Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

yomchi

sceptre wrote:

No right minded human could condone the idiocy on either side. There are few people with half a brain with the ability to type so we could probably do without the exaggerated sense of whimsy. Personally I tend to think that anyone who says that either side is just plain right could do with a labelled drawing of an arse and an elbow for reference but then I've pretty high standards.

I'm a little more sympathetic, as a moderator, to people who take the time to explain and develop their own views on-site rather than just dedicate a majority of their posts in one thread merely telling someone that "your (sic) uneducated" without bothering to take the time to illustrate how their own view is comparatively more valid. Please remember that when replying. I'm fine with short constructive replies from people. The key word is "constructive". Obviously I have my own views on this topic, I've explained them before with a nice declaration of tea invites so I probably won't bother to do so again but merely telling somenoe else that they don't know what they're talking about isn't worth a hill of tea in this world, which most contributors on both sides of this discussion (and those in the middle) appear to realise.

No offence oh mighty moderator.. but yawn..

I stated what I believed to be true. I've been to Palestine, I've seen it for myself first hand and annoys me that anyone would say that Israel is right in what they are doing, and clearly anyone that thinks it is not 'up to speed' (is that better for you rather than uneducated?) on the whole conflict.

And to be honest I find your attitude of - if anyone thinks that anyside is just plain right doesn't know thier arse from their elbow - also shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality on the ground in Gaza.
So with respect you can keep your pompous knuckle rapping for someone who cares.

Shall I await banning?

sceptre

Jon wrote:

Shall I await banning?

Doubt it, in my ordinary user mode, you're effectively highlighting that you're just posting with vague vagueness, in my moderator mode you're sort of doing the same thing. If you really didn't care you wouldn't have bothered replying, even if it was just to effectively say "hey, man, you're you know, like, so wrong".

yomchi

hey, man, you're you know, like, so wrong

yomchi

ok vague vagueness... and you didn't? Your analogy was arse and elbow..very good!

What exactly do you want me to post? the entire history to the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

sceptre

Jon wrote:

ok vague vagueness... and you didn't?

Nope, I've a longish post on the previous page to explain my views and I've only managed to briefly cover six month's worth of developments in the region. Rather than waste everyone's time posting the same stuff repeatedly without development, you can choose to do likewise or stop posting. I can only help you with the latter.

bonkey

Jon wrote:

I've seen it for myself first hand and annoys me that anyone would say that Israel is right in what they are doing, and clearly anyone that thinks it is not 'up to speed' (is that better for you rather than uneducated?) on the whole conflict.

It amazes me that you think Israelis are either uneducated or not up to speed about what they themselves are up to.

Because, see, they (at least some of them) believe they are right, and by your comment above, that can only be because they don't know what they're talking about.

The absolute belief of both sides in their correctness / righteousness is part of the problem...not some indication that people do or do not know what they are talking about.

yomchi

It amazes me that you think Israelis are either uneducated or not up to speed about what they themselves are up to.

Bonkey, if you read over the previous posts you will find that this is quite clearly NOT what im talking about.

bonkey

Jon wrote:

Bonkey, if you read over the previous posts you will find that this is quite clearly NOT what im talking about.

Anyone who thinks Israel is right doesn't know what they're on about.

This is what you said. You didn't offer any ifs, buts or maybes. It may not be what you meant, but I can't be expected to know what that would be when its something other than what you actually wrote.

(Some) Israeli's think Israel is right. By your original claim which I quoted, they cannot know what they're on about. Your response to me is suggesting that you don't believe this at all, despite it being an inevitable conclusion from what you actually stated.

Once you accept that some people can believe in Israel's correctness and be clued in, then your previous assumption that someone mustn't know what they're talking about because they supoprt Israel is without basis.

Now, if you'd like to reword your belief as to what is the giveaway in terms of someone not being educated, thats entirely your perogative, bit while you insist that what you wrote is correct, then logically my argument is also correct despite you disagreeing with it.

The Saint

Israelis might be slightly wary given that Gaza doesnt exactly demonstrate a clear correlation between peace and handing over land.

