• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Terror State Israel builts more illegal settlements

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Look, it is quite simple: the massive influx of Jews from Europe during the early 20th Century into Palestine leading up to the foundation of the State of Israel caused harm to Arab populations which were long-established there.
So the tale goes. But I find such a tale highly suspect, to the point of being irrelevant even.

For one thing, there is considerable documentation of the efforts of the Zionist movement in buying much of that land, apparently without too much incident. For another, that would not go a very long way towards actually explaining the fierceness of the hostility towards the Jewish People.

I know something about settlers in Brazil and somewhat less about those in Africa. It is very difficult indeed to extrapolate from those to the situation in Palestine/Israel and still make sense of the Arab hostilities.

Many were forced from their homes due to losing their land or through the violence of Jewish nationalist militias.
So, it would seem that you understand those early 20th century Zionists to be basically troublesome land-grabbers with little respect for the Palestinians who already lived there.

That does not really reconcile with the other tales I am told. Except when it is Muslims telling it, that is - but I have seem little reason to lend those tales a lot of credibility. They are just too ideological, too uninformed, too naive even. They do not even attempt to show some sort of clear intent or plan beyond promises of eradicating Israel.

These groups arriving from Europe were seen by many as an invading population that was marginalising the natives.
I am Brazilian. I can tell you a thing or two about European settlers. For that matter, also about Brazilian-Africans (although we do not call them by that name) and of Nipo-Brazilians.

Hardly any Brazilians would seriously consider risking life and limb to "teach them a lesson". Not even those of African ancestry that were treated as non-human property for so long. Nor those descended of the Native Americans that lived here before the Europeans came.

As a matter of fact, it is rather (and fortunately) difficult to even trace clear distinctions among those communities, since there is considerable miscigenation and social integration.

Of course that did not happen nearly as well in Israel/Palestine. And the reasons why must be considered.

Arab solidarity and the emergent Arab nationalism meant that this outrage was shared by other Arabic-speaking populations throughout the region, rather than confined to the Arabic-speaking peoples of the Mandate.

To the point that they would demonize Israel and engage in actual wars to defend their pride, apparently.

I get it. But I sure am not going to respect that. It is not like they are trying to be worth of any respect, if you ask me.

Just because a political situation involves Muslims, it doesn't mean it is sensible to immediately assume it is Islam's fault that there are problems.
Indeed. That is why it took me years of research and listening to people of various perspectives.

I truly wish I could have come to a less one-sided conclusion. But the facts just are not helping.

Certain Islamic ideologies have not helped the situation, but that's something which has primarily emerged in the latter decades of the 20th Century.
Is that so? I don't think the people of centuries past would much agree. The Crusades did not happen without any reason, for instance.

They're in no way the root of the problem, just as Catholicism isn't the root of the problem in Northern Ireland and Islam isn't the root of the problems in Cyprus.
I will need a lot of convincing before I can consider agreeing. I don't expect that I ever will.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
So the tale goes. But I find such a tale highly suspect, to the point of being irrelevant even.

Even if it were suspect, it would still be highly relevant given its real world implications.

For one thing, there is considerable documentation of the efforts of the Zionist movement in buying much of that land, apparently without too much incident. For another, that would not go a very long way towards actually explaining the fierceness of the hostility towards the Jewish People.

In many cases, Palestinians' land was owned by rich Lebanese and Egyptian businessmen. These landowners sold the land out from under Palestinian peasants to Jewish settlers, displacing Palestinians. They saw the Jewish settlers then taking their land, and blamed them for it rather than those who had sold it to them.

However, of greater import is the fact that Jewish nationalist militias harassed and in some cases massacred Arab people in their own villages. Especially between the declaration of the Partition plan and the establishment of the State of Israel.

I know something about settlers in Brazil and somewhat less about those in Africa. It is very difficult indeed to extrapolate from those to the situation in Palestine/Israel and still make sense of the Arab hostilities.

The 19th Century idea of colonialism, of the right of people to establish their own society on a land previously occupied by another people, as a civilising mission, is a big part of many forms of secular Zionism.

