How should Israel defend itself?

realweirdo

The best way for anyone to defend themselves is to be on friendly terms with their neighbours and in that respect israel have spectacularly failed. Israeli near-termism and overt racism mean they will never be on good terms with neighbours. Time for rest of the world also to recognise the Palestinian state.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

Sorry. This is just ill informed nonsense.

Why hasn't this happened with the west bank then?
Why didn't this happen before the blockade?
...................

This would be the West Bank that's been occupied and continuously colonised for 47 years?

seanaway

Nodin wrote: »

This would be the West Bank that's been occupied and continuously colonised for 47 years?

This would be the west bank that was lost by Jordan and its allies in its attempt to wipe out the state of Israel. They ran off and left it after they couldn't defeat Israel. Then want the world to say ah now lads.. in all fairness 'tis was but a tiff - can we have ot back pretty please?''

Get real. Peace will only happen when Israel is accepted. End of. No matter what the ill informed red readers would like to think.

Learn from the experience of misinformation put out during the cold war.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

This would be the west bank that was lost by Jordan and its allies in its attempt to wipe out the state of Israel. They ran off and left it after they couldn't defeat Israel. Then want the world to say ah now lads.. in all fairness 'tis was but a tiff - can we have ot back pretty please?''.

Move of the goal posts there. You scoffed that Israel would occupy an area long term, yet there they are, not only occupying it but colonising it.

For your information, Jordan does not in fact want the West Bank back, and has ceded all negotiating rights to the Palestinian people.

seanaway wrote: »

Get real. Peace will only happen when Israel is accepted. .

This is a rather bizarre narrative, given Israel's aggressive expansionism in the OT.

seanaway

Nodin wrote: »

For your information, Jordan does not in fact want the West Bank back, and has ceded all negotiating rights to the Palestinian people.



This is a rather bizarre narrative, given Israel's aggressive expansionism in the OT.

Jeez you really haven't read history or perhaps just read a version to suit yourself and your own belief system.

A:
Jordan doesn't want it? It doesn't want it because their Arab brothers (in this case the long suffering Palestinian people) were making then look like an impotant state that couldn't get back what it lost through failed military means.

B: The west bank was ceded to the Palestinian people by the then King of Jordan in the hope it might aleviate suffering - and, in a first for the Arab states srrounding Israel, a genuine attempt to help the HUMAN population as opposed to the politically useful population of Palestine. (and as per above with the acceptance that Jordan would have itself a royal (pardon the pun) ass kicking again if it tried the military option)

C: If a territory is already occupied then you really can't have expansionism, can you?

It's a little like saying my tank is full so I'd better fill it a tad more.

You clearly have the heart for discussion on the subject, however, the facts remain facts.

Israel will and has made peace with those who do not threaten its existence.

The people of Palestine are pawns used by the Hamas' of this world to futher their own selfish aims.

AbusesToilets

There are only two ways peace will occur - integration or eradication, both of which are never likely to occur.

Azwaldo55

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There are only two ways peace will occur - integration or eradication, both of which are never likely to occur.

Precisely.

Nodin

seanaway wrote: »

Jeez you really haven't read history or perhaps just read a version to suit yourself and your own belief system.

A:
Jordan doesn't want it? It doesn't want it because their Arab brothers (in this case the long suffering Palestinian people) were making then look like an impotant state that couldn't get back what it lost through failed military means.

B: The west bank was ceded to the Palestinian people by the then King of Jordan in the hope it might aleviate suffering - and, in a first for the Arab states srrounding Israel, a genuine attempt to help the HUMAN population as opposed to the politically useful population of Palestine. (and as per above with the acceptance that Jordan would have itself a royal (pardon the pun) ass kicking again if it tried the military option).

A or b?

seanaway wrote: »

C: If a territory is already occupied then you really can't have expansionism, can you?).

Indeed you can, by moving your civilian population on to it, which is whats happening now.

seanaway wrote: »

Israel will and has made peace with those who do not threaten its existence.

The people of Palestine are pawns used by the Hamas' of this world to futher their own selfish aims.

which again ignores the Fatah ceasefire and the continued expansion into the West Bank and in and around Arab East Jerusalem.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

A or b?


Indeed you can, by moving your civilian population on to it, which is whats happening now.



which again ignores the Fatah ceasefire and the continued expansion into the West Bank and in and around Arab East Jerusalem.

How do you propose that Jewish settler expansion in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem is stopped?

Do you think Fatah should end their ceasefire?

