Palestinians in favour of Israeli citizens doesn't reflect on how democratic or otherwise a nation is.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
Also look up the case of Eden Natan zada. An Israeli soldier who went into Palestinian territory and gunned down innocent Palestinians just for the sake of it. The whole incident ended when Palestinian bystanders got raged at what they saw and lynched him. As a result of this the Palestinians who stopped the rampaging Israeli were sentenced to prison with the charge of murder.

Completely inaccurate. He had already been handcuffed and neutralised. He was beaten to death by a mob whilst he was immobilised and posed no threat. That's murder, pure and simple.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
The mad thing is that there have been numerous occasions when Jews in Israel have stopped Palestinian attackers by themselves and the authorities did not charge those Jews.

That's because it's self-defence. Killing a handcuffed man is not self-defence.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
The Kafr Qasim massacre

Do you forget that Palestinians were responsible for the massacring of Jewish settlers between the late 1800s and the formation of the mandate? In fact, do you forget the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine where they massacred hundreds if not thousands of Jewish settlers? As I said before, both sides are as bad as each other.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
So i want to ask you if you believe Israel is a legitimate democracy?

I believe that Israel is a democratic country, because every democracy index categorises it as such. That isn't to say they don't have their fair share of problems or issues.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
Israel is the one who creates the '' terrorists'' it complains of.

May I refer you to the First and Second Intifada? On both occasions Yassir Arafat was personally responsible for surges in violence- in the first case having the killing of at least a thousand (and as many as two thousand) Palestinians effectively sanctioned for supporting a two-state solution as opposed to the annihilation of Israel (by some account that's several hundred more than died by Israel's hand); in the second case supporting a campaign of terrorism for the sole purpose of trying to force Israel into a less favourable negotiating position at a time when Ehud Barak was actually probably closer to a negotiated peace that even Rabin had been. There's evidence to suggest that the Second Intifada was pre-planned despite the fact that a relative lull in cross-border violence existed, and that reasonable inroads had been made into a two-state solution. It's totally misleading to solely blame Israel for the state of the nation when there's evidence that members of the Palestinian Authority have been personally sanctioning violence against Israel and her citizens at a time when they are meant to be engaged in the assembly of a two-state solution. As I've previously said, both sides must bear equal responsibility.

Not to mention I hate apologists for terrorist organisations. It disgusts me that people imply that because of the questionable actions of a state, their citizens are legitimate targets. That's no more right than the violence of the state; in fact I would argue it's worse. At least the state doesn't intentionally target civilians, even if they show an abhorrent disregard for their safety.

There's little to no evidence to suggest that it's grieving family members or other "noble warriors" (implied) who are joining Hamas. It's foreign Jihadi militants, mostly from North Africa, many affiliated with AQIM, funded by Iran and Syria, crossing into the Gaza Strip via the Sinai desert. If it were a domestic terrorist organisation I'd have at least a passing understanding with the infatuation for apologism, but the simple fact of the matter is that they're basically a multinational Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organisation whose aim isn't so much about counteracting the atrocities committed by Israel but borderline-genocidal, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Shia, anti-Sufi, Takfiri promotion of violence, extremism and in some elements global jihad. People who sympathise with them clearly have no understanding of their aspirations.

Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#9

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:31 PM

I'm not going to try and 'properly' argue politics on a forum (realised the hopeless pointlessness of that long ago), but everyone should read People Like Us (origina title in Dutch: Het zijn net mensen) by Joris Luyendijk.

Here's an interesting link to read: http://www.letterenf.../people-like-us

Also, having said that, Israel is pretty goddamn terrible.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#10

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:51 AM

With most (attempted) negotiations have to be done on the premise that Israel has a legitimate right to expand, and they never allow a mediator with a humanitarian agenda (ie, the UN). How people can say both sides are equally responsible is beyond me when Israel continually shoots down offers of negotiations on the aforementioned basis- Israel deserves hugely disproportionate blame for the derailment of the track toward a peaceful solution, since they actively oppose it at every turn.

Hamas is offering peace. While they won't engage in a de jure recognition of the State of Israel, they've abandoned their claims to Israeli territory and accept that their borders end at the green line (ie, the 1967 borders; not a bad deal for Israel), and I fail to see why the onus is on Palestine to recognise Israel, when Israel and her allies don't recognise the State of Palestine, which is governed by the PNC who has both internal and international (as in, a UN majority) support- and is even recognised by Israel as representative of the Palestinian people.

While Hamas is obviously a despicable organisation, it does have popular support. There are a number of other- even secular and left wing- political parties in Palestine yet the people support Hamas. And what makes people tend towards militarism? Foreign aggression, it's rarely irrational racial hatred or religious extremism. I'm fairly confident that people wouldn't support these nutjobs if they weren't living under a brutal, wanton occupation that dehumanises, oppresses and indiscriminately kills the people of Palestine.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#11

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 04:51)
Hamas is offering peace. While they won't engage in a de jure recognition of the State of Israel, they've abandoned their claims to Israeli territory and accept that their borders end at the green line (ie, the 1967 borders; not a bad deal for Israel), and I fail to see why the onus is on Palestine to recognise Israel, when Israel and her allies don't recognise the State of Palestine, which is governed by the PNC who has both internal and international (as in, a UN majority) support- and is even recognised by Israel as representative of the Palestinian people.