So, it would seem that you understand those early 20th century Zionists to be basically troublesome land-grabbers with little respect for the Palestinians who already lived there.

That does not really reconcile with the other tales I am told. Except when it is Muslims telling it, that is - but I have seem little reason to lend those tales a lot of credibility. They are just too ideological, too uninformed, too naive even. They do not even attempt to show some sort of clear intent or plan beyond promises of eradicating Israel.

Do not confuse my understanding of common viewpoints within the Arab world with those of my own. I by no means see the Zionists in that light.

But it is understandable how the conflicts and prejudices have emerged between the populations here.

Many Zionist groups suffer from similar problems.

I am Brazilian. I can tell you a thing or two about European settlers. For that matter, also about Brazilian-Africans (although we do not call them by that name) and of Nipo-Brazilians.

Hardly any Brazilians would seriously consider risking life and limb to "teach them a lesson". Not even those of African ancestry that were treated as non-human property for so long. Nor those descended of the Native Americans that lived here before the Europeans came.

As a matter of fact, it is rather (and fortunately) difficult to even trace clear distinctions among those communities, since there is considerable miscigenation and social integration.

Of course that did not happen nearly as well in Israel/Palestine. And the reasons why must be considered.

It is a far rawer conflict, and one which is ongoing. The Occupation is happening right now.

Is that so? I don't think the people of centuries past would much agree. The Crusades did not happen without any reason, for instance.

Right, but I refer specifically to the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians their immediate background in Ottoman and British Palestine.

I will need a lot of convincing before I can consider agreeing. I don't expect that I ever will.

This is generally the case.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
While not to the same degree, the conflict in Northern Ireland did have wider implications. For example, there was a lot of resistance in North America to letting in Irish refugees, justified by fears that some among them might be Irish Republican terrorists (familiar?).

There are certainly Catholics who truly seek peace there, but not many who'd support the establishment of the Protestant Northern Irish population through colonialism by the British state. Time has somewhat numbed these sentiments, in particular given that the events occurred prior to the emergence of nationalism during the late 19th Century.

Look, it is quite simple: the massive influx of Jews from Europe during the early 20th Century into Palestine leading up to the foundation of the State of Israel caused harm to Arab populations which were long-established there. Many were forced from their homes due to losing their land or through the violence of Jewish nationalist militias. These groups arriving from Europe were seen by many as an invading population that was marginalising the natives. Arab solidarity and the emergent Arab nationalism meant that this outrage was shared by other Arabic-speaking populations throughout the region, rather than confined to the Arabic-speaking peoples of the Mandate.

Just because a political situation involves Muslims, it doesn't mean it is sensible to immediately assume it is Islam's fault that there are problems. Certain Islamic ideologies have not helped the situation, but that's something which has primarily emerged in the latter decades of the 20th Century. They're in no way the root of the problem, just as Catholicism isn't the root of the problem in Northern Ireland and Islam isn't the root of the problems in Cyprus.
Let me add just one element to what you well wrote above, and that is, according to the Hadith, once a land is under Islamic control, it must always remain under Islamic control. This is important not only to observant Muslims but also some who may not be as strong in their religion because they fear being marginalized and possibly being retaliated against.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Let me add just one element to what you well wrote above, and that is, according to the Hadith, once a land is under Islamic control, it must always remain under Islamic control. This is important not only to observant Muslims but also some who may not be as strong in their religion because they fear being marginalized and possibly being retaliated against.

Yes, that is a fair thing to raise. I would venture that that kind of argument is more relevant nowadays than it was during the period during which Israel was established. It is an argument that is selectively applied - the groups calling for taking back Spain are pretty small.

I think that while it may be couched in such rhetoric, irredentist sentiments in Palestine are probably more akin to feelings of irredentism anywhere else (such as Hungary) albeit fresher.

Thankyou!
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, that is a fair thing to raise. I would venture that that kind of argument is more relevant nowadays than it was during the period during which Israel was established. It is an argument that is selectively applied - the groups calling for taking back Spain are pretty small.

