1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Offy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

More conspiracy theory crap. Big deal about threats, the palestinians are the ones who planted a bomb and killed a soldier, that is the fact here. They know that that will bring a response.

Ever hear of Gandhi?

BlaasForRafa

taconnol wrote: »

Will this suffice?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel

It is from Hamas spokesperson. I suppose it's the closest they've come.


I fear you are right. Nevertheless, it is disingenuous for Israel to trumpet that it is happy to return to 1967 borders...except for this bit..and that settlement..oh and that village over there.

Its ironic that on the first day of the six day war that the Israeli government sent a message to King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the war that Israel wouldn't attack. Unfortunately the Jordanian high command believed the reports on Egyptian state radio that Egyptian forces were winning and that Egyptian troops had entered Israel. Unfortunately the Egyptians couldn't admit they had already basically lost the war in the first few hours and Jordanian forces started shelling West Jerusalem. From everything I've read the Israelis were amazed that they took the West bank so easily.

Immediately after the war at least one minister advised setting up a Palestinian state in the West Bank but Eshkol couldn't face down the hawks in this government.

A few years later Jordan perpetrated the Black September attacks on Jordanian palestinians and forced the PLO out of jordan and subsequently gave up its claim to the west bank in the 80's.

Its easy in one sense to feel sympathy for the palestinians, they've been screwed by just about every country in the middle east but continuing to carry out terrorist campaigns does nothing to bring about a settlement, it only prolongs the agony for everyone.

BlaasForRafa

Offy wrote: »

Ever hear of Gandhi?

Have Hamas heard of Gandhi?

Macha

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

My facts are right, yours are not. Hamas has not said that the state of Israel has a right to exist.

My apologies, I was under the impression Hamas had accepted the two-state solution.

paulaa

Can I ask Israel's supporters if they believe Israel is really serious about wanting peace ?

Forget the rhetoric about protecting citizens, stopping smuggling etc.

Does Israel really want peace with the Palestinians ?

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Have Hamas heard of Gandhi?

Yes, anti-imperialist resistance movements tend to read up on each other.

Considering the IDF drive over peaceful protesters with bulldozers and shoot them, they probably passed on his model of passive resistance.

Offy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Have Hamas heard of Gandhi?

Thats a great answer, unfortunately its not an answer to the question I asked.

Did you know that in Irelands history we had a lot of house clearings, not any more though. Along came Mick Collins and his bhoys and shoot the house clearers in their own houses in front of their families. It worked for the Irish no more house clearers in Ireland

BlaasForRafa

taconnol wrote: »

My apologies, I was under the impression Hamas had accepted the two-state solution.

No worries, it would certainly move things along if they had.

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yes, anti-imperialist resistance movements tend to read up on each other.

Considering the IDF drive over peaceful protesters with bulldozers and shoot them, they probably passed on his model of passive resistance.

So Gandhi would approve of launching Grad and Qassam rockets then? how was he regarding suicide bombers.

Offy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So Gandhi would approve of launching Grad and Qassam rockets then? how was he regarding suicide bombers.

Again you divert. :mad::P

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

Can I ask Israel's supporters if they believe Israel is really serious about wanting peace ?

Forget the rhetoric about protecting citizens, stopping smuggling etc.

Does Israel really want peace with the Palestinians ?

I think the Israeli people definitely wants peace with the palestinians. I think most Israelis would give up the west bank settlements for the benefit of having peace. Of course the religous extremists and right wingers would oppose that but eventually it will have to be done anyway. I support Israel (as you might have guessed) but do not support the settlements.

Now whether the incoming government will make significant moves for peace is open to debate. I have little confidence in Netanyahu adopting a dovish position. Barak and Livni haven't won any friends in the palestinian movement with the latest action but still have pragmatic ties with Abbas. If Hamas made some concessions then a Livni/Barak government might make the jump too.

If netanyahu became prime minister then I don't see much change unless he has a Sharon-esque u-turn and proposes something totally out of character

BlaasForRafa

Offy wrote: »

Again you divert. :mad::P

Well not really, since the Hamas movement seems to have little philisophical similarities to Gandhi's movement.