The issue with Hamas is it's factional; it isn't really a clearly defined organisation. In all honesty it isn't fair to address Hamas directly as it's a broad-based political movement; that's really a mistake of the media. The movement itself isn't principally that objectionable- as you point out, they have made steps towards the recognition of Israel, and as you've also pointed out they do hold a legitimate mandate for governance in the Gaza Strip. It's the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the various militant sub-groups who pose the problem; in technical terms they're the armed wing of Hamas but they don't really align with the organisation's political strategy and hold almost complete independence of activity. The relaxation in central Hamas rhetoric has not been reflected by a reduction in aggression from the Brigades- and rightly or wrongly they're seen as one and the same by both Israel and the wider world.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#12

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:27 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 17:57)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 04:51)
Hamas is offering peace. While they won't engage in a de jure recognition of the State of Israel, they've abandoned their claims to Israeli territory and accept that their borders end at the green line (ie, the 1967 borders; not a bad deal for Israel), and I fail to see why the onus is on Palestine to recognise Israel, when Israel and her allies don't recognise the State of Palestine, which is governed by the PNC who has both internal and international (as in, a UN majority) support- and is even recognised by Israel as representative of the Palestinian people.

The issue with Hamas is it's factional; it isn't really a clearly defined organisation. In all honesty it isn't fair to address Hamas directly as it's a broad-based political movement; that's really a mistake of the media. The movement itself isn't principally that objectionable- as you point out, they have made steps towards the recognition of Israel, and as you've also pointed out they do hold a legitimate mandate for governance in the Gaza Strip. It's the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the various militant sub-groups who pose the problem; in technical terms they're the armed wing of Hamas but they don't really align with the organisation's political strategy and hold almost complete independence of activity. The relaxation in central Hamas rhetoric has not been reflected by a reduction in aggression from the Brigades- and rightly or wrongly they're seen as one and the same by both Israel and the wider world.

Interesting. Are these different factions also independent? As in, do they all work with the same resources? If so, wouldn't the leader of Hamas (who is offering peace) control the resources, and thus, be representative of Hamas whether the militant Islamic factions support him or not?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#13

Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:48 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 09:27)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 17:57)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 04:51)
Hamas is offering peace. While they won't engage in a de jure recognition of the State of Israel, they've abandoned their claims to Israeli territory and accept that their borders end at the green line (ie, the 1967 borders; not a bad deal for Israel), and I fail to see why the onus is on Palestine to recognise Israel, when Israel and her allies don't recognise the State of Palestine, which is governed by the PNC who has both internal and international (as in, a UN majority) support- and is even recognised by Israel as representative of the Palestinian people.

The issue with Hamas is it's factional; it isn't really a clearly defined organisation. In all honesty it isn't fair to address Hamas directly as it's a broad-based political movement; that's really a mistake of the media. The movement itself isn't principally that objectionable- as you point out, they have made steps towards the recognition of Israel, and as you've also pointed out they do hold a legitimate mandate for governance in the Gaza Strip. It's the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the various militant sub-groups who pose the problem; in technical terms they're the armed wing of Hamas but they don't really align with the organisation's political strategy and hold almost complete independence of activity. The relaxation in central Hamas rhetoric has not been reflected by a reduction in aggression from the Brigades- and rightly or wrongly they're seen as one and the same by both Israel and the wider world.

Interesting. Are these different factions also independent? As in, do they all work with the same resources? If so, wouldn't the leader of Hamas (who is offering peace) control the resources, and thus, be representative of Hamas whether the militant Islamic factions support him or not?

It's complex. As an armed wing they're supposed to be subservient to the political entity but they aren't. This is obvious from the distinct funding channels they have. Hamas- that is, the political party- are primarily funded by the Gulf and wealthier North African/Middle Eastern nations who have historically backed Palestinian autonomy and self-determination. In contrast the Brigades and the various affiliated terrorist organisations pull down most of their funding from Iran and Syria, and to a greater or lesser degree have, like Hezbollah, also been equipped by Russia and China to act as a strategic buffer to US influence in the region. Much of the recent internal conflict in Gaza- something not well covered by the Western media- has been comprised of in-fighting between various armed factions who oppose the two-state solution and Hamas' security forces (not part of the Brigades) who are are closer to a militia than an armed wing and who follow more closely the Hamas political line.

LewisMiller
  • LewisMiller

    Luton Tannnnnn

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011
  • None

#14

Posted 05 February 2013 - 03:17 PM Edited by LewisMiller, 05 February 2013 - 04:57 PM.

Sorry for my one word post and I know this one isn't much better, but I would say that I support Israel because 1) This is a silly reason but because although I am atheist I do believe that every religion needs a country to be its hub where the vast majority practice that religion. 2) the land was given to them they didn't steal it even though I do admit that they are getting cheeky by stretching it out. 3) They are great trading partners with the U.K. 4) I would consider Israel the most 'like the west' out of the countries in the middle east so they could be the ones that we relate to in that part of the world. 5) Although they do punch back they get sucker punched all the time and people expect them not to retaliate so they are just in there defense strikes on Palestine.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#15

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:10 PM

QUOTE (LewisMiller @ Wednesday, Feb 6 2013, 01:17)
1) This is a silly reason but because although I am atheist I do believe that every religion needs a country to be its hub where the vast majority practice that religion.