The intifadas have been disastrous for the Palestinians.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

How do you propose that Jewish settler expansion in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem is stopped?

By a series of international sanctions and program of divestment against the Israeli state, ideally.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

By a series of international sanctions and program of divestment against the Israeli state, ideally.

I am interested in what can work realistically.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I am interested in what can work realistically.

Realistically, it can work, though it will take time. The movement against Apartheid South Africa took many years to build, yet got there in the end.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

Realistically, it can work, though it will take time. The movement against Apartheid South Africa took many years to build, yet got there in the end.

It will not get popular sympathy or support when the loudest voice of the Palestinians is Hamas. While Gaza is ruled by Islamic crazies there will be no Israeli movement sanctions or no sanctions.

kikidelvin

Israel has been the eyes and ears of the U.S.in the middle east since it began its statehood.Which is why nothing will ever change until the U.S.decides to stop supporting Israel.

Azwaldo55

kikidelvin wrote: »

Israel has been the eyes and ears of the U.S.in the middle east since it began its statehood.Which is why nothing will ever change until the U.S.decides to stop supporting Israel.

In what universe would the U.S. decide to stop supporting Israel?

kikidelvin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

In what universe would the U.S. decide to stop supporting Israel?

The same one that turned a lot of U.S. people against the Vietnam war and forced a rethink by the government of the day.:)

Nodin

kikidelvin wrote: »

The same one that turned a lot of U.S. people against the Vietnam war and forced a rethink by the government of the day.:)

The same one that saw the US reverse its position on Apartheid South Africa, stop using its veto to defend it and so on.

Azwaldo55

kikidelvin wrote: »

The same one that turned a lot of U.S. people against the Vietnam war and forced a rethink by the government of the day.:)

The American pull out from Vietnam in 1973 led to the fall of South Vietnam in 1975 and the imposition of a brutal Communist regime which still exists to this day. Millions of Vietnamese were subjected to "re-education." Many were tortured and murdered. Famine ravaged Vietnam in the years that followed the end of the war prompting millions of boat people to take to the seas. Countless drowned.

The American withdrawal and abandonment of the South Vietnamese was an act of extreme cowardice and stupidity.

This was replicated once again in Iraq which following the American pull out similarly has fallen the ISIS who are in the process of creating an extreme Islamist state.

We all know what would be the fate of the Jews in Israel if America decided to withdraw them protection and Israel was to collapse.

Hamas have made no secret of their desire to kill them all.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The American pull out from Vietnam in 1973 led to the fall of South Vietnam in 1975 and the imposition of a brutal Communist regime which still exists to this day. Millions of Vietnamese were subjected to "re-education." Many were tortured and murdered. Famine ravaged Vietnam in the years that followed the end of the war prompting millions of boat people to take to the seas. Countless drowned.

The American withdrawal and abandonment of the South Vietnamese was an act of extreme cowardice and stupidity.

This was replicated once again in Iraq which following the American pull out similarly has fallen the ISIS who are in the process of creating an extreme Islamist state.

We all know what would be the fate of the Jews in Israel if America decided to withdraw them protection and Israel was to collapse.

Hamas have made no secret of their desire to kill them all.

I'm not seeing how you get from America calling time on Israeli expansionism to Hamas 'killing all the Jews'.

irishpancake

seanaway wrote: »

Jeez you really haven't read history or perhaps just read a version to suit yourself and your own belief system.

A:
Jordan doesn't want it? It doesn't want it because their Arab brothers (in this case the long suffering Palestinian people) were making then look like an impotant state that couldn't get back what it lost through failed military means.

B: The west bank was ceded to the Palestinian people by the then King of Jordan in the hope it might aleviate suffering - and, in a first for the Arab states srrounding Israel, a genuine attempt to help the HUMAN population as opposed to the politically useful population of Palestine. (and as per above with the acceptance that Jordan would have itself a royal (pardon the pun) ass kicking again if it tried the military option)

C: If a territory is already occupied then you really can't have expansionism, can you?

It's a little like saying my tank is full so I'd better fill it a tad more.

You clearly have the heart for discussion on the subject, however, the facts remain facts.

Israel will and has made peace with those who do not threaten its existence.

The people of Palestine are pawns used by the Hamas' of this world to futher their own selfish aims.

I can't make coherent head nor tail of just what it is tou are trying to say in the quoted post.

It is very hard to debate with someone as incoherent and unfocused as you.

Could you please rewrite or edit just what it is you are trying to say, so as to make it in some way understandable to those who use the English Language.