Plus and i can't believe I missed this first time around :P Hamas can't be anti-imperialist as Israel is a parliamentary democracy, no Emperor (or Empress) there

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So Gandhi would approve of launching Grad and Qassam rockets then? how was he regarding suicide bombers.

Ghandi was actually against the tactics Zionists used in creating there state. They ignored his advice and people some how expect Palestinians to not resort to violence, but when the shoe was on the other foot, the Zionists had no problem with using terrorism.

He was against all violence btw, so he would be against both sides violence.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Well not really, since the Hamas movement seems to have little philisophical similarities to Gandhi's movement.

Plus and i can't believe I missed this first time around :P Hamas can't be anti-imperialist as Israel is a parliamentary democracy, no Emperor (or Empress) there

The British empire near the end had those things as well. They were still imperialists.

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

Under international law, Israel now has certain rights (and responsibilities) in these conquered areas. …

Its never applied the Geneva convention and by settling them has breached international law.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

The British empire near the end had those things as well. They were still imperialists.

George the sixth was Emperor of India (as every British monarch was since Victoria) thus could be said to be imperialists as they had an Emperor.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

Its never applied the Geneva convention and by settling them has breached international law.

I don't know if there are many, if indeed any posters saying that Israel should hang on to the settlements at all costs. The settlements should be dismantled but that won't happen without preconditions like Israels security being guaranteed. I think if Rabin hadn't been killed back in the 90's the peace train would be a lot farther along the track than it is now.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Ghandi was actually against the tactics Zionists used in creating there state. They ignored his advice and people some how expect Palestinians to not resort to violence, but when the shoe was on the other foot, the Zionists had no problem with using terrorism.

He was against all violence btw, so he would be against both sides violence.

Point out to me where I said that Gandhi would approve of violence from the Zionist side. I did not.

Also it wasn't only the Zionists that used terrorism, the arabs did as well.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

George the sixth was Emperor of India (as every British monarch was since Victoria) thus could be said to be imperialists as they had an Emperor.

The King/Queen was a figure head near the end. Had no real power. The UK near the end of its empire was a democracy.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Point out to me where I said that Gandhi would approve of violence from the Zionist side. I did not.

I never said you didn't was pointing out that Ghandi was against all violence, so your question was kinda pointless.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also it wasn't only the Zionists that used terrorism, the arabs did as well.

Yes, they did.

However, perhaps the Zionists should not have gone to Palestine trying to take over someone else's country. Bound to lead to conflict, trying to take over someone else country.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

I never said you didn't was pointing out that Ghandi was against all violence, so your question was kinda pointless.



Yes, they did.

However, perhaps the Zionists should not have gone to Palestine trying to take over someone else's country. Bound to lead to conflict, trying to take over someone else country.

Whether it was right or wrong it happened. Considering the climate of the interwar period it was obvious that Europe was becoming a more dangerous place for the jews as the war unfortunately confirmed. I think those events contributed to the determination of the zionists that they weren't going to be at the whim of some other government.

Plus the someone elses country remark opens up a debate that could go around in ever decreasing circles since many Israelis would see that area as being their country from biblical times. That area has been the subject of so many invasions since then from the romans, seljuks, mongols, the ottomans ruled that area for longer than anyone.

Offy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Whether it was right or wrong it happened. Considering the climate of the interwar period it was obvious that Europe was becoming a more dangerous place for the jews as the war unfortunately confirmed. I think those events contributed to the determination of the zionists that they weren't going to be at the whim of some other government.

Plus the someone elses country remark opens up a debate that could go around in ever decreasing circles since many Israelis would see that area as being their country from biblical times. That area has been the subject of so many invasions since then from the romans, seljuks, mongols, the ottomans ruled that area for longer than anyone.

Back to the thread. Why do Israelis have to kill so many civilians and use weapons like WP to do it?

Offy

Offy wrote: »

Back to the thread. Why do Israelis have to kill so many civilians and use weapons like WP to do it?