There's a difference between not supporting Israel- like most sane people- and saying they want Israel obliterated. Apart from radical Islamists (we probably don't have any of them on here at GTAF) Israel's right to exist is not in question. The reason it's detestable to support Israel is because they violate international law, killing countless civilians and engage in judicial practises, building of infrastructure and even collect revenue on what is unambiguously foreign soil. It is illegal, in every sense of the word, to gain territory through conflict and Israel treats all of Palestine like they have a legitimate right to administrate it even if they haven't annexed it in the de jure sense.

QUOTE
2) the land was given to them they didn't steal it even though I do admit that they are getting cheeky by stretching it out.

Bit more than "cheeky" wouldn't you say? More like a glaring violation of international law. What don't people understand? International laws are by no means guidelines on how to conduct yourself on the international stage, that can be ignored if circumstances require it, they are laws that have to be followed. You can't annex territory because you want to build a buffer zone any more than you can kill somebody for constantly parking in front of your driveway. Laws are laws and just because we're talking about countries rather than people, doesn't mean they can be ignored.

QUOTE
3) They are great trading partners with the U.K. 4) I would consider Israel the most 'like the west' out of the countries in the middle east so they could be the ones that we relate to in that part of the world.

This would continue if they stopped their occupation.

QUOTE
5) Although they do punch back they get sucker punched all the time and people expect them not to retaliate so they are just in there defense strikes on Palestine.

Erm, what? I don't know how you've been led to believe that Israel responds proportionately to aggression... but they don't. Palestinian terrorists engage in rocket attacks- suicide bombings have stopped... funny how Palestine is the only agent making any progress but I digress- and the youth tend to throw rocks at Israeli settlements, which kind of seems like a reasonable reaction to people demolishing your neighbourhood, killing your family, blowing up your school, taking everything you have then building infrastructure for their own peoples' use and putting a big barb wire fence around it. Where as Israel responds with gunship helicopter attacks, basically, imagine someone carried out a rocket attack on Israel or threw a rock that killed a baby in its crib, then went back to their apartment at the top floor of a huge apartment building; Israel comes in and blows the whole thing up with everyone inside... they might blow up neighbouring ones as well.

It's less a matter of defensive strikes to neutralise threats, more a wanton revenge campaign for Israelis that have died in the conflict. Imagine you're an Israeli who lives in a settlement and got his head bashed in with a rock, you're probably going to support the violent persecution of the Palestinians. dozingoff.gif

sivis, what I'm hearing is: the terrorist elements of Hamas are, for all intents and purposes, not even the same organisation as the political party, they are simply grouped together for political convenience.

Double L.
  • Double L.

    I hate Trevor !!

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#16

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:34 PM

Regardless, no one hasn't the right to killing children and innocent people, unarmed people. It's not war it's a crimes against humanity.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#17

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:41 PM

QUOTE (Double L. @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 19:34)
Regardless, no one hasn't the right to killing children and innocent people, unarmed people. It's not war it's a crimes against humanity.

Presumably this applies as much to militant organisations who attack Israel as it does Israel's indiscriminate attacks on the Palestinian territories?

Melchoir- partially. Hamas are very factional, they are by no means a united movement. The same way that there are moderates and extremists in Islamist political parties, there are moderates and extremists in Hamas. The moderates are unfairly maligned by the militants, but those who cast Hamas as a peaceful organisation pushed to desperate action by Israel forget that it does contain a sizeable number of full on global jihadists as well as militant anti-Semites.

The most interesting aspect of the whole thing is the link between Stalinist era state-sponsored bigotry and the emergence of a united Arab region under the helm of Arab Socialism. I am of the belief that s lot of regional aggression towards Israel is misplaced, soviet-era propaganda designed to cast the allies of the West as the devil incarnate. But that's an argument for when I'm sober...

Chris Fromage
  • Chris Fromage

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2012
  • Japan

#18

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:12 PM Edited by Chris Fromage, 06 February 2013 - 11:19 PM.

I support Palestine.

(Haters, come at me!)
Now seriuose, i think that the problem would not be that huge if Israel wouldn't colonise palestine .
Still, both dont have the right to kill innocent people...

- User was warned for this post -

rdemel
  • rdemel

    R_ de_ Mel

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#19

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:03 PM Edited by rdemel, 08 February 2013 - 09:20 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 19:20)
QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
In my opinion Israel claims to be as democratic as other western democracies but the behaviour of Israel proves otherwise. When a Palestinian kills innocent Jews then he is immediately caught and sentenced to prison for life. However, when it is the other way round, let's say if a Israeli settler in the occupied territories kills a Palestinian then he is hardly ever charged. In the rare event he is charged then he will initially be given life sentence when the issue is all over the global media but when things die down and the international community moves on to something else then they would quickly release the Jewish perpetrators after a much shorter prison sentence.

The rule of law doesn't relate directly to democracy in this sense. The fact that there's a (perceived) legal prejudice against Palestinians in favour of Israeli citizens doesn't reflect on how democratic or otherwise a nation is.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
Also look up the case of Eden Natan zada. An Israeli soldier who went into Palestinian territory and gunned down innocent Palestinians just for the sake of it. The whole incident ended when Palestinian bystanders got raged at what they saw and lynched him. As a result of this the Palestinians who stopped the rampaging Israeli were sentenced to prison with the charge of murder.

