Israel strikes again!!!

[mcmanus]

If a c*nt in a tank rolled up outside your house, and informed you this is now his country and you must leave, your house has been in your family since the year dot and their is no legal dispute this is your home..........they have a tank, thats it.........how long would you fight on to get it back?, would you expect your kids to do the same?.

For me the answer is easiy........YES, this nazi state was created by stealing the land and kicking the rightfull owners out, they have been made refugee`s, hearded into ghettos, and just plain murdered while the world just watches.

What a complete load of fuckwittery. Do you even understand the history?

In 1948, the UN voted to partition the former British mandate. The Jews accepted and formed Israel whereas the Arabs didn't and attacked it. If they'd won, there's little doubt the Arabs would have massacred virtually every Jew they found. In that sort of environment it is quite understandable (although maybe not right) that there was a reaction. However, today there are many Israeli Arabs (Muslim & Christian) living quite happily in the borders of Israel.

Do you know that in 1948 and afterwards, over 750,000 Jews in Arab countries were forcibly kicked out of places like Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq & Iran where they had lived for hundreds or even thousands off years? Are they in refugee camps 60 years on?

There's a lot wrong with the situation in the Middle East on both sides. The settlements are illegal but so is firing rockets at civilians.

They are older than Yoda


Misplaced tin hat....sheeeeet

 

[Fame Monster]

All we're missing is the Holocaust deniers and we'll be ready to party.

The holowhat?

 

[brass neck]

ha ha ha ha ha. Well done......inverted logic straight from the Theodor Herzl hand book..how to twist opinions to use them for your own ends!!!! The myth I spoke about wasn't the Holocaust, I'm a firm believer in that, I saw the lottery numbers on grandmother family we are close to, the myth i talked about is the "picked on Israel myth" perpetuated by the right wing Zionist leaning media...fck witts!!!

That's not quite how your post came across.

Not if your intent on distorting the truth for your own ends it wouldn't, BUT if you had read the entire thread, you would of noticed even before the "H" word came into the debate, I actually mentioned the Jews mistreatment by the Nazi's.....hardly denying anything is it. The only point i have made is the Holocaust has now become a get out of Jail free card for Israel, a horrendous event that happened to some European people in the 1940's is now used by a middle Eastern (except when in eurovision) country to justify rough hand tactics on its neibours.........

 

[sweynforkbeard]

All we're missing is the Holocaust deniers and we'll be ready to party.

The holowhat?

It's a bit like a hologram but with more shouting and a river of blood.

 

[Helmet Cole]

All we're missing is the Holocaust deniers and we'll be ready to party.

The holowhat?

Oh dear, The "H" word. This human tradgedy has nothing to do with either side of the current argument between Isreal and Palestine, and the only people who tend to raise the issue are anti-semites and Isreali appologists. It has nothing to do with the atrocities being commited by either side now.
The suffering of Jewish people under the Nazis is a matter of historical fact, but has no more place in the present argument than the Nazi bombing of London has in the Irish "troubles" - another argument riddled with c*nts on both sides.

 

[Damocles]

The "correct" decision was a secular state that guaranteed religious freedom to both sides and that would have done the Jews. But the politics of the time meant that wasn't a pragmatic solution.

Why wasn't it a pragmatic solution in '48?

Anyway, why is that a fair deal? In a common law sense, whose country was it?

That's a statement that has no intellectual credibility whatsoever. We took in Ugandan Asians when Amin expelled them. They aren't sat on the borders of Uganda firing rockets at Kampala.

In 1948, India was partitioned and many millions of people were displaced. Where's their refugee camps?

I think we've misunderstood each other. I thought you were saying that as thousands of Jewish refugees were displaced, that we had to give them somewhere to live?

But what was this "different country" that Israel was created on? There was never a country called Palestine that was Arab ruled. And why, when it was occupied by Egyptians and Jordanians from 1948 to 1967 did they not create a Palestinian state then? Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank after 1948 but a Palestinian state wasn't even considered until 1988, when Jordan dropped its claims to the West Bank.

You are splitting hairs there. The area has been under Arab rule from 500 A.D and even when conquered, has always reverted back to it. Oh and the name Palestine has been in usage since the 1200's (though the source is Wiki, so take that as you will) and disappeared after the Ottoman conquest in the 1500's.

My main point, is that the Jews emigrated to the country over a century, and were then given a piece of this land as their own. Can you not see that under any other circumstances, this is unfair?

 

[sweynforkbeard]

That's not quite how your post came across.

Not if your intent on distorting the truth for your own ends it wouldn't, BUT if you had read the entire thread, you would of noticed even before the "H" word came into the debate, I actually mentioned the Jews mistreatment by the Nazi's.....hardly denying anything is it. The only point i have made is the Holocaust has now become a get out of Jail free card for Israel, a horrendous event that happened to some European people in the 1940's is now used by a middle Eastern (except when in eurovision) country to justify rough hand tactics on its neibours.........

