If posting shite on this forum resulted in the demolition of the posters' homes threads here wouldn't be half as long and tedious as they currently are. Still human lives are more precious than caftards' spare time, so threatening murderers with house demolition could potentially help there a lot more.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
If posting shite on this forum resulted in the demolition of the posters' homes threads here wouldn't be half as long and tedious as they currently are. Still human lives are more precious than caftards' spare time, so threatening murderers with house demolition could potentially help there a lot more.
Wow.
I trust our supreme court's ability to balance immediate security needs with basic human rights.
I really don't see a massive security need in demolishing houses as a form of collective punishment.
According to the Jimmy Carters, and generations of posters here, results of the last elections were a true reflection of the Palestinian people's will.
I'm not sure what you are referring to as Palestine. There is no such thing. The "illegally" and "annexed" also sound like random empty slogans.
Jewish presence here for 3000 years is as valid an argument as any other national claim for territory. Criticism of the Zionist movement isn't antisemitism, but anti-Zionism is one of many forms of antisemitism.
Arabs living in Israel have rights, Arabs who live outside Israel have few. Sad state of affairs, I agree.
I loved that bolded part most. Even more than the preceding lip service. The rest is just ironic given your earlier observation regarding "a distinct lack of self-awareness".
Arabs in the WB are far better off than they were in 1967, under Jordanian rule. Believe it or not, the same applies to Gaza and did before Israel pulled out when compared with the preceding Egyptian rule. Obviously the situation there is far from ideal, but as long as they aspire to wipe my country off the map I have little interest in their largely self-inflicted misfortune.
The only way forward here is mutual recognition in two national homes. Sympathizers with the Palestinian cause can do better than point fingers at Israel, even after massacres such as yesterdays, or pushing for unilateral recognition in a Palestinian state. Call it Palestine all you like, Israel will not cease control of a sq inch as long as there is no recognition in a Jewish state, much in line with what you like calling international law.
Fair enough. The IDF and other security agencies in Israel are also at odds on that one. No straight forward answer apparently.
It gives the terrorist arseholes an extra excuse as well. An extra thing to stick in their propaganda. Israel is collectively punishing us so lets collectively punish them. Not to mention the people in those houses have to go somewhere.
Have the terrorists ever needed an extra incentive? It's fair enough questioning Israel's measures but at least show some level of honesty here.
As for the second point, if I knew my son was planning a hate crime I'd have turned him in to the authorities. If I knew his brothers' home was at stake he'd be getting there in an ambulance.
Yes they do. You keep talking about the elections and Palestinians choosing their own destiny, well this sort of thing helps the terrorists gain credibility among the general population. It seems fairly obvious to me.
The vast majority of Palestinian citizens who are tired of seeing death all around them.
I don't follow your logic. What would be the election slogan? "We slaughter Zionist civilians with axes and machetes, and then they dare demolishing the murderers homes. Help us fight the injustice. The hell with (insert a non-existent group's name) which suggests stopping the murders to stop house demolition"
Why can't the Palestinians vote for a party that acknowledge the right of the Jewish people for a nation state? Even if it ends up a tiny minority faction in parliament? If there is ever another general elections there?
That vast majority should take the streets then, and gather political power. It'd be possible in the WB.
Unfortunately, things are much different than what you are portraying here. The only reason Hamas hasn't swept the WB yet is because the IDF is still in control there, and Abbas' control is practically limited to his Ramallah compound.
Do you think that's how they tell it? Or maybe it's seen by Palestinians just another sign that Israel just wants to get rid of them all and destroy all their homes etc. Put yourself in their shoes.
I'd imagine that the vast majority though aren't politically educated and are only focused on survival.
All their homes? One home of a murderer since 2005? Are we talking about the same thing? The equation is very simply. Don't commit murder and you're not going anywhere. The Arab population in Jerusalem has increased six-fold since 1967. What the feck is this all about?
You've barely responded to any of the points I made and instead you've written a post that's just a combination of avoiding issues and muddying the subject. Also you've quoted some of your response as something I wrote, please fix that.
Decrying 'annexed' and 'illegal' as buzzwords is absurd. 'Annexed' is the least emotive word you can use to describe Israel using its military to carve off more and more Palestinian territory for itself. Would you prefer 'invaded'? 'Stolen', perhaps? As for 'illegal', in the view of the international community of which Israel is a member, yeah their actions are illegal. The only reason Israel hasn't been subject to UN sanctions is because the US has a veto on the security council.
On the subject of the Jewish 'right' to their 'homeland' - 8% of the land current known as Israel and the Palestinian territories was owned by Jewish people prior to the 1940s. That does not constitute a valid argument for Israel now controlling 90% of that territory. The vast majority of the current population of Israel has no connection to the land whatsoever barring lines in a book and had no claims to it at the time that the modern state of Israel was created.
Regarding your accusations of me 'giving lip service' - it's entirely possible to have a debate about a conflict whilst being respectful to those who have died in it and I think I've done that. If you have a problem with the point I made, please contend with it instead of derailing the debate by having a go at my character.
As for the situation for Arabs in the West Bank and now, the fragmentation and loss of Palestinian territory in the West Bank since the 60s is well-documented. Citing poor treatment of Palestinians by Egyptian and Jordanian governments is not a justification for Israel to do the same. Again you've not addressed any of the points I made concerning Israel's role in civilian deaths, poverty, homelessness and other issues Palestine has to deal with.