Completely inaccurate. He had already been handcuffed and neutralised. He was beaten to death by a mob whilst he was immobilised and posed no threat. That's murder, pure and simple.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
The mad thing is that there have been numerous occasions when Jews in Israel have stopped Palestinian attackers by themselves and the authorities did not charge those Jews.

That's because it's self-defence. Killing a handcuffed man is not self-defence.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
The Kafr Qasim massacre

Do you forget that Palestinians were responsible for the massacring of Jewish settlers between the late 1800s and the formation of the mandate? In fact, do you forget the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine where they massacred hundreds if not thousands of Jewish settlers? As I said before, both sides are as bad as each other.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
So i want to ask you if you believe Israel is a legitimate democracy?

I believe that Israel is a democratic country, because every democracy index categorises it as such. That isn't to say they don't have their fair share of problems or issues.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Monday, Feb 4 2013, 18:32)
Israel is the one who creates the '' terrorists'' it complains of.

May I refer you to the First and Second Intifada? On both occasions Yassir Arafat was personally responsible for surges in violence- in the first case having the killing of at least a thousand (and as many as two thousand) Palestinians effectively sanctioned for supporting a two-state solution as opposed to the annihilation of Israel (by some account that's several hundred more than died by Israel's hand); in the second case supporting a campaign of terrorism for the sole purpose of trying to force Israel into a less favourable negotiating position at a time when Ehud Barak was actually probably closer to a negotiated peace that even Rabin had been. There's evidence to suggest that the Second Intifada was pre-planned despite the fact that a relative lull in cross-border violence existed, and that reasonable inroads had been made into a two-state solution. It's totally misleading to solely blame Israel for the state of the nation when there's evidence that members of the Palestinian Authority have been personally sanctioning violence against Israel and her citizens at a time when they are meant to be engaged in the assembly of a two-state solution. As I've previously said, both sides must bear equal responsibility.

Not to mention I hate apologists for terrorist organisations. It disgusts me that people imply that because of the questionable actions of a state, their citizens are legitimate targets. That's no more right than the violence of the state; in fact I would argue it's worse. At least the state doesn't intentionally target civilians, even if they show an abhorrent disregard for their safety.

There's little to no evidence to suggest that it's grieving family members or other "noble warriors" (implied) who are joining Hamas. It's foreign Jihadi militants, mostly from North Africa, many affiliated with AQIM, funded by Iran and Syria, crossing into the Gaza Strip via the Sinai desert. If it were a domestic terrorist organisation I'd have at least a passing understanding with the infatuation for apologism, but the simple fact of the matter is that they're basically a multinational Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organisation whose aim isn't so much about counteracting the atrocities committed by Israel but borderline-genocidal, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Shia, anti-Sufi, Takfiri promotion of violence, extremism and in some elements global jihad. People who sympathise with them clearly have no understanding of their aspirations.

You say ''The rule of law doesn't relate directly to democracy in this sense. The fact that there's a (perceived) legal prejudice against Palestinians in favour of Israeli citizens doesn't reflect on how democratic or otherwise a nation is.''

False the rule of law does indeed show whether a nation truly is democratic or just artificially democratic. A nation that is democratic would not have the legal prejudice against Palestinians in favour of Israeli Jews. The fact that there is legal prejudice shows how artificially democratic Israel really is. No other democracy like the UK or USA or other western nations would dare call themselves a democracy and have widespread legal prejudice towards an ethnic minority.

you say ''Completely inaccurate. He had already been handcuffed and neutralised. He was beaten to death by a mob whilst he was immobilised and posed no threat. That's murder, pure and simple.''

Okay i explained the facts wrong by mistake. But it does not change the fact that there are double standards. Okay take the same Eden natan zada case. He was detained and then killed. His Palestinian killers were charged with murder. Now look at this
the Palestinian getting killed committed a crime and was shot in the legs. He was under the control of the Israeli soldiers. Still a settler( non soldier) ran him over. How come the settler was not charged with murder/attempted murder? It is because of Israel's double standards and does not prosecute jewish settlers when they take the law into their own hands. Also on double standards. Every Israeli who has killed Palestinians has received shortened sentences after a short while after imprisonment. There is not one Palestinian who has had a life sentenced reduced for killing an Israeli. You will not be able to find one example. It is also impossible to find an example of an Israeli who wrongfully killed innocent arabs and died in jail by serving his/her life sentence.

You say ''Do you forget that Palestinians were responsible for the massacring of Jewish settlers between the late 1800s and the formation of the mandate? In fact, do you forget the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine where they massacred hundreds if not thousands of Jewish settlers? As I said before, both sides are as bad as each other.''