Generally 'the truth' is subjective in issues like this- both sides (and their supporters) are so strongly entrenched that one man's truth is another man's added minutes at the end of a derby game. And please do tell me what 'my ends' are as you seem to think you know them quite well: it would be a great help as quite often I feel unsure of them, in fact some days I swear they change from hour to hour.

 

[brass neck]

The "ends" i referred to was when you jumped upon me because i wrote Holocaust and Myth with in three sentences of each other, then used that to suggest I was a Holocaust deniyer....thus theoretically belittling my argument against the Israel state...strange logic I know but the same logic that has been used for decades to keep the popular opinion about the subject firmly with the Israeli side. Only since the advent of the Internet has the true picture come out and at last people have been able to see both sides of the argument which is why common opinion is now starting to shift toward the historically under heard views of Israel's unfortunate neighbors!!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why wasn't it a pragmatic solution in '48? Anyway, why is that a fair deal? In a common law sense, whose country was it?

Read the history as to why it wasn't pragmatic, particularly the Anglo-American commission. And it wasn't anyone's country, simple as that. Jews and Arabs owned land there but International Law recognises that there was no sovereign state prior to 1948. Up to 1917 it was Turkish ruled then a British-controlled territory. The British handed control to the UN in 1947 and they agreed the partition plan, which was accepted by the General Assembly. There have been quite a few "new" countries created that never existed before. Pakistan is probably the biggest example but there are plenty of others.

I think we've misunderstood each other. I thought you were saying that as thousands of Jewish refugees were displaced, that we had to give them somewhere to live?

No I meant that over the course ofhistory people have been displaced either forcibly or by choice and have gone somewhere else and made a new life. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Arab money could easily have ensured they were absorbed into other countries without any problem.

You are splitting hairs there. The area has been under Arab rule from 500 A.D and even when conquered, has always reverted back to it. Oh and the name Palestine has been in usage since the 1200's (though the source is Wiki, so take that as you will) and disappeared after the Ottoman conquest in the 1500's.

You're source is wrong. The name Palestine was first used by the Romans when they occupied Judea, which was of course a Jewish-ruled state. Whetehr it was used after, it was simply never a sovereign state and the Ottomans were most certainly not Arabs so it hasn't been under any sort of Arab rule for over 500 years.

My main point, is that the Jews emigrated to the country over a century, and were then given a piece of this land as their own. Can you not see that under any other circumstances, this is unfair?

No I can't see it. It was a decision made legitimately under International Law. You seem to be assuming that no Jews lived there but many did and owned land. Other later immigrants bought land or lived in the cities. It's no less fair than the Muslims in India being given a strip of land and forcing out their Hindu neighbours.

Look at the history of Kosovo, another modern creation with a number of similarities to Israel/Palestine. Over 200,000 Serbs were forced out of their homes 10 years ago but where is the public outcry over this? Or Turkish occupied Cyprus?

This region needs to accept the decisions of the past and worry more about the future. There will have to be either a single state solution which guarantees both sides their religious and political rights or a two-state solution that involves an exchange of territory and mutual security. I think the majority on both sides want this but the extremists (on both sides) prefer conflict.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

The "ends" i referred to was when you jumped upon me because i wrote Holocaust and Myth with in three sentences of each other, then used that to suggest I was a Holocaust deniyer....thus theoretically belittling my argument against the Israel state...strange logic I know but the same logic that has been used for decades to keep the popular opinion about the subject firmly with the Israeli side. Only since the advent of the Internet has the true picture come out and at last people have been able to see both sides of the argument which is why common opinion is now starting to shift toward the historically under heard views of Israel's unfortunate neighbors!!

Nowt wrong with a few noisy neighbours. Why is the internet the sudden beacon of enlightenment about this or any other issue? I usually take anything I read on the web with the contents of a Cheshire salt mine- with the notable exception of <a class="postlink" href="http://www.swedishnursesgoliketheclappers.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.swedishnursesgoliketheclappers.com</a> of course.

 

[Skashion]

There will never be a single-state solution. How do you think a two-state solution can be realised Prestwich_Blue?

 

[Corky]

Hypocracy after hypocracy on here.

It is ourageous that this should happen at all, but in the middle of Pesach and on Good Friday? What have the Christians of Palestine ever done wrong?

 

[Ducado]

Now before I go down in BM history as being flamed out of existence can I just say that I know very little about the Israel/Palestine conflict. I am aware that it has gone on for a few thousand years, and because of this can't be arsed to read up on such a vast can of worms. I do not pretend to put forward a valid comment, just a simple question: In that news article, the first paragraph states that the attack was because rockets were fired at them, and the air-strikes were in response. Who stops first, and why?

I say again, Just a reasonable ignorant question, please reasonable enlightening responses only.