And the Egyptians and the Jordanians might argue conversely. Syria is a state and has a greater ability to deal with what is happening within in borders unlike the Palestinian army and police which are effectively useless. Also those in Gaza would still argue that the majority of their land is still under Isreali control and still have the right to resist. The Syrians wouldn't have this excuse. The Golan heights could be declared a demilitarised zone and be monitored by UN peacekeeping forces as is the case with a small part of the Golan Heights since 1974. Obviously details would need to be worked out but thats what negotiations are for.

Potential and prospects...When were talking about something as vital as security, I doubt the Israelis will be swayed by words like potential and prospects. The Israelis would be giving something concrete and solid for practically nothing.

I wouldn't call peace, recognition, security, diplomatic and economic relations nothing. It was good enough to do a deal with Egypt and Jordan, why not Syria. Maybe if Syria was more militarily powerful and more of a threat then a deal would be more likely the same as happened with Egypt in Camp David. Again Israels occupation of the Golan Heights and all the other occupied land is illegal so abiding by international law would also make it a good world citizen.

And at the end of the day Syria and co could continue to turn a blind eye to terrorism launched from its territory into Israel, and claim that theyre doing everything they can to stop it without actually doing anything at all - it would afterall involve confronting a dangerous foe that could topple their regimes. Could you see world support for an Israeli incursion into handed over territory that was used for launching rocket attacks on Israel?

See point above. Obviously agreements would have to be made before such a withdrawl took place.

Judging by the reaction to the Gaza handover (rocket attacks on Israeli towns near the Gaza border, either official support or official fear of confrontation from the Hamas/PLO) and the Israeli incursion in response (the soldier is just a catalyst imo), I sincerly doubt it.

Also see point above. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Also look at the casualties from Qassam rockets and the casualties from Israeli air strikes.

Israel can be rightly blamed for a lot of things - but lets not blame them for not being completely stupid in terms of land for peace. It doesnt work in the absence of peace...

As I said above, why did it work foir Egypt and Jordan? Also there have been no military conflict between Isreal and Syria for 23 years. It's not exactly what you'd call all out conflict is it.

I'm not saying that Israel should up and leave without conditions. Of course Syria would have to agree to no allow attacks on Israel from its territory. It would have to stop harbouring and funding terrorists also. It would have to recognise Israel and normalise relations with Israel. But Israel is unwilling to withdraw from all of the Golan Heights and that is where the negotiations in the 1990's collapsed.

Anyway, all of this is way off from the original topic. Thee threads always go into the history of things which is fairly irrelivant to the topic at hand.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

Anyone who thinks Israel is right doesn't know what they're on about.

This is what you said.

Maybe he/she meant to say any objective neutral who thinks Israel is morally right here (versus doing the right thing to acheive their goals of keeping Palestinian violence in check for the short term and longer term making sure the security-threat of a viable independent Palestinian state never happens) doesn't know what they are on about?

Just trying to help.

yomchi

bonkey wrote:

Anyone who thinks Israel is right doesn't know what they're on about.

This is what you said. You didn't offer any ifs, buts or maybes. It may not be what you meant, but I can't be expected to know what that would be when its something other than what you actually wrote.

(Some) Israeli's think Israel is right. By your original claim which I quoted, they cannot know what they're on about. Your response to me is suggesting that you don't believe this at all, despite it being an inevitable conclusion from what you actually stated.

Once you accept that some people can believe in Israel's correctness and be clued in, then your previous assumption that someone mustn't know what they're talking about because they supoprt Israel is without basis.

Now, if you'd like to reword your belief as to what is the giveaway in terms of someone not being educated, thats entirely your perogative, bit while you insist that what you wrote is correct, then logically my argument is also correct despite you disagreeing with it.

You should be a politician bonkey, you certainly know how to use semantics

yomchi

fly_agaric wrote:

Maybe he/she meant to say any objective neutral who thinks Israel is morally right here (versus doing the right thing to acheive their goals of keeping Palestinian violence in check for the short term and longer term making sure the security-threat of a viable independent Palestinian state never happens) doesn't know what they are on about?