These massacres before the state of Israel's creation are not relevant to the question of which side had the first official terrorist groups. Those Palestinian mobs were individuals who were not acting on behalf on any state. They did not belong to any terrorist organisation. They were rowdy hooligans out on fascist rampages. They were not representatives of any Palestinian body. Israel on the other hand being an official state had formed militias which carried out intentional massacres of Palestinian people. Unarmed men, women and children massacred for the purpose of spreading fear in Palestinian lands so that Palestinians would move out. These massacres were committed by state representatives. Irgun, Lehi. Stern gang and Hagganah were all state representatives and nobody can say that the attacks they committed were not of a terrorist nature. The whole world has condemned them and even after continuous international pressure Israel finally apologized for these terror militias and their massacres and then banned them. These militias did all of this on behalf of the state of Israel. They were set up by Israel itself. For a country that calls itself a democracy this is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that they form terrorist militias. So indeed Israel did have the first organized terrorist groups in the land. These were not individual civilians who decided to go rampaging like the Palestinians did on those few occasions pre 1948. Hamas was created decades later than Irgun, stern gang, lehi and Haganah.

You say '' As I've previously said, both sides must bear equal responsibility.''

I agree. Both sides are wrong to some degree. But i still hold that Israel is much more wrong than the Palestinian side.

You say ''There's little to no evidence to suggest that it's grieving family members or other "noble warriors" (implied) who are joining Hamas. It's foreign Jihadi militants, mostly from North Africa, many affiliated with AQIM, funded by Iran and Syria, crossing into the Gaza Strip via the Sinai desert. If it were a domestic terrorist organisation I'd have at least a passing understanding with the infatuation for apologism, but the simple fact of the matter is that they're basically a multinational Sunni fundamentalist terrorist organisation whose aim isn't so much about counteracting the atrocities committed by Israel but borderline-genocidal, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-Shia, anti-Sufi, Takfiri promotion of violence, extremism and in some elements global jihad. People who sympathise with them clearly have no understanding of their aspirations.''

Actually there is no evidence to say that hamas militants are composed of foreign jihadists from North Africa and other Arab nations. There is no source for that information and i do not know where you got that idea. It is false. Hamas is a multi national corporation meaning that it has offices in several countries. But what you say about North African and other muslim jihadists composing hamas' military wing is very inaccurate. Hamas is a Gaza strip based organisation. There is no proof at all for hamas having members of non Palestinian background. No proof whatsoever.
And there are just over 1. 5 million people living in the Gaza strip. It is reasonable for me to say that many Palestinians join hamas out of desperation. It is common sense. when things like this happen
( ). This video was all over the news and and many others are published online. People do indeed stand up for their oppressed people. The video i provided is just one of the Tens and thousands of examples of Israeli fascism which naturally causes Palestinians to hate Israel. They just don't wake up one day and decide that they will wage war against Israel because''they hate the western way of life''. People who believe that are naive.

And Hamas is not a global jihad organisation. They are fighting for land. Not for religion and Islamic conquest of the world. They are fighting because they honestly think their people are oppressed, mistreated,dehumanised and are being treated unfairly. And they are correct in thinking so. You say hamas hates Christians, shia etc but again there is no evidence for such a claim. You are mistaking al qaeda for hamas. Israel is the true enemy of Christians. How many Christians have been slain by Israel? too many. There are tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians. They too have been effected equally as their Muslim brothers and sister. Israel does not differentiate between Palestinians Christian and Palestinian Muslim. To them a Palestinian is a ''filthy arab''regardless of religion. I am not saying hamas are angels but to accuse them of being a Christian hating, Shia hating etc movement is not right. They don't hate Christians. They don't hate shias. Hezbollah is an exclusively shia movement and they are hamas' strongest ally in that Levant region. Also to say that hamas is anti sufi is very inaccurate. There is no trace of anti sufism in hamas. Do you know that middle eastern sufi groups have donated to hamas? they would not donate to an anti sufi movement. Hamas does not care about religious affiliation like global Jihadist groups because quite simply it is not a global jihadist group. They care about fighting zionism.
.
.

rdemel
  • rdemel

    R_ de_ Mel

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#20

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:10 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 22:41)
QUOTE (Double L. @ Tuesday, Feb 5 2013, 19:34)
Regardless, no one hasn't the right to killing children and innocent people, unarmed people. It's not war it's a crimes against humanity.

Presumably this applies as much to militant organisations who attack Israel as it does Israel's indiscriminate attacks on the Palestinian territories?

Melchoir- partially. Hamas are very factional, they are by no means a united movement. The same way that there are moderates and extremists in Islamist political parties, there are moderates and extremists in Hamas. The moderates are unfairly maligned by the militants, but those who cast Hamas as a peaceful organisation pushed to desperate action by Israel forget that it does contain a sizeable number of full on global jihadists as well as militant anti-Semites.

The most interesting aspect of the whole thing is the link between Stalinist era state-sponsored bigotry and the emergence of a united Arab region under the helm of Arab Socialism. I am of the belief that s lot of regional aggression towards Israel is misplaced, soviet-era propaganda designed to cast the allies of the West as the devil incarnate. But that's an argument for when I'm sober...