If English is not your first Language, there are a number of on-line translation services, like Google Translate and Bing .

I look forward to your translated input, I'm sure it will be interesting. I do hope the above helps.

irishpancake

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The American pull out from Vietnam in 1973 led to the fall of South Vietnam in 1975 and the imposition of a brutal Communist regime which still exists to this day. Millions of Vietnamese were subjected to "re-education." Many were tortured and murdered. Famine ravaged Vietnam in the years that followed the end of the war prompting millions of boat people to take to the seas. Countless drowned.

The American withdrawal and abandonment of the South Vietnamese was an act of extreme cowardice and stupidity.

This was replicated once again in Iraq which following the American pull out similarly has fallen the ISIS who are in the process of creating an extreme Islamist state.

We all know what would be the fate of the Jews in Israel if America decided to withdraw them protection and Israel was to collapse.

Hamas have made no secret of their desire to kill them all.

It seems your knowledge of even recent history is blinkered.

You are aware that the Vietnamese struggle for independence was primarily a Nationalist one, whereby Vietnamese Viet Minh fought the French original colonisers of then Indochina, and achieved a stunning military victory over the French in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954??

US involvement was a part of their disastrous policy of supporting repressive regimes, as South Vietnam, attempting containment of "Communism" by way of the ridiculous "domino theory", if one Country falls to Communism, it creates a so-called domino effect, whereby neighbouring Countries then fall, and so on, and on.

The US pulled out due to a total disenchantment in America towards the War, and the dead soldiers being repatriated, a huge anti-war movement and military defeat at the hands Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army.

Similarly, the US involvement and invasion of Iraq was premised on lies regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) being present in Iraq.

The destruction of Iraq as a society was a complete disaster, which is something the US should be in the dock about.

They, the US, created a situation of sectarian conflict and hatred in Iraq, a partition of the Country on Sectarian lines, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which has directly resulted in ISIS....

Azwaldo55

irishpancake wrote: »

It seems your knowledge of even recent history is blinkered.

You are aware that the Vietnamese struggle for independence was primarily a Nationalist one, whereby Vietnamese Viet Minh fought the French original colonisers of then Indochina, and achieved a stunning military victory over the French in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954??

I have read the history Vietnam thank very much.

US involvement was a part of their disastrous policy of supporting repressive regimes, as South Vietnam, attempting containment of "Communism" by way of the ridiculous "domino theory", if one Country falls to Communism, it creates a so-called domino effect, whereby neighbouring Countries then fall, and so on, and on.

There were strong Communist movements in the Philippines and Indonesia and Malaya and other countries in the Asian region which were only defeated after brutal wars. Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge following the fall of Vietnam.
If Communism had not been contained in Vietnam the whole of Asia could have fallen.

The US pulled out due to a total disenchantment in America towards the War, and the dead soldiers being repatriated, a huge anti-war movement and military defeat at the hands Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army.

The U.S. military were NOT militarily defeated.
The Tet Offensive led to the total defeat of the Viet Cong.
They were destroyed as a fighting force.
The North Vietnamese Army were smashed repeatedly in battle after battle.
The Americans only lost about 60,000 dead - the U.S. lost thousands of men in single battles in WW2 a quarter century before - while the Communists lost millions of men.
In 1973 they withdrew leaving behind a stable South Vietnamese government. It was a Democrat dominated US Congress and Senate who voted to cut funding to the South Vietnamese military which led to the collapse in 1975.
Saigon was handed to the Communists by defeatist cowards in the U.S.

Similarly, the US involvement and invasion of Iraq was premised on lies regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) being present in Iraq.

The Iraq Survey Group reported that Saddam Hussein had an infrastructure in place to manufacture WMD.

Here is the report:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-DUELFERREPORT/content-detail.html

I suggest you read it.

The destruction of Iraq as a society was a complete disaster, which is something the US should be in the dock about.

Prior to the invasion in 2003 Iraq was ruled by a sadistic psychopathic mass murdering tyrant Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic murdering son Uday and Qasay. A brutal Baathist regime backed up by a savagely repressive military and secret police used arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder to cowed the Iraqi people.

Iraq was liberated from Hussein and given a democratic constitution, democratic parliament and local government, a democratic government including a democratically elected Prime Minister and President and independent courts. Millions of Iraq voted for these institutions and their representatives and still do today.

Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam should have been left in power?

Really?

They, the US, created a situation of sectarian conflict and hatred in Iraq, a partition of the Country on Sectarian lines, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which has directly resulted in ISIS....