Just trying to help.

Thank you for trying, and its good to know someone copped what I meant

New_Departure06

Israelis might be slightly wary given that Gaza doesnt exactly demonstrate a clear correlation between peace and handing over land.

Maybe that would have worked out better had Israel not continued endless airstrikes on Gaza after withdrawl. I also fail to see what killing 19 Palestinians on a beach had to do with Israeli security.

johnthesavage

kaiser1 wrote:

I think Isreal is dead right in thier choice of dealing with the kidnapping of one of thier soldiers.With fanatical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad there is no reasoning with them.....there for Isreal needs to show that when you mess with them the consequences are going to be devestating. Its this show of force and a strong will by Isreal thats needed.I have alot of respect for Isreal...they know thier own mind and is a country that will not under any circumstances be intimidated or terrorised into accecpting suituations that will endanger its people and its standard of living.

Do you think Israel is right to indiscriminately murder civilians? to terrorise an entire population with sonic booms? How about a blockade cutting off supplies of fuel, food and medicines? Or imprisoning hundreds of people indefinitely without trial? Or bombing the only power station in the Gaza strip?
These are the actions of a terrorist organisation, not of a legitimate government. There can be no justification for collective punishment.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

I think Israel is right. And so far, on this particular matter, they have shown some restraint. If there is no real attempt to find and hand back the soldier, they should escalate military action.

If you forget that Hamas were recognizing a ceasefire prior to Israel shelling a beach and killing whole civilian families at once. My what restraint
Then Hamas attacked the Israeli MILITARY in retaliation and took a IDF soldier prisoner. Israel "in retaliation" are collectively punishing the civilian population...a war crime. Still Hamas tries to negotiate the illegal detention of thousands of its citizens for ONE IDF soldier.

Chakar

Okay we don't know the situation what Israel are facing they might know information that we don't aka intelligience, incoming attacks that were averted.

We can't pass judgement as we can't possibly know the full story.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Agree with a lot of your post. Except the bit about the founding of the state being as simple as 'post WWII guilt' and that it was almost accidental that they settled on the area we now call Israel. Furthermore huge numbers who moved to Israel were Jews expelled from other Arab countries.

After the Stern gang and the newly created Israeli military sent loads of Palestinian refugees into their countries.

sovtek

Chakar wrote:

Okay we don't know the situation what Israel are facing they might know information that we don't aka intelligience, incoming attacks that were averted.

We can't pass judgement as we can't possibly know the full story.

It doesn't matter because it doesnt' justify war crimes against civilians. It's also a huge leap of faith.

Chakar

sovtek wrote:

It doesn't matter because it doesnt' justify war crimes against civilians. It's also a huge leap of faith.

I agree there's a lot of questions surrounding the circumstances.I don't know why they're not providing a more clearer set of reasons to assault the Gaza.

Ah well..

New_Departure06

Chakar wrote:

I agree there's a lot of questions surrounding the circumstances.I don't know why they're not providing a more clearer set of reasons to assault the Gaza.

Ah well..

It's obvious that besides rescuring Gilad Shalit, they also want to bring down the Palestinian Hamas govt - which was democratically elected. This is wrong and taking soldiers prisoners is surely part of war? He is a POW. Israel only gave Hamas 1 day to get him released before they went in.

Originally Posted by Conor74
I think Israel is right. And so far, on this particular matter, they have shown some restraint. If there is no real attempt to find and hand back the soldier, they should escalate military action.

1 day waiting before invading Gaza is hardly restraint. They should have given diplomacy a chance. Escalating military action? It's like saying that the Brits would have had a right to bomb Derry over a British soldier going missing. Which is of course an outrageous proposition and an example of collective-punishment.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

taking soldiers prisoners is surely part of war?

Well if it's part of war, we should stand back and allow Israel unleash her full war machine. Israel can't be expected to tie one hand behind its back to give them a sporting chance?