Also in your reply to Melchoir you say ''Melchoir- partially. Hamas are very factional, they are by no means a united movement. The same way that there are moderates and extremists in Islamist political parties, there are moderates and extremists in Hamas. The moderates are unfairly maligned by the militants, but those who cast Hamas as a peaceful organisation pushed to desperate action by Israel forget that it does contain a sizeable number of full on global jihadists as well as militant anti-Semites. ''

That is not true. Hamas are a united movement and it is not factional. There is only one hamas. It is not divided. There are no such divisions such as extremist hamas factions and moderate one. You are getting confused with other Palestinian organisations. In Palestinian territory there are several organisations which have tension with each other. These are PA/Fatah, Islamic Jihad movement, Hamas etc etc these organisations have issues with each other. But each of the organisation i just listed do not have tension within their own individual organisation. They have tensions against rival organisations but not within their own ranks.

there is no such thing as ''moderate hamas'' and then ''extremist hamas''. All hamas party members are united and have the same views. They have tensions with other Palestinian rival factions that have nothing to do with Hamas itself.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#21

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:43 AM

I'll add to this tomorrow when I can respond properly/and am sober, but the fact you try and claim Hamas are a united movement is ridiculous. If it's not a divided movement, then why have the last four or so years been characterised by factional and extremely violent infighting?

rdemel
  • rdemel

    R_ de_ Mel

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#22

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:41 AM

Yes please do add to this and my previous post before that one. I wrote two posts. There has been absolutely no fighting within hamas. There are no ''factions'' within hamas. Please show me one instance of hamas fighting each other. You will not be able to show one source of fighting within hamas. But i can find many examples of what i said. Which was hamas fighting other organisations.

http://www.lebanonwi.../08052522DP.asp

http://www.israelnat...ews.aspx/131392

http://www.haaretz.c...survey-1.235557

nic_23
  • nic_23

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2009
  • None
  • Best New Gang 2012 - High Rollers

#23

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:13 AM

i support neither. i don't like neither. sorry my answer is simple but that is it.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#24

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:42 AM Edited by sivispacem, 09 February 2013 - 10:55 AM.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
False the rule of law does indeed show whether a nation truly is democratic or just artificially democratic.

Does it? May I point you to the definition of the word "democracy"?

QUOTE (A Dictionary)
Democracy
/dɪˈmɒkrəsi/[i]
noun [i](plural democracies)

[mass noun]
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:

Whilst your interpretation of democracy is one currently accepted by many, it's not actually the correct one. The rule of law has no impact on whether a country is democratic or not as long as the population are politically represented either by themselves or by elected members of their community.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
How come the settler was not charged with murder/attempted murder?

How do you know that? It's a YouTube video posted by a pro-Palestinian network. I'll judge the accuracy of this statement when I see it reported from somewhere with a modicum of impartiality. I'd rather not get drawn into either side's propaganda.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
Every Israeli who has killed Palestinians has received shortened sentences after a short while after imprisonment.

Care to quantify this? It's quite a bold statement: "Every single one"?

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
There is not one Palestinian who has had a life sentenced reduced for killing an Israeli.

Ten seconds of Googling found one- Samir Kuntar. Lebanese/Druze PLA member responsible for one of the worst terrorist attacks in Israel's history.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
These massacres before the state of Israel's creation are not relevant to the question of which side had the first official terrorist groups.

I didn't say or imply they were. I'm not disagreeing that Israel raised the first militias who conducted terrorist attacks (though I question whether that makes them a terrorist group; organisations can conduct terrorist attacks and not be a terrorist organisation- it's the campaign of prolonged and organised political violence which characterises terrorist attacks, given that the only major attack I can think of off-hand was the King David Hotel bombing in 1946 which was conducted by a right-wing paramilitary organisation). The question of who had what first is largely irrelevant in this context.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
Those Palestinian mobs were individuals who were not acting on behalf on any state.

The actions on behalf of a state are irrelevant. States possess a mandate for the use of force inside their borders (and outside, within certain limits) and therefore can legitimise violence in some circumstances. A sub-national non-state actor never has a legitimate mandate for violence. To dismiss the actions of historic Palestinian organisations as just "mobs" is quite misleading given that you appear to be implying that the historic actions of Israeli "mobs" acting in the same way during the Mandate as being state sponsored activities, surely?

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
They were not representatives of any Palestinian body.

I'd disagree strongly with this, given that Palestinian political figures actively encouraged violence against Jews during the second phase of the 1936-9 Arab Revolt.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
Israel on the other hand being an official state had formed militias which carried out intentional massacres of Palestinian people. Unarmed men, women and children massacred for the purpose of spreading fear in Palestinian lands so that Palestinians would move out. These massacres were committed by state representatives. Irgun, Lehi. Stern gang and Hagganah were all state representatives and nobody can say that the attacks they committed were not of a terrorist nature. The whole world has condemned them and even after continuous international pressure Israel finally apologized  for these terror militias and their massacres and then banned them.

A few factual pointers:
1) Both the Irgun and Lehi ceased to exist after the foundation of the state of Israel. The former was incorporated into the IDF and the latter outlawed and disbanded after the assassination of Folke Bernadotte.
2) The Lehi and Stern Gang are the same organisation.
3) The Hagganah were also disbanded on Israel's declaration of independence.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
These militias did all of this on behalf of the state of Israel. They were set up by Israel itself. For a country that calls itself a democracy this is unacceptable.

