Flat out lie. I said that I would never deny my own religious inclination and that scripture influences my view of Israel. I then explained the difference between what Israel is now and what (Biblically) Israel is to be. I said that my support for Israel as she is now is not the unconditional devotion that I have to following Christ.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Flat out lie. I said that I would never deny my own religious inclination and that scripture influences my view of Israel. I then explained the difference between what Israel is now and what (Biblically) Israel is to be. I said that my support for Israel as she is now is not the unconditional devotion that I have to following Christ.
Ive been watching this Israel/Palestine conflict for years and its plain to see that if Hamas stops lobbying rockets into Israel, then Israel would not bother them.
I know if a country right beside me was constantly sending rockets my way, Id want them gone too.
No one here is defending Hamas. The only people being defending here are the Israel government, which has been and is currently committing some horrible deeds.
Why are people pathologically incapable of acknowledging that both sides are to blame in this? People are far too polar.
My kids would be protesting against the systematic atrocities carried out by Israel in a push toward removing the reasons for Palestinian aggression and giving them the belief that idiots like Hamas are not their only path.
So you admit, Israel is akin to Syria and China in its disregard for human rights. Interesting.
Let me amend that, of course there is blame on both sides.
I just feel that one side has most of it.
As I said before, when you answer my question, I'll answer yours.
The books wrong mate.
Except that wouldn't be the case.
- Israel would continue to blockade Gaza
- Illegal settlements would continue to be built in the West Bank
- The US will continue to veto any diplomatic initiatives the Palestinians take
The idea that this issue stops with Hamas rocket fire is a fallacy.
What question did I not answer? I have already asked this. I thought I initiated this interaction with a question that you wouldn't answer?
The number of settlers has obviously increased from 1967. There were none at the time. The numbers increased in the Gaza Strip too leading to 2005. That did not stop Israel from erasing the settlements completely.
Would that have happened in the WB too? I bet it would, as Israel agreed to withdrawal from 95-99% of the territory (based on the version you wish to believe). This would have seen dozens of settlements gone in the WB too, wouldn't it? All the Palestinians had to do was saying "Yes". Judging by the outcome in Gaza we're fortunate they didn't.
You brought your religious views into this to back up your opinion. If I mentioned a book or article that informed my world view, it would likewise be open to criticism. If anything, rigorous texts should be more highly scrutinized because they compell people to kill. Much as a David Brooks article makes me consider self-harm, it doesn't explicitly encourage it. Criticism is not harassment, if you can't handle that then maybe stick to transfer muppetry?
While this is true, for any real peace talks to begin Hamas need to stop firing rockets. While they continue, Israel have an excuse to refuse peace.
I asked you why you're persisting with a strategy I decry in the very post you quoted. You didn't answer. You said that asking a simple question was the best way to get an answer (to paraphrase you), which doesn't constitute an answer to my question. I'll ask you again, why are you persisting with a strategy I've publicly repudiated?
The difference from 2004-2005 was a big one. It also nullifies this idea that Israel pulling out of Gaza was a peace concession.
True.
Ok, I will go along with that to some extent, although there was obviously an Arab presence throughout Ottoman times, along with Jews and Christians. The caveat is that this was a sleepy, unimportant backwater of an empire that did not keep statistics like a modern state.
Put the thesaurus away Herman, decry and repudiate don't mean what you think they mean.
I am hoping somebody's keeping track of the number of lies you've told about me so far. I didn't bring my religious views into this to back up my opinion. I've corrected you on this before and any neutral observer will be able to verify this for themselves.
Hamas haven't always been firing rockets. There have been periods outside of violence where peace talks involved Israelis making ridiculous demands, knowing very well the Palestinians won't accept them. They're not interested in peace.
It's a circle of destruction. Hamas are compelled to fire rockets due the the oppression of the state of Israel, who oppress because Hamas will fire rockets. No one's going to win.
That's funny, I'd suggest precisely that for somebody who was using words out of context; however, this isn't the case as I've used the terms correctly.
If the status quo continues attrition will mean Israel will eventually win.
Where is my religion used to back up my opinion of Israel as she exists today?
Well exactly. IDF begats Hamas, etc. But to break that cycle, Israel need to have international pressure enough to accept a temporary peace agreement and then from there go on to draw up reasonable agreements between an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. For any of that to happen, Hamas need to stop shooting rockets into Israel. It'd also help if the USA stopped vetoing any and all UN action to help the situation.
That's all well and good but I'd bet that for Hamas to stop lobbing rockets into Israel they'd need to feel a lot less oppressed. We go again.
Could you try and explain the logic you employed to reach this bizzare conclusion?
That's the conclusion that no one's willing to admit.
Even Holyland red, who quite understandably given his situation supports the IDF was shocked by this.
Without her king. fecking hell.
It was one-sided, hence not a peace concession. It still provided a chance for the Palestinians to show that evicted territory does not turn into a terrorist entity.
What strategy? I asked a simple question, what has the bible got to do with this conflict? And by the way, I did ask the question first, so logically maybe you should answer first, or at least do me the courtesy of explaining what my strategy is?
You made the comparison, maybe you could explain it?
Repudiate and decry mean to reject and denounce. So you are asking moses why he keeps using a "strategy" that you...don't like? Surely you see how this doesn't make much sense. Would you like to rephrase?
You're right (which is why UN intervention would be nice). To be fair though, one is a feeling, the other an action. Israel can't retaliate against the Palestinian feeling of oppression. They can retaliate against Hamas' rockets. Hamas are ruining any chance the Palestinian people have to get a decent peace deal and defined borders.
It appears you just can't read then as I was clarifying something in response to @Raoul and from what I can tell, while he's not in agreement with my religious views, seemed to grasp the distinctions I was making and that my support for Israel in this thread, as she exists today, is not argued from scripture.
The Brits also ignored Arab immigration in terms of documenting numbers. They only kept Jewish immigration in check because the Arabs gave them grief.
I am well aware of what my comment means. I am indeed asking moses why he is responding to a post with more of the very thing it denounces? What doesn't make sense about that?
No, I wouldn't like to rephrase it. If I wanted to rephrase it, I'd take my own initiative to do it. What kind of rubbish are you trying to get me to accept here?
Grow up?
I'm trying to teach you proper word usage. One of my many faults is pedantry. Unfortunately, another one is impatience and I'm afraid I have run out. Have a nice day.