The Derry analogy is not valid. At the height of the troubles the IRA were never elected to govern NI. They were rightly consider terrorists, noone has attempted to airbrush their dealings.

Finally, the beach killings - I understood there were huge question marks about the causes. There was no evidence of shells, no crater, no shrapnel, but there was a Hamas bomb making plant nearby. Have the Israelis actually accepted responsibility for the attack?

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

Well if it's part of war, we should stand back and allow Israel unleash her full war machine. Israel can't be expected to tie one hand behind its back to give them a sporting chance?

The Derry analogy is not valid. At the height of the troubles the IRA were never elected to govern NI. They were rightly consider terrorists, noone has attempted to airbrush their dealings.

Finally, the beach killings - I understood there were huge question marks about the causes. There was no evidence of shells, no crater, no shrapnel, but there was a Hamas bomb making plant nearby. Have the Israelis actually accepted responsibility for the attack?

The Israelis have been stirring up this conflict ever since they left Gaza. Leaving Gaza counts for little if you continue incessantly bombing it. During the ceasefires supposedly agreed between the 2 sides, the Israelis continued their so-called "targeted killings" by bombing whole streets of civilians because one terrorist might be there. This is blatently disregarding of civilian life, and a war-crime. Their settlements are illegal.

If we were occupied for 40 years, I don't think we would be taking it lying down either.

I call on the Irish people to boycott goods from Israel. The govts will do nothing for fear of offending the Zionist lobby in the US. A EU-wide consumer boycott of Israeli imports is the only way to bring this regime to its senses. They are drunk on American money and arms. A counterbalance is needed against the forces of Zionist imperialism.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

The Israelis have been stirring up this conflict ever since they left Gaza. Leaving Gaza counts for little if you continue incessantly bombing it. During the ceasefires supposedly agreed between the 2 sides, the Israelis continued their so-called "targeted killings" by bombing whole streets of civilians because one terrorist might be there. This is blatently disregarding of civilian life, and a war-crime. Their settlements are illegal.

I completely agree. Israel has huge questions to answer, the treatment of Gaza indefensible.

But the point I make again is that, on this particular issue, Hamas are wrong. They just cannot defend the kidnapping. If as you suggest it happened in a war, then how can anyone say cranking up military action is wrong? Should only half an army be deployed in a war? Must they give the Palestinians a chance?

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Well if it's part of war, we should stand back and allow Israel unleash her full war machine.

Whacking off to the old Janes magazines is a terrible vice! Tut-tut.

Deleted User wrote:

The Derry analogy is not valid. At the height of the troubles the IRA were never elected to govern NI. They were rightly consider terrorists, noone has attempted to airbrush their dealings.

It's not valid because you say so?

Surely you'd agree the British could have fired a few tank rounds and rockets over the border at some farmhouses and been well within their rights to do so?

Many of the people living around the border were sympathisers anyway, no matter what the position of the Irish govt.

It would have been no more than Israel has done while Arafat and then Abbas were in charge of the PA and Hamas were on the outside.

So how about it then?

Funny position for a FF-acolyte to be in - implicitly supporting the rights of the British Army to rocket militant farmhouses in Co. Louth!:D

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

Whacking of to the old Janes magazines is a terrible vice!

Ah come on. It's no worse than drooling over pics of Pilger and Moore surely?

fly_agaric wrote:

It's not valid because you say so?

No, it's not valid because NI never elected terrorists who sanction kidnapping to govern the province. Perhaps that is because I 'say so', but my 'say so' is no more (in)valid than anothers.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

I completely agree. Israel has huge questions to answer, the treatment of Gaza indefensible.

But the point I make again is that, on this particular issue, Hamas are wrong. They just cannot defend the kidnapping. If as you suggest it happened in a war, then how can anyone say cranking up military action is wrong? Should only half an army be deployed in a war? Must they give the Palestinians a chance?