The answer is simple, because their murderous barbarians. Its not my words that make them that, its their actions.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

The King/Queen was a figure head near the end. Had no real power. The UK near the end of its empire was a democracy.

I'm not sure whether your arguing for the sake of arguing on this one?

When you say near the end, can you clarify that? As really the King/Queen has been a figurehead since King James the second was ousted and Britain has been a democracy since then. During Victoria's reign the power was firmly with Peel, D'Israeli, Gladstone and the other Prime Ministers of the time and Britian was a constitional monarchy.

None of which alters or detracts from the fact that Victoria was Empress of India and every succeeding monarch till indian independance was Emperor of India.

IRISH RAIL

Offy wrote: »

Back to the thread. Why do Israelis have to kill so many civilians and use weapons like WP to do it?

Have you any figures for the amount of civillians killed during Cast Lead by WP ?

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Whether it was right or wrong it happened. Considering the climate of the interwar period it was obvious that Europe was becoming a more dangerous place for the jews as the war unfortunately confirmed. I think those events contributed to the determination of the zionists that they weren't going to be at the whim of some other government.

I understand why they did it, but I think it pretty funny, that they seem to think that the current situation would not happen. There was always going to be violence, that would go on for a very long time. Plenty of people predicted it at the time.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Plus the someone elses country remark opens up a debate that could go around in ever decreasing circles since many Israelis would see that area as being their country from biblical times. That area has been the subject of so many invasions since then from the romans, seljuks, mongols, the ottomans ruled that area for longer than anyone.

Its simple actually. The Palestinians, were living there at the time. The Zionists weren't, they lived in Europe. There claim is over 2000 years old at the time. They were invaders and the people who lived there didn't want to give up there country. This is where the violence comes from. No need to talk about claims from the Bible.

The circles come from people trying to pass off an invasion of Europeans, as something else.

Look at it this way, everyone one here has ancestors from Africa. If we were to invade a African country and use us having ancestors as an excuse, people would laugh in our faces, as it would be beyond ridiculous to make such an absurd claim.

BlaasForRafa

Offy wrote: »

The answer is simple, because their murderous barbarians. Its not my words that make them that, its their actions.

Sigh, thats just unconstructive abuse. I'll just go ahead and call the palestinians murderous barbarians too, their actions have show that to be the case. Neither statement adds to the debate but hey if you can say it so can I.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm not sure whether your arguing for the sake of arguing on this one?

Imperialism has changed since the old days. Don't need a King or Queen anymore.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

When you say near the end, can you clarify that? As really the King/Queen has been a figurehead since King James the second was ousted and Britain has been a democracy since then. During Victoria's reign the power was firmly with Peel, D'Israeli, Gladstone and the other Prime Ministers of the time and Britian was a constitional monarchy.

I was thinking after World War 2, when the empire was ending.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

None of which alters or detracts from the fact that Victoria was Empress of India and every succeeding monarch till indian independance was Emperor of India.

Yes, they were, but near the end of the empire, they were figure heads and had no power.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

I understand why they did it, but I think it pretty funny, that they seem to think that the current situation would not happen. There was always going to be violence, that would go on for a very long time. Plenty of people predicted it at the time.



Its simple actually. The Palestinians, were living there at the time. The Zionists weren't, they lived in Europe. There claim is over 2000 years old at the time. They were invaders and the people who lived there didn't want to give up there country. This is where the violence comes from. No need to talk about claims from the Bible.

The circles come from people trying to pass off an invasion of Europeans, as something else.

And who did the Palestinians kick out to take that land? It could keep going on and on with the recursive circle of who did what to whom.

The zionists were given an area by the UN and when the arabs invaded Israel they lost. really the arabs shouldn't have lost if you look at the numbers on the arab side and those on the jewish side. Also the zionists had inferior armaments as well but determination and better tactics saw them through.

and the fact is that they're there now and both sides have to work on a peaceful solution to the problem.

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So Gandhi would approve of launching Grad and Qassam rockets then? how was he regarding suicide bombers.

Not great, but then again, even the British Empire which killed millions had rules and avoided targetting children.