Your last paragraph for me sums up the weakness of your position. You criticise people for pointing fingers at Israel but your response is to ignore criticisms of Israeli policy and point fingers at Palestine, as you have done throughout recent discussions in this thread. You say there should be mutual recognition of two national homes but that doesn't seem to be borne out by your argument. You expect Palestine to come out with a statement saying that they recognise Israel, but you are uncritical of the Israeli actions, both past and present, that have clearly demonstrated both to Palestinians and to the rest of the world that it does not recognise Palestine's right to exist. You will inevitably come into conflict with others in this thread until you gain the ability to hold the Israeli government up to the same standards you expect of Palestinians.
It's very unfortunate that they are more focused on our survival than theirs. I cannot afford risking my own family and nation for their political education.
This part of the world is comedy gold, seriously when or if ever is the killing going to stop in the so called holiest place on earth. Religion got to love it.
It's definitely not one home since 2005.
I addressed each of the points you made, and was going to to try and clarify them further until I reached that last line of yours. Pure gold.
There may have been another case in 2008, when a terrorist killed 8 in a Jerusalem Yeshiva. However, these are isolated cases which follow the 2005 supreme court ruling on the case. Despite what many like you to believe, these issues are hotly debated here and pretty far from being straight forward.
I am absolutely positive that there are more constructive ways to combat terrorism, but these would require cooperation from peaceful forces overseas.
Explain? You are critical of Palestinians killing innocent Israelis but you don't care about the Israeli army killing many innocent Palestinians, destroying their homes etc. etc. Thus my comment on holding Israel to the same standards. If you can explain why you think unilateral Israeli responses to Palestinian atrocities are morally justified whilst unilateral Palestinian responses to Israeli atrocities are deplorable, please go ahead.
And no, you have addressed very few of my points, and none of them satisfactorily. You've attempted to derail most of them either by having a go at me or bringing in some erroneous factor or other. The fact that you've been consistently doing this throughout the debate suggests to me that you're well aware that you have no responses to the arguments raised that have a basis in logic rather than blind partisanship.
"The harm that theology has done is not to create cruel impulses, but to give them the sanction of what professes to be lofty ethic, and to confer an apparently sacred character upon practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous times."
Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell
There are plenty more. I remember this one clearly: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/us-palestinians-israel-demolitions-idUSKBN0GI0BY20140818
How about just stop destroying houses. The symbolism alone of this sort of action is only making things worse.
No one wants to solve the issues in that part of the world tit for tat, the place is a joke. Why don't they just declare war on each other and get it over and done. Last man standing wins. Its embarrassing that the so called holiest place on the world has so much death in its history. Religion the route of all evil....
What? I never said that, just that you can't expect a bunch of innocent civilians to be worried about political activism when they're concerned about the possibility of being killed.
As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs - they took it from the British - who took it from the Turks.
Please feel free to correct me.
Great post.
As I think I mentioned, the 2005 ruling has recently been revised. Still, house demolitions are far from straight forward.
For all the symbolism of house demolitions, at this point in time I'm far more concerned with the symbolism in slaughtered Jews inside their synagogues. The Jewish state's prime mission is preventing that, even at the price of criticism from Europe.
The Israeli state wasn't given all the territory they control today by the British, only parts of it. Originally, the UN suggestion was that the state of Israel would be given control over 55% of the land now known as Israel, Gaza and the West Bank with Palestinian Arabs controlling the rest. That settlement was rejected by the Arabs, on account of them not being too pleased with over half their land being taken away and given to people who had never stepped foot in the area before in their lives.
Between the late 1940s and the 1970s the Israeli government annexed Palestinian territory and eventually brought 78% of the total area under Israeli control, including Jerusalem which under the UN suggestion was supposed to be deep in Arab territory. By 2006 it had risen to 90% as the West Bank was fragmented by more landgrabs and illegal settlement by Zionists. The remaining 10% is theoretically Palestinian land but is occupied by the Israeli military.
So in summary, Israel were 'supposed to have' about 60% of what they currently have, the rest has come through taking Arab lands.
But it's not that they're not politically active. They simply support Hamas, PIJ and Fatah, all of which refuse to entertain the notion of a Jewish Israel. Within any borders.
Sigh
I'd expect many of them simply don't care, but simply want peace. And while I don't condone any antisemitism, I struggle to blame a lot of them for having hatred to Israel at the moment with the numbers of deaths we've seen.
Cherry picking again? The UN game the vast majority of Mandatory Palestine to the Arabs before the partition plan. It's what you call Jordan these days.
I am not in the business of excusing hate in either side. It's not helpful. Recognition in the other's right for a nation state is a basic per-requisite for a peaceful settlement of any sort. It's supported by a majority of Israelis. It simply doesn't exist among Palestinians.
Disagree with the symbolism part? Years of media brainwashing on that Israeli Goliath may undermine one's ability to understand the most fundamental existential threat we Israelis feel both personally and collectively.
Sigh because you think tit for tat will solve anything.
This is what I mean by bringing in erroneous factors. It's irrelevant how big the mandate for Palestine was, it was an arbitrary imperialist construction. At no point did the historical state of Israel take up anywhere near that much territory, even at its very height over 2000 years ago it barely extended south of the Dead Sea, never mind as far south as the Red Sea.
Even if you were to accept the Old Testament Zionist argument and admit the Jewish right to a state in its ancestral lands, Israel should be about half the size it currently is. Acting like the UN did a massive favour to the Arabs by giving them lands the Jewish people never had any claim to at any point in history is just ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as handing over a huge amount of territory to a group of people who had never seen Palestine and whose ancestors hadn't been a political entity in that area for well over a millennium.
Last edited:
Again though, the majority of Palestinians would likely be content with peace. Israel may be entitled to defend itself, and I'm not naive enough to expect no civilian casualties in the process, but the number of innocents dying is ridiculous, and has to stop.
One point of correction - under the UN partition plan, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to be governed by an international regime in order to reflect their unique religious status. It was never intended to divide the city, that was the result of the subsequent war.