The military response should be proportionate which it manifestly isn't - and should only come after negotiations.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

The military response should be proportionate which it manifestly isn't

But you said it's war. Who fights a 'proportionate' war? Does that mean leaving the stealth bombers at home and taking up kaleshnikovs and 20 year old stingers if that's all the enemy has?

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Ah come on. It's no worse than drooling over pics of Pilger and Moore surely?

I assure you, I am not a hard-left, the US/the West/capitalism are the root of all evil on Earth type of person.:)

And drooling over Moores' ample stomach is not as bad as drooling over those big fat juicy bombs on an F15 IMO.

No quips about which is the bigger theft of resourses that could have been used for a less destructive purpose please!

Deleted User wrote:

No, it's not valid because NI never elected terrorists who sanction kidnapping to govern the province.

The situation is not exactly analagous but the comparison is still worthwhile (IMO - like most stuff here).

As someone posted earlier, I think your personal connections to this situation are affecting your judgement of this affair.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

But you said it's war. Who fights a 'proportionate' war? Does that mean leaving the stealth bombers at home and taking up kaleshnikovs and 20 year old stingers if that's all the enemy has?

But they are going way over the top. Even in war there are rules e.g. Geneva Convention. Settlement building on occupied land violates that, as does attacking civilian infrastructure. They should have used a surgical strike to get him out. What they are doing is jeopardising this soldiers life. The Israeli intransigence keeps the conflict going and has done since 1967. They remind me of the Unionists in this regard.

Sand

It doesn't matter because it doesnt' justify war crimes against civilians. It's also a huge leap of faith.

I wonder what sort of suffering it would take to justify war crimes against civillians. Sorry, "understanding".

spanner

New_Departure06 wrote:

There were tensions and violence sure, but nothing on the scale of what followed. The great powers just rushed into this momentous decision without adequate consultation with the Arabs.

In 1929 Arabs stormed the jewish communities of Hebron slaughtering the community with knives. Women and children were not spared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929

In 1948, as the British were pulling out, A partition deal was offered to the Jewish and Arab communities. The Jewish representives accepted it and the Arabs did not vowing to wipe Jews from the Holy land.

From reading the posts here you get the impression that Israel invaded the occupied territories as per some colonial aggression, where the actual issue was that the occupied territories actually tried to invade Israel to "Drive them out to sea" In the words of Nasser.

the only solution to this problem is for Israel to live side by side with a palestinian state. one cant terriorise the other without expecting nothing in return

The Saint

spanner wrote:

In 1929 Arabs stormed the jewish communities of Hebron slaughtering the community with knives. Women and children were not spared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929

In 1948, as the British were pulling out, A partition deal was offered to the Jewish and Arab communities. The Jewish representives accepted it and the Arabs did not vowing to wipe Jews from the Holy land.

From reading the posts here you get the impression that Israel invaded the occupied territories as per some colonial aggression, where the actual issue was that the occupied territories actually tried to invade Israel to "Drive them out to sea" In the words of Nasser.

the only solution to this problem is for Israel to live side by side with a palestinian state. one cant terriorise the other without expecting nothing in return

Zionist terrorist acts:
During the period 1937-1939, the Irgun conducted a campaign of bombings and other acts of violence against Arab civilians.
Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944.
The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during "The Hunting Season" (1944-1945).
The King David Hotel bombing on July 26, 1946, killing 91 people.
Attacked British military airfields and railways several times in 1946.
The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome in 1946.
The 1947 reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.
In September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.

I'm not doing this to make a statement in one way or the other. I'm doing this to show that there was terrorism on both sides before partition. You're just showing one side of it. This is also not to mention the ethnic cleansing and massacres that took place after partition when around 700,000 Arabs were forced to leave their homes and land during and after the 1948 war.

Please answer me this. Why would the indigeunous population agree to partition? Do you think it is reasonable for an indigenous people to be kicked off their lands and be dispossessed and disenfranchised to facilitate non-native primarily European and Russian immigrants? How would you feel if the UN decided to partition Ireland (the republic I mean) to give to a bunch of Kenyans and you were kicked off your land without reparations? Why would the Arabs that owned 100% of mandate Palestine accept just 45% of it under the partition plan? They would have been insane to do it. Can you think of anywhere or anyone that would accept this? I definitely can't.

