Yes, because Israeli citizenship is really what the Palestine's want.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yes, because Israeli citizenship is really what the Palestine's want.
I'm going to lose my mind if I read one more if these bullshit analogies. Your living room - kitchen scenario implies that I own the entire house. Which I don't. The house already stood there for thousands of years and it has thousands of rooms and I just happened to live in some of them whilst some other rooms haven't been occupied in ages.
Israel denies them their own nation so whats their citizenship of the occupied territories worth? Its not as if their vote is going to change feck all when Israel is in ultimate control of their lands
Your having a hard time because your orignal point that some of the land was unoccupied was stupid. The Paletinians occupied the entirety of the land even though some areas were more densely populated than others, like any other area on earth
I wonder if he'd be happy for a people to turn up in Serbia and set up their own country in most of their uninhabited mountains and the fields around it.
The ability of Hamas to re-arm will depend on the border crossing mechanism which will be part of the ceasefire. The tunnel issue will probably be addressed technologically after Israel got a timely wake up call after a 20-year neglect.
I think that Hamas has to go, but I'm not sure I have the data to decide whether this or the next round is the time for a full on invasion. It very much depends on the border control inspection mechanism. We have to keep in mind that Egypt destroyed the tunnel industry across the Sinai border.
Meanwhile, Israel agreed to a humanitarian ceasefire until midnight but Hamas fired rockets across the entire southern region of Israel. I think Hamas leaves Israel with little option other than going all the way to downtown Gaza City, and dig its leadership from underneath the Shifa Hospital.
You're the one peddling the 'did you occupy every twig' crap. The beam is in your eye.
Also, for the people stating that this is a gross over-reaction:
It's basically some random fellow who keeps chucking stones at your window and then one day he pots it and you flip, go outside and beat the shit out of him.
That's basically what's happening.
It's basically some random fellow who keeps chucking stones at your window and then one day he pots it and you flip, go outside and beat the shit out of him.
That's basically what's happening.
You're comparing an actually existing, officially recognised country to a enormous geographical landmass called Palestine?
No it really isnt.
The bloke isn't random, nor is he chucking stones for no reason. You wouldn't be beating the shit out of him either, you'd go raze his entire house with his family inside and blame him for it.
I don't want to get caught up in an exchange of analogies but that one was as poor as they come.
Well no, they didn't. That's what I'm trying to get through to you.
What happened with all that theological/ metaphysical bollocks from earlier?
Israel has not 'razed palestine's entire house with his entire family' now have they.
No, he isn't random, and he isn't chucking stones for no reason.
Why the hell do people disregard human nature in these discussions?
So there's this guy who you don't like and you're pretty dickish to him. If he ever does something to you, you're going to retaliate. You're not going to bloody sit there and think "Hang on a minute, I was pretty dickish to him, I'll sit this one out and take this beating and not fight back because I kind of deserve this"
I thought you considered yourself told and dropped it.
@The regulator..stop with that crap. People are dying there.
The majority of their victims are civilians, they've hit schools, mosques, hospitals and UN shelters. Coupled to the general siege of Gaza its pretty much collective punishment. So yes, they are targeting Hamas's 'family' as well as them.
It's also more than just being 'dickish' to him. Palestinians are fighting for their state, the remaining land that's getting eaten at in the West Bank, and to alleviate the crippling siege over Gaza. Those things aren't going to change if they stop throwing stones.
Your sources are every bit as good as your made-up sequence of events:
Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow may have just made the same mistake that the BBC’s Jon Donnison made back in 2012, when, you likely recall, he tweeted a photo of a girl with the title “Pain in Gaza,” to which Donnison added his own commentary – “Heartbreaking.”
However, it turned out that the genuinely heartbreaking image was actually from Syria and not from Gaza – a mistake for which Donnison subsequently apologized.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/24/did-channel-4′s-jon-snow-engage-in-jon-donnison-style-fauxtography/
Last edited:
Dropped what? I didn't get what you meant in the first place. What exactly is your question pete?
People dying does not mean that posters here have to share your opinion on the cause of this crisis.
The only implicit question was why you were being intentionally obtuse. You didn't reply.
Yes, because peoples lives have always meant so much in geopolitical standoffs!
Just look at how much all the governments in history have cared!
I don't see what I have posted has to do with Jon Snow or wrong pictures.
It is a story in NYmag written by Katie Zavadski (not Jon Snow) reporting tweets from Sheera Frenkel (not Jon Snow) and Jon Donnisoon (who posted a wrong picture in 2012 for which he apologised.)
The Guardian reported the same quote from Israel's poice chief yesterday. The only event you can possible contest in my series is the last one. Which you are contesting by throwing accusations at some Jon Snow, for some reason.
Here is the guardian link.
Now go and google more stuff about Jon Snow to discredit this, written by Peter Walker and Tom McCarthy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...palestinian-protesters-west-bank-live-updates
With what? Your opinion?
I'm just pointing out that if you consider a land your home, you won't exactly like an entire peoples coming in and taking over it.
The physical embodiment of the analogy you were making would be if I took up a room at Buckingham palace and told the queen that she's not exactly using it.
Last edited:
Don't worry they wouldn't survive a winter there anyway.
Looks like that Sheera Frenkel character is also a star:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_journo=553
I'm not doing anymore google search because it is evident that you're interested in scoring points here with little regard to the truth. The Guardian itself has a dodgy record with MidEast impartiality. There are enough left-wing journalists here who would jump at the opportunity to make a scandal out of the revelations you're suggesting, and I have yet to hear a thing.