Sunni and Shia Islam have been at war with each other for centuries. The Middle East was divided on sectarian lines before the U.S. was even dreamed of. Islamic fundamentalism has existed since the very beginning of Islam in the 7th century when Arab armies burned cities to the ground and created pyramids of severed heads.

The library is your friend.

For Reals

Israel has no defence for its actions,

sarkozy

How else can Israel defend itself, you ask?

Conciliation can be the best defence strategy. Make genuine peace. Israel might be pleasantly surprised.

Rightwing

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The American pull out from Vietnam in 1973 led to the fall of South Vietnam in 1975 and the imposition of a brutal Communist regime which still exists to this day. Millions of Vietnamese were subjected to "re-education." Many were tortured and murdered. Famine ravaged Vietnam in the years that followed the end of the war prompting millions of boat people to take to the seas. Countless drowned.

The American withdrawal and abandonment of the South Vietnamese was an act of extreme cowardice and stupidity.

This was replicated once again in Iraq which following the American pull out similarly has fallen the ISIS who are in the process of creating an extreme Islamist state.

We all know what would be the fate of the Jews in Israel if America decided to withdraw them protection and Israel was to collapse.

Hamas have made no secret of their desire to kill them all.

Just like most other things they've done. Time is coming when they won't be able to pay for themselves, let alone Israel.

Azwaldo55

Rightwing wrote: »

Just like most other things they've done. Time is coming when they won't be able to pay for themselves, let alone Israel.

The U.S. is the only force that will protect a fractured militarily weak Europe.

Much of Europe is naked and defenseless from the threat.

Rightwing

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The U.S. is the only force that will protect a fractured militarily weak Europe.

Much of Europe is naked and defenseless from the threat.

It is, but protect it from who ?

bumper234

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The U.S. is the only force that will protect a fractured militarily weak Europe.

Much of Europe is naked and defenseless from the threat.

Which threat is this?

sparksfly

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The U.S. is the only force that will protect a fractured militarily weak Europe.

Much of Europe is naked and defenseless from the threat.

Crikey, the fact that people are still believing this claptrap is incredible.

The US, who have wreaked more havoc and caused so much more instability and turmoil around the globe than any other nation are our saviours from some vague threat?

I wonder what percentage of our population is brainwashed to this extent.

R P McMurphy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The U.S. is the only force that will protect a fractured militarily weak Europe.

Much of Europe is naked and defenseless from the threat.

Sounds like something from game of thrones

kryogen

Its anti missile defense system defends itself pretty well in fairness. Israel should defend itself by seeking a real peace with the Palestinians, stop doing HAMAS pr work for them, it should seek co-operation with the Palestinians rather then conquest.

Give the Palestinians their own recognized state, let them use the mostly Palestinian East Jerusalem as its capital. The way they are going will bring no peace whatsoever and is a poor defence of their citizens and country. They are only fuelling bigger fires of hate and animosity toward themselves with their actions.

AbusesToilets

I don't think a two state solution will ever work. Israel is never going to give up Jerusalem. The proposed Palestinian state would be completely lacking in resources, not to mention Hamas is unlikely to accept peace with Israel.

kikidelvin

England should take a lot of the blame for what is going on now,had they not given in to the violence of the Zionists and broken their promises to the Palestinians .I do not think there would be any disputes over land etc.and everyone could get on with their lives in peace.

obplayer

kikidelvin wrote: »

England should take a lot of the blame for what is going on now,had they not given in to the violence of the Zionists and broken their promises to the Palestinians .I do not think there would be any disputes over land etc.and everyone could get on with their lives in peace.

And as has been said before and will doubtless be said, wearily, again, that is done. The Middle East is where it is. The question is, again, where do they go from here?

Azwaldo55

kryogen wrote: »

Its anti missile defense system defends itself pretty well in fairness. Israel should defend itself by seeking a real peace with the Palestinians, stop doing HAMAS pr work for them, it should seek co-operation with the Palestinians rather then conquest.

Give the Palestinians their own recognized state, let them use the mostly Palestinian East Jerusalem as its capital. The way they are going will bring no peace whatsoever and is a poor defence of their citizens and country. They are only fuelling bigger fires of hate and animosity toward themselves with their actions.

If they withdrew from the West Bank it would also become a launch pad for rockets.

Control of the Jordan Valley is strategically vital for Israel.

Without the West Bank as a buffer then Israel is about 10 miles wide at its narrowest point.

From a military point of view Israel would be impossible to defend.