You say that Israel didn't invade the occupied territories as colonial agression. May I ask why they still occupy most of these lands and have placed settlements on them? Please tell me how annexing land, settling it, trying to control an angry indigenous and antagonised population makes Israel more safe. There are no countries in the region trying to drive Israel into the sea. Nassir is dead and Egypt is an ally of Israel now.

New_Departure06

Down with Zionazi terror against the Palestinians.

oscarBravo

N_D06, that's a less than helpful contribution. You wouldn't want me to think you were trolling, would you?

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

N_D06, that's a less than helpful contribution. You wouldn't want me to think you were trolling, would you?

No OscarBravo, but don't you think I have given plenty of evidence to back this up? I also feel that of all people, the Jews, knowing what it is is like to be terribly oppressed, should not want to oppress others? Is there not an irony here?

oscarBravo

I was referring to the use of "Zionazi". Make your points in a civil, reasoned fashion. Back on topic.

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

I was referring to the use of "Zionazi". Make your points in a civil, reasoned fashion. Back on topic.

OK.

spanner

The Saint wrote:

I'm not doing this to make a statement in one way or the other. I'm doing this to show that there was terrorism on both sides before partition. .

this I completely agree with, the reason why I just made the points that I did was because from reading other posts, you would get the impression that their was no atriocities committed by arabs in the region

Please answer me this. Why would the indigeunous population agree to partition? Do you think it is reasonable for an indigenous people to be kicked off their lands

Jewish people have also been indigenous people, they have a right also to live in that land. It would of been the fairest system for a jewish state and an arab state and both people have lived in the land both could not live peacefully, the arabs could not agree to this

How would you feel if the UN decided to partition Ireland (the republic I mean) to give to a bunch of Kenyans and you were kicked off your land without reparations?

I am sick of people comparing Ireland to Israel, the two places are completely different and you cannot make a fair comparison. If Kenyans and Irish people bothed lived on this land and their was constant Violence and they just didnt get on I might agree to partition to stop bloodshed

May I ask why they still occupy most of these lands and have placed settlements on them? Please tell me how annexing land, settling it,
.

The settlement program is wrong and I totally disgree with it. I agree with you in that it does not make Israel safer and only further antagonises the palestinian people. It is also a major stumbling block to developing the two states which is the only way the region can proceed peacefully

There are no countries in the region trying to drive Israel into the sea. Nassir is dead and Egypt is an ally of Israel now.

Syria are still not very happy with Israel. Egypt realised that Israel cannot be destroyed and that it has a right to exist, so it was better to be at peace with it than war.

Also I belive Israel should pay reparations to Palestinians who can prove they lived in modern day Israel and were moved out

The Saint

spanner wrote:

this I completely agree with, the reason why I just made the points that I did was because from reading other posts, you would get the impression that their was no atriocities committed by arabs in the region


Jewish people have also been indigenous people, they have a right also to live in that land. It would of been the fairest system for a jewish state and an arab state and both people have lived in the land both could not live peacefully, the arabs could not agree to this

I am sick of people comparing Ireland to Israel, the two places are completely different and you cannot make a fair comparison. If Kenyans and Irish people bothed lived on this land and their was constant Violence and they just didnt get on I might agree to partition to stop bloodshed

The settlement program is wrong and I totally disgree with it. I agree with you in that it does not make Israel safer and only further antagonises the palestinian people. It is also a major stumbling block to developing the two states which is the only way the region can proceed peacefully

Syria are still not very happy with Israel. Egypt realised that Israel cannot be destroyed and that it has a right to exist, so it was better to be at peace with it than war.

How were the Jewish people indigenous? Please do not refer to the Bible or the fact that they were there two thousand years ago and therefore have a legitimate right to the land. Fact, in 1914 Jews constituted under 8% of the population of Palestine and owned under 2% of the land. So why in 1948 would it be acceptable for the Arabs to give up 55% of their land to Russian and European immigrants? How would that be fair? You are not addressing my questions.