I struggle to see how, given that none of the organisations you've mentioned existed in any meaningful way for any meaningful period of time after Israel's declaration of independence. It wasn't until May 1948 that Israel gained true statehood. Most of these organisations were disbanded at on in May 1948. I don't think it's logical to argue that they could have been the engine of a nation state's government when the nation state only truly came into existence at the same time as their abolishment.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
Actually there is no evidence to say that hamas militants are composed of foreign jihadists from North Africa and other Arab nations. There is no source for that information and i do not know where you got that idea. It is false. Hamas is a multi national corporation meaning that it has offices in several countries. But what you say about North African and other muslim jihadists composing hamas' military wing is very inaccurate. Hamas is a Gaza strip based organisation. There is no proof at all for hamas having members of non Palestinian background. No proof whatsoever.

NY Times article discussing influx of foreign, primarily North African militants and materiel into the Gaza Strip. There are several additional articles discussing the role of Sudan-based violent non-state actors in the trafficking of arms and the materiel and logistical support of Palestinian militant groups, courtesy of Iran. Perhaps I should rephrase- there is no evidence to say that the political wing of Hamas is comprised by foreign Jihadists. There is limited evidence to suggest that some elements of the Brigades are comprised of foreign fighters (see above). There is a great deal of evidence that off-shoot militant groups who retain a loose, indirect affiliation with Hamas, like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are comprised largely of foreign militants.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
Israeli fascism

Whilst i appreciate your personal connection and the hyperbolic flair of comments like this, they are deeply unhelpful in the context of a reasonable and rational discussion. It's fine to show emotion on a subject you are clearly both knowledgeable and passionate about, but false equivocation like this does more harm than good in presenting a case. I know that you mean well, but when I read comments like this the first thing that springs to mind is that you don't know what fascism actually is. The absence of a totalitarian political system precludes fascism from existing in Israel- on a state-based level, at least. That isn't to say that there aren't quite fascist-leaning political organisations in Israel, because there are.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
They just don't wake up one day and decide that they will wage war against Israel because''they hate the western way of life''. People who believe that are naive.

I never said, nor implied, they did. Nor did I say that the militant aspects of Hamas such as the Brigades and other affiliated terrorist groups (which I should have been much clearer about in my initial posts) are solely comprised of foreign militants. The vast majority of the high-ranking members of the Brigades are Palestinian, though there are a few Egyptian members thrown in for good measure. My main point is that the lines of the conflict are far less clear-cut than you imply, by casting the violent non-state actors in the Palestinian territories as one clearly defined, nationally based unit.

QUOTE (rdemel @ Friday, Feb 8 2013, 22:03)
And Hamas is not a global jihad organisation.

Again, I feel I've rather shot myself in the foot by using Hamas as a catch-all term to define the Gaza-based armed resistance against Israel. PIJ and the Brigades are intimately intertwined. There is no doubt that there are militant organisations, like PIJ, who are given relative freedom to operate in the Gaza strip, who do possess global jihadi intentions. That isn't to say that the Brigades also do, but the intimate connection between them at least suggests that there may be an element of it. As for them being radical Sunni extremists and Islamists? A question of great academic debate- plenty of works (such as this) quite convincingly argue the case for a radical and fundamentalist Islamist trend in the Gaza Strip in particular.

Now, onto the question of factional conflict; there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the directions of Hamas. This article did a pretty good job of precluding the move towards a reconciliation process by the Hamas leadership which has come in recent months. The elections in Israel may provide an impetus for further collaboration on both sides. In contrast, the Brigades have continued to involve themselves in terrorist attacks, as have the likes of PIJ. That, to me, suggests there's a split between the organisational leadership and the military wing; there's certainly a split between the organisational leadership and the numerous violent non-state actor offshoots from it. This Council on Foreign Relations sums it all up quite well. Also, Reuters article discussing split in Hamas. The Hamas split and the future of Palestine. The Economist. By "violent infighting", I didn't mean actual necessary conflict, by the way.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#25

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:53 AM

As someone ethnically Jewish, I can't bloody stand Israel.

So you've got this bunch of people, all looking similarly enough and thinking similarly enough for a stereotype to appear. Not identical, but juuuust close enough that you can stereotype their appearance. They all lived in Europe for years, but they decided they can't live with their neighbors anymore. They decide to stretch a bit, to get themselves a bit of lebensraum somewhere else, a nice new comfy country to spread out in. Of course, there's already people living there. So they bring in the soldiers, the tanks... Soon they've got the natives all holed up in a ghetto! Neat and tidy and out of the way, and if they can't be starved to death they can be shot instead.

Who am I describing here?

Toke
  • Toke

    Gonna cover you in sh*t like a ton of pigeons

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2009
  • NATO
  • Contribution Award [Gangs]

#26

Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Wednesday, Mar 20 2013, 04:53)
As someone ethnically Jewish, I can't bloody stand Israel.

So you've got this bunch of people, all looking similarly enough and thinking similarly enough for a stereotype to appear. Not identical, but juuuust close enough that you can stereotype their appearance. They all lived in Europe for years, but they decided they can't live with their neighbors anymore. They decide to stretch a bit, to get themselves a bit of lebensraum somewhere else, a nice new comfy country to spread out in. Of course, there's already people living there. So they bring in the soldiers, the tanks... Soon they've got the natives all holed up in a ghetto! Neat and tidy and out of the way, and if they can't be starved to death they can be shot instead.

Who am I describing here?

The United States?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#27

Posted 20 March 2013 - 06:54 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Wednesday, Mar 20 2013, 12:53)
As someone ethnically Jewish, I can't bloody stand Israel.