Historically Megiddo in Northern Israel was the gateway into the coastal plain to get around the Jordan Valley which functioned as the equivalent of the Maginot Line hence the description of the Battle of Armageddon happening at the end of time when Israel is surrounded by armies as numerous as the sand of the seashore.



You cannot understand the Israeli mindset without understanding the need for strategic borders to defend their territory from being overrun.

kryogen

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't think a two state solution will ever work. Israel is never going to give up Jerusalem. The proposed Palestinian state would be completely lacking in resources, not to mention Hamas is unlikely to accept peace with Israel.

Hamas would be unlikely to accept a peace with Israel, especially at the start. It would however win the public opinion battle imo, it would encourage the Palestinian people to turn against Hamas, it gives them something else to cling to and to relate it to Irish politics, it forces the militants to move to the centre or be marginalised. Will they still be a thorn in the side, capable of causing havoc? Of course, in the same way the IRA would now. It would remove the need for a lot of it though and the ordinary people would be far more likely to throw their support behind a peace process. It is not something that would happen overnight.

It requires Israel to give up some of its claim on Jerusalem, which naturally they would be hugely opposed to, but such is compromise.

If they are serious about wanting a peace it would be a huge gesture, a two state system removes the excuse for attacking Israel, it removes the justification if all parties (politically) agree to move ahead in a diplomatic, peaceful manner, working out issues instead of relying on force.

No solution is perfect, but some are clearly only going to fan the flames of fury further, again to bring it back to Irish matters, Bloody Sunday created an awful lot more IRA volunteers and turned a lot of public opinion, both at home and internationally against the British. Diffusing and making armed resistance less attractive to people is the only way forward for peace, people need to be given a viable alternative to fighting with weapons.

Azwaldo55

kryogen wrote: »

Hamas would be unlikely to accept a peace with Israel, especially at the start. It would however win the public opinion battle imo, it would encourage the Palestinian people to turn against Hamas, it gives them something else to cling to and to relate it to Irish politics, it forces the militants to move to the centre or be marginalised. Will they still be a thorn in the side, capable of causing havoc? Of course, in the same way the IRA would now. It would remove the need for a lot of it though and the ordinary people would be far more likely to throw their support behind a peace process. It is not something that would happen overnight.

It requires Israel to give up some of its claim on Jerusalem, which naturally they would be hugely opposed to, but such is compromise.

If they are serious about wanting a peace it would be a huge gesture, a two state system removes the excuse for attacking Israel, it removes the justification if all parties (politically) agree to move ahead in a diplomatic, peaceful manner, working out issues instead of relying on force.

No solution is perfect, but some are clearly only going to fan the flames of fury further, again to bring it back to Irish matters, Bloody Sunday created an awful lot more IRA volunteers and turned a lot of public opinion, both at home and internationally against the British. Diffusing and making armed resistance less attractive to people is the only way forward for peace, people need to be given a viable alternative to fighting with weapons.

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

The Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish place - the dwelling place of Yahweh - the Holy of Holies. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant itself is hidden somewhere beneath.

When Jerusalem was captured in 1967 General Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli commander was urged by one of Israel's leading rabbis to blow up the gold domed Dome of the Rock so that the Temple destroyed by the Romans could be rebuilt.

Today many religious Jews dream of doing precisely that. Some Jews suggest God has cursed Israel with war because the Temple has not be restored and the sacrifices are not being performed.

For Muslims everywhere al Quds is holiest next to Mecca itself. This is after all where Muhammad ascended into Heaven and his foot print is left on the Rock.

The two faiths cannot share the Temple Mount since they cancel each other out.

For both faiths political borders and human treaties mean nothing next to divine commands.

Time and the passing of generations are as nothing to these faiths.

FTA69

Medina is holier than Jerusalem in the Islamic Faith. Similarly, Islam does not "cancel out" Judaism, it is drawn heavily from Judaism and the two managed to co-exist for over a millennium before the foundation of the Israeli state changed the dynamic.

kryogen

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

I stopped reading here

You have no idea what I do or do not understand or know about the situation, or the history.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

The Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish place - the dwelling place of Yahweh - the Holy of Holies. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant itself is hidden somewhere beneath.

When Jerusalem was captured in 1967 General Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli commander was urged by one of Israel's leading rabbis to blow up the gold domed Dome of the Rock so that the Temple destroyed by the Romans could be rebuilt.

Today many religious Jews dream of doing precisely that. Some Jews suggest God has cursed Israel with war because the Temple has not be restored and the sacrifices are not being performed.