My reference to Ireland could be used with any other country having over half their land confiscated and given to an immigrant population that is not even from the region. It is not irrelivant. Would any people accept being disenfranchised and ethnically cleansed from their land by immigrants? There was no mass bloodshed or constant violence before the massive immigration and disenfranchisement of the indigenous population. The indigenous Jews lived peacefully with the Muslim majority and the Christian population. Jews were the smallest demographic in Palestine.

A Dub in Glasgo

Once again Israel carries out terrorist acts and there is silence from the self appointed defenders of freedom

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Once again Israel carries out terrorist acts and there is silence from the self appointed defenders of freedom

Real politik really.
Just like adams and co wont condemn murderers because well they get something from them,Neither are Bush et all quick off the mark to condemn or do something about everything that maybe they should be doing something about.

Real politik also extends to the people that vote for these people.

Would that the world was a perfect place,all sweetness and light...

A Dub in Glasgo

You mean hypocrisy?

purple'n'gold

Israelis are simply cowards, bullies and murderers. They behave the way they do because they know the USA will back them up no matter what atrocities they commit.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Ah come on. It's no worse than drooling over pics of Pilger and Moore surely?



No, it's not valid because NI never elected terrorists who sanction kidnapping to govern the province. Perhaps that is because I 'say so', but my 'say so' is no more (in)valid than anothers.

OK maybe a Mandela analogy would be more fitting?

sovtek

New_Departure06 wrote:

The military response should be proportionate which it manifestly isn't - and should only come after negotiations.

...shouldn't defy international law and involve war crimes.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

I wonder what sort of suffering it would take to justify war crimes against civillians. Sorry, "understanding".

I don't know but suspect you might have a better grasp of when it is?

sovtek

spanner wrote:

Jewish people have also been indigenous people, they have a right also to live in that land. It would of been the fairest system for a jewish state and an arab state and both people have lived in the land both could not live peacefully, the arabs could not agree to this

My surname is Scottish and my mother's maiden name is Irish...does that make me either one?

spanner

[

The Saint wrote:

How were the Jewish people indigenous? Please do not refer to the Bible or the fact that they were there two thousand years ago and therefore have a legitimate right to the land. Fact, in 1914 Jews constituted under 8% of the population of Palestine and owned under 2% of the land. So why in 1948 would it be acceptable for the Arabs to give up 55% of their land to Russian and European immigrants? How would that be fair? You are not addressing my questions.
.

There was no Arab state before 1948 so it really wasnt their land to give up. jewish immigrants were coming to this land long before 1948 so they have a right to a homeland their as does the arab population. There is no other solution to this problem, you cant make the Jewish immigrants go back to were they came from or you cant ask the palestinians to go somewhere else

.

My reference to Ireland could be used with any other country having over half their land confiscated and given to an immigrant population that is not even from the region. It is not irrelivant. Would any people accept being disenfranchised and ethnically cleansed from their land by immigrants? There was no mass bloodshed or constant violence before the massive immigration and disenfranchisement of the indigenous population. The indigenous Jews lived peacefully with the Muslim majority and the Christian population. Jews were the smallest demographic in Palestine.

The plight of Jews and Muslims in this region is unqiue and really cant be compared fairly to any other situation.

sovtek

spanner wrote:

[

The plight of Jews and Muslims in this region is unqiue and really cant be compared fairly to any other situation.

A foreign military invading a country and occupying it for decades as well as discriminating against the invaded race...wow that's so unique in history.

sovtek

spanner wrote:

[
There was no Arab state before 1948 so it really wasnt their land to give up. jewish immigrants were coming to this land long before 1948 so they have a right to a homeland their as does the arab population. There is no other solution to this problem, you cant make the Jewish immigrants go back to were they came from or you cant ask the palestinians to go somewhere else

So a deed to your house means nothing?
Let me get this straight....
Because the people that lived there weren't named after the country then foreignors had every right to take it from them?