So you've got this bunch of people, all looking similarly enough and thinking similarly enough for a stereotype to appear. Not identical, but juuuust close enough that you can stereotype their appearance. They all lived in Europe for years, but they decided they can't live with their neighbors anymore. They decide to stretch a bit, to get themselves a bit of lebensraum somewhere else, a nice new comfy country to spread out in. Of course, there's already people living there. So they bring in the soldiers, the tanks... Soon they've got the natives all holed up in a ghetto! Neat and tidy and out of the way, and if they can't be starved to death they can be shot instead.

Yeah, your grasp of modern history borders on the bizarre. Unless that was intended as a joke of some kind?

You are fully aware that for the best part of 30 years Israel was effectively in a constant state of conflict with her neighbouring states? That expansionism is rooted in the development of buffer zones against Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian aggression? That Palestine at no point in history has ever possessed actual statehood? That relatively large Jewish populations lived in what is now Israel, under various periods of brutal persecution, for around 100 years before the state of Israel was founded by international agrement? I mean, I kind of get the point you are making, in a very narrow spectrum, in relation the the last perhaps 20 or 30 years of Israeli history, but your statements sort of imply that it was a voluntary decision on the part of the Jewish citizens who left Europe at the end of the Second World War to force out the Palestinians and create a Jewish state. Which is patently false as the Mandate for Palestine which outlined the creation of separate Palestinian and Jewish states actually came close to 25 years before the foundation of the state of Israel.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#28

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:07 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Mar 20 2013, 18:54)

Yeah, your grasp of modern history borders on the bizarre. Unless that was intended as a joke of some kind?

You are fully aware that for the best part of 30 years Israel was effectively in a constant state of conflict with her neighbouring states? That expansionism is rooted in the development of buffer zones against Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian aggression? That Palestine at no point in history has ever possessed actual statehood? That relatively large Jewish populations lived in what is now Israel, under various periods of brutal persecution, for around 100 years before the state of Israel was founded by international agrement? I mean, I kind of get the point you are making, in a very narrow spectrum, in relation the the last perhaps 20 or 30 years of Israeli history, but your statements sort of imply that it was a voluntary decision on the part of the Jewish citizens who left Europe at the end of the Second World War to force out the Palestinians and create a Jewish state. Which is patently false as the Mandate for Palestine which outlined the creation of separate Palestinian and Jewish states actually came close to 25 years before the foundation of the state of Israel.

Whoosh.

Israel didn't even exist until 1948. The whole reason there is aggression against it is because the land Israel sits on is stolen.

As for expansionism being excused as a "buffer" against anti-Israel boogeymen, isn't that a bit contradictory? They want to fight us, so to protect ourselves we'll... fight them? Okay. I'm sure that will calm everything right down.

And you can't use the excuse of some Jews living there prior, either. Sub 50k people is a streak of piss in the ocean. Even by the end of WWII, after years of Jews fleeing for their lives, the population was only 33%. That's a ton of immigrants, yes, but that does not give the right to conquer a country.

Israel only exists as it does today because of zionist reactionary idiots with no sense of irony, just a healthy taste for plagiarizing those who persecuted them the most and a direct line to downing street.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#29

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:23 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Thursday, Mar 21 2013, 12:07)
The whole reason there is aggression against it is because the land Israel sits on is stolen.

"Stolen" from who, though? Both the Palestinians and Israelis are effectively immigrant populations- the former comprised of peoples introduced from any and every regional empire since before the Roman times, right up to the fall of the Ottomans at the end of the First World War. There's no historic Palestinian nation state, so claims of theft/ownership beg the question whom possessed the land? At the time of Israel's foundation, it was the British. Before then, it was the Ottomans. Land was taken from the Palestinian people, but governments are effectively permitted to control access to land for their citizens so from that perspective everyone stole it at some point or another. The last forceful national transfer was from the effectively defunct Ottoman empire to the British, so would you care to highlight where in the establishment of land Israel itself "stole" land, as that's the claim you appear to be making. In fact, would you please care to explain to me how the division of a part of a larger empire constitutes a theft when the technical "owner" of the land is the imperial power in question, not the citizenry?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Thursday, Mar 21 2013, 12:07)
As for expansionism being excused as a "buffer" against anti-Israel boogeymen, isn't that a bit contradictory? They want to fight us, so to protect ourselves we'll... fight them? Okay. I'm sure that will calm everything right down.

It worked in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. In 1976 Israel and Egypt weren't far off establishing a fully-fledged two-state solution based on 1947 boundaries but the geopolitical realities of the Cold War, the Soviet funding of Arab Socialism as a direct buffer to US assets in the Middle East, the failure of Détente, and the activities of violent non-state and political extremists on both sides put play to that. Though I do understand your point about it being contradictory, you are aware that most Arab states between 1948 and 1982 actually politically enshrined the strategic goal of annihilating Israel?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Thursday, Mar 21 2013, 12:07)
That's a ton of immigrants, yes, but that does not give the right to conquer a country.

Again, would you care to explain how the formation of Israel was a conquest?

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#30

Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:38 PM

"Conquering a country is okay if the people living there didn't file a form to be an official country. I mean, honestly, all they had to do was write to the Country-recognising agency and they'd get an application form sent to them in the post. It's they're own fault, really."




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users