You have got your time limit wrong it has been going on for about 60 years

Whilst Israel is governed by what many Israelis term "The Jewish Taliban" prospects are not good, however with the pressure been exerted by the US, I am hopeful that there may be some resolution in the not so near future

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There will never be a single-state solution. How do you think a two-state solution can be realised Prestwich_Blue?

The most effective solution would probably involve an exchange of land, with Israel keeping some of its settlements in exchange for other land which is currently part of Israel.

But there would have to be agreement on security issues as well as free movement and economic co-operation. Palestinians need to have complete control of their territory. Once people get prosperity and security then they have little inclination to go back to conflict.

The sad thing is that this sort of agreement is probably not too far away but in the past, once peace has become a realistic prospect, extremists have gone all out to wreck it or one or other party has got cold feet. It needs people in power on both sides to say "Stuff it, we're fed up of living like this. Let's put the past behind us and do positive something about it."

 

[Skashion]

There will never be a single-state solution. How do you think a two-state solution can be realised Prestwich_Blue?

The most effective solution would probably involve an exchange of land, with Israel keeping some of its settlements in exchange for other land which is currently part of Israel.

But there would have to be agreement on security issues as well as free movement and economic co-operation. Palestinians need to have complete control of their territory. Once people get prosperity and security then they have little inclination to go back to conflict.

The sad thing is that this sort of agreement is probably not too far away but in the past, once peace has become a realistic prospect, extremists have gone all out to wreck it or one or other party has got cold feet. It needs people in power on both sides to say "Stuff it, we're fed up of living like this. Let's put the past behind us and do positive something about it."

Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. I know what needs to be done. How can it be done, in your opinion? How do you get Israel to make concessions it doesn't need to make?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The most effective solution would probably involve an exchange of land, with Israel keeping some of its settlements in exchange for other land which is currently part of Israel.

But there would have to be agreement on security issues as well as free movement and economic co-operation. Palestinians need to have complete control of their territory. Once people get prosperity and security then they have little inclination to go back to conflict.

The sad thing is that this sort of agreement is probably not too far away but in the past, once peace has become a realistic prospect, extremists have gone all out to wreck it or one or other party has got cold feet. It needs people in power on both sides to say "Stuff it, we're fed up of living like this. Let's put the past behind us and do positive something about it."

Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. I know what needs to be done. How can it be done, in your opinion? How do you get Israel to make concessions it doesn't need to make?

My solution would be a step-by-step approach.

I guess it needs a carrot and stick approach.

A ceasefire for 6 months and the stopping of settlement building which, if successful, would lead to some opening of borders. The situation in the West Bank is supposedly easing somewhat which shows that things, however little, can be achieved.

Then, if that was successful, further relaxation of movement controls and aid for Gaza, particularly, with Israeli bulldozers building things instead of demolishing them.

Then an agremeent on a land-swap.

 

[Banned Tosspot]

Prefer Return of the Rabbi.

 

[ElanJo]

Now before I go down in BM history as being flamed out of existence can I just say that I know very little about the Israel/Palestine conflict. I am aware that it has gone on for a few thousand years, and because of this can't be arsed to read up on such a vast can of worms. I do not pretend to put forward a valid comment, just a simple question: In that news article, the first paragraph states that the attack was because rockets were fired at them, and the air-strikes were in response. Who stops first, and why?

I say again, Just a reasonable ignorant question, please reasonable enlightening responses only.

The first step would be for the Israeli Government to stop taking land and to give the stolen land back.

 

[Scottyboi]

Can we not just take over it again I fancy getting dressed up.

 

[Skashion]

Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. I know what needs to be done. How can it be done, in your opinion? How do you get Israel to make concessions it doesn't need to make?

My solution would be a step-by-step approach.

I guess it needs a carrot and stick approach.

A ceasefire for 6 months and the stopping of settlement building which, if successful, would lead to some opening of borders. The situation in the West Bank is supposedly easing somewhat which shows that things, however little, can be achieved.

Then, if that was successful, further relaxation of movement controls and aid for Gaza, particularly, with Israeli bulldozers building things instead of demolishing them.

Then an agremeent on a land-swap.

I see no reason in there why Israel would make those concessions. You may assume that Israel wants peace, but I certainly don't. I think they're content enough with the status quo. However, for the sake of debate, let's assume worse-case scenario and say that the Israelis (by which I mean the Israeli government), and especially the right-wing government currently in office, don't want to make peace. How can it be forced to make peace? What cards can be played so that Israel can be enticed to make peace? I really think that is the crux of the matter. It is often thought that the US could use its position as a supplier of aid and arms to Israel but I think that's bullshit. There is too much domestic support in the US for Israel to allow a US government to restrain Israel for too long. Again, for the sake of debate, let's assume this is also true (and it's not hard to prove). What else is there which can force Israel's hand?