Considering even your sources claim that "Israeli police Mickey Rosenfeld tells me men who killed 3 Israeli teens def lone cell, hamas affiliated but not operating under leadership1/2" I can't see what the big deal is here anyway. Anything to get you guys excited, I suppose.
We don't need analogies. In 1918 Jews made up less than 12% of the population of the region hence any equitable post-war settlement along the lines of self-determination leads to a Palestinian state.
And as for his landmass comment. There was little difference between Palestine at the time and the rest of the middle east. There's film footage from well over a hundred years ago that shows as much.
Of course
All non-ynet sources are dodgy.
That your government jumped to a conclusion which would justify an assault and more importantly prepare the public mood for an invasion. I'm sure this is one situation where your favourite "bad apple" justification for Israeli soldiers' attacks would suddenly become invalid (even though these guys were doing this madness without orders form higher ups)
Anyway your government has done enough to convince you, at least.
Only in this case the person pelting stones was the owner of the house trying to get rid of the person who occupied it.
Of course
All non-ynet sources are dodgy.
That your government jumped to a conclusion which would justify an assault and more importantly prepare the public mood for an invasion. I'm sure this is one situation where your favourite "bad apple" justification for Israeli soldiers' attacks would suddenly become invalid (even though these guys were doing this madness without orders form higher ups)
Anyway your government has done enough to convince you, at least.
If I remember correctly, Israel agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire to which Hamas refused. That was 100s of victims ago. so much for preparing the public mood for invasion.
but why bother with facts when you have Sheera Frenkel reporting?
The vast majority of the land was not owned by Arabs though. It was owned by the government, the Ottomans and later by the British mandate. And who even knows how much of that entire landmass was uninhabited, simply because the land was not good for agriculture, deserts etc. So the Jews were buying land either from the Turks or from the Brits, and also from Arabs who owned land and were willing to sell. There's no "taking over" happening here. It's legit land purchase.
John Snow didn't make a mistake, he provided the words for the story, some sub editor made the feck up, the actual content of his report can't be challanged, but it's no surprise that your more hung up on the picture being the wrong one rather then the content of the article which describes is detail Israels evil actions
The ceasefire to return to their cage, thats an honest offer
From my understanding of the history I think the Arabs convinced themselves that they were due to be given what they believed to be "their land" once WW1 was over. Is there anywhere on record that proves this promise? Not belittling your view, just curious for my own knowledge. At the same time the Balfour Declaration promised the Jews the same thing.
The British never kept the Zionist miltiias (by this I assume you're referring to the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi?) armed at all. The militias sought their weapons from benefactors, some of which were British Jews and stealing weapons from the British. The British there were pretty cruel towards all parties, Jews and Arabs alike and did nothing to attempt to quell the rising tide of racial tensions and attrocities, committed by both sides.
As I'm sure you well know the Mufti of Jerusalem certainly whipped up "the locals" into a Jew killing frenzy. My stance on the British handling of the mandate was that they were absolutely diabolical. In a loose way they sew the seeds for what is going on today.
I get that, but there was a deep lying anti-semitic undercurrent there, perpetuated by the Grand Muftee and other Arab leaders at the time. They never even wanted the Jews to live there in the first place, hence the countless attacks on Jewish settlements in the early parts of the 20th century.
Just read Fearless' made up comment on the page after I last posted.. Hilarious. He does have a record of doing this, especially with his favourite of the 'leader of the Palestinians in Jordan', a man neither I nor anyone else I know has ever heard of. Excellent leader
For someone as knowledgeable on the subject as you are, I'm utterly gob smacked that you don't know who Yasser Arafat was? Fearless was making a tongue in cheek reference to Arafat and the Black September movement. His magical leadership is probably why Gaza and the Palestinian Movement in general is in the state that it is in now due to his shenanigans down the years.
Also if you're going to read me the riot act and cast judgement on me, make sure you use unbiased sources and up-to-date data, otherwise you just look a prat.
The problem IS of their making as their desire to murder and destroy Israel and every last Jew standing is stronger than their desire to better themselves and work towards a long lasting and harmonious existence. Their leadership does not give a flying feck about it's people and where is the world's outrage? Oh yeah I forgot, Israel isn't allowed to defend itself is it? Naughty naughty Israel...
I think it was a terrible offer, but for the sake of the people of Gaza, Hamas should have taken it. But we all know that Hamas couldn't care less about their people.
And that's why Israeli love comparing their government and their policies to those of Hamas.
How else would you explain the government
1. straightaway blaming Hamas, and
2. withholding the gunshots, etc. from the emergency call?
Especially given the background of the failed talks and unity deal...
I am repeating myself from previously on the thread- I think the government saw an opportunity to whip up support and launch their 2-yearly hellfire on Gaza. Politically the reaction of the dep PM is the only thing that hasn't gone to plan as far as I can see form here.
I had said nothing about Jon Snow. I posted an article (by Sheera Frenkel, and then, because she isn't a good enough source for HR, another article in the Guardian*) that said that the Israeli police chief has said that Hamas had NOT ordered the kidnapping. Directly contradicting Netanyahu's line 2 seconds after news of the kidnapping broke.
HR replied with a 2-year old feckup involving some photo Jon Snow posted which I know nothing about.
To be very honest, I expected a flurry of denials from their police chief after this spread online (I was misquoted, malicious rumour etc.) but there has been nothing so far.
*they arent a good enough source for HR either.
The bottom line is that you don't mind being child murderers as long as you have someone to (falsely) blame. And that is the truth, no need to run in circles.
Does anyone have a brief summary of whats going on?