For Muslims everywhere al Quds is holiest next to Mecca itself. This is after all where Muhammad ascended into Heaven and his foot print is left on the Rock.

The two faiths cannot share the Temple Mount since they cancel each other out.

For both faiths political borders and human treaties mean nothing next to divine commands.

Time and the passing of generations are as nothing to these faiths.

Yahweh is worshiped by both Jews and Muslims.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

The Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish place - the dwelling place of Yahweh - the Holy of Holies. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant itself is hidden somewhere beneath.

Holy is quite a subjective term. I imagine if there is a god he wouldn't be so petty as to want different tribes of humans killing each over over a mount.

When Jerusalem was captured in 1967 General Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli commander was urged by one of Israel's leading rabbis to blow up the gold domed Dome of the Rock so that the Temple destroyed by the Romans could be rebuilt.

So?

Today many religious Jews dream of doing precisely that. Some Jews suggest God has cursed Israel with war because the Temple has not be restored and the sacrifices are not being performed.

My granny says a fairy fort near us is cursed. That doesn't mean I am going to attack anyone that goes near it. We cannot base a war on superstition in this day and age.

For Muslims everywhere al Quds is holiest next to Mecca itself. This is after all where Muhammad ascended into Heaven and his foot print is left on the Rock.

The two faiths cannot share the Temple Mount since they cancel each other out.

For both faiths political borders and human treaties mean nothing next to divine commands.

Time and the passing of generations are as nothing to these faiths.

I agree both sides have their fanaticists but I think there are sensible people on both sides.

Azwaldo55

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yahweh is worshiped by both Jews and Muslims.

And telling them that will change what exactly?

Azwaldo55

steddyeddy wrote: »

Holy is quite a subjective term. I imagine if there is a god he wouldn't be so petty as to want different tribes of humans killing each over over a mount.

Their holy books say otherwise.

So?

A lesser man would have given in and blown it up.

My granny says a fairy fort near us is cursed. That doesn't mean I am going to attack anyone that goes near it. We cannot base a war on superstition in this day and age.

But we do. End of.

I agree both sides have their fanaticists but I think there are sensible people on both sides.

The fanatics call the shots.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Their holy books say otherwise.



A lesser man would have given in and blown it up.



But we do. End of.



The fanatics call the shots.

Bye man. Hell is the absence of reasoning and my belief system (Science) states that fanatics are brainwashed.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

And telling them that will change what exactly?

Well surely they have the intelligence to extrapolate the implications of that. If they both worship the same god and the same god told them different things then maybe it's time to stop basing things on old books.

Azwaldo55

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well surely they have the intelligence to extrapolate the implications of that. If they both worship the same god and the same god told them different things then maybe it's time to stop basing things on old books.

No they don't. Minor differences in religious doctrine are enough to spark religious conflict. During the religious wars of the 17th century armies fought each other over whether bread and wine were real or representative of the flesh and blood of a 1st century carpenter in Galilee.

conorh91

kikidelvin wrote: »

Israel has been the eyes and ears of the U.S.in the middle east since it began its statehood.Which is why nothing will ever change until the U.S.decides to stop supporting Israel.

I'm not a supporter of Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, but I hope for the sake of the Middle East that the USA never stops supporting Israel.

Who will defend Israeli civilians if the US abandon Israel?

Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be absolute carnage among the civilian population in Israel, if Iran, and Syrian extremists, had a free run at them?

By all means lets punish israel, but not to the extent of obliterating its people.

steddyeddy

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not a supporter of Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, but I hope for the sake of the Middle East that the USA never stops supporting Israel.

Who will defend Israeli civilians if the US abandon Israel?

Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be absolute carnage among the civilian population in Israel, if Iran, and Syrian extremists, had a free run at them?

By all means lets punish israel, but not to the extent of obliterating its people.

I agree. I would be happy with them compromising and making restoration to the Palestinian people.

kikidelvin

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not a supporter of Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, but I hope for the sake of the Middle East that the USA never stops supporting Israel.

Who will defend Israeli civilians if the US abandon Israel?

Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be absolute carnage among the civilian population in Israel, if Iran, and Syrian extremists, had a free run at them?

By all means lets punish israel, but not to the extent of obliterating its people.

How about the U.N.or N.A.T.O. protecting them if such a thing could happen, and you just mention civilians in the carnage would they still not have their soldiers .So no I do not believe this carnage would happen.:)

kikidelvin

Let the Orange men have it.