I think that while it may be couched in such rhetoric, irredentist sentiments in Palestine are probably more akin to feelings of irredentism anywhere else (such as Hungary) albeit fresher.

Thankyou!
Much like the issue of slavery was a rallying cry here in the States but the reality is that it was only one issue that was involved that led to the Civil War.

And thanks for your feedback.
 

Jedster

Flying through space
the arrogant move is to make assertions while ignoring facts.

Indeed, as this letter to Theresa May points out: (from An open letter to Theresa May | MelaniePhillips.com )
"Dear Prime Minister,

It was sickening to see that your government last week voted for the declaration of diplomatic war against Israel embodied in resolution 2334 passed by the UN Security Council.

Bad enough that Britain didn’t use its position as a permanent SC member to vote against this vicious resolution and thereby stop it in its tracks. Worse, far worse was that your government voted for it. In doing so, Britain signed up to propositions that repudiate law, justice and truth.

Now reports have surfaced that, yet more appallingly, Britain was actually instrumental in getting 2334 passed by helping draft the resolution and then stiffening New Zealand’s resolve in proposing it.

I don’t know whether that is correct. I suspect it may well be. I think, nevertheless, that you spoke from the heart the other week when you told the Conservative Friends of Israel of your admiration for Israel as a “remarkable country” and a “beacon of tolerance” and your warm feelings towards the Jewish people.

I also think, however, that you know little about the history of the Jews in the Middle East, the part played in that history by previous British governments or the infernal strategic aims of the people known as the “Palestinians”. I believe, therefore, you might not fully grasp the implications of supporting UNSC resolution 2334.

So let me spell out exactly what your government has done by voting in this way.

It has put itself firmly behind the attempt to exterminate the State of Israel under the cowardly cover of vacuous pieties about supporting two democratic states and opposing terrorism and incitement. It has done this by endorsing the inflammatory falsehoods and legal and historic fictions deployed by those whose purpose is to destroy the State of Israel.

It has shredded the concept of diplomatic integrity by delegitimising Israel’s legal actions in defence of its survival while legitimising the manifestly false claim to the land by those who want Israel gone.

It has put rocket fuel behind the discriminatory and bigoted BDS movement whose aim is to delegitimise Israel and bring about its destruction.

By declaring that Israel’s borders should be established on terms demanded by its mortal enemies, the British government has backed coerced surrender to aggressors bent on Israel’s extermination.

Through this vote, your government has shown its contempt for international law. It has helped tear up the treaty obligation under the Oslo Accords to decide through negotiation the borders of Israel and the status of Jerusalem.

Prime Minister, your officials will not be informing you of crucial facts about the legal validity of Israel’s actions. So I will.

Despite the wilful misreading by the Foreign Office of the Geneva Conventions through flagrantly twisting and distorting the meaning of the word “transfer” in that context, Israel’s settlements are legal several times over.

Under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, the British administration was instructed to “facilitate… close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”.

The land on which the international community thus gave the Jews the right to settle included what is now Israel, the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. That legal right has never been abrogated.

Israel has no borders, only ceasefire lines which marked the cessation of hostilities in 1947 after it defeated the Arab attempt to destroy it at its rebirth. It continues to have no borders because the war of extermination mounted against it by the Arabs has never ended.

A country is entitled under international law to occupy land it seizes from a belligerent enemy and retain it as long as the belligerency continues. That was why Israel was entitled to retain land beyond the ceasefire lines seized in the 1967 Six-Day War.

UN resolution 242 called for Israel’s withdrawal merely from “territories” seized at that time. It deliberately eschewed the definite article, which would have required withdrawal from all “the” territories, on the understanding that they would only be yielded up if the Arabs ended their aggression. That has never happened. To this day, these territories are used as a launching pad for the mass murder of Israelis.

Worse even than ignoring these legal realities, your government has now struck at the very heart of Jewish identity.

The essence of the strategy to delegitimise and destroy Israel is the attempt to airbrush the Jewish people out of their own history in the land – a history which gives them and them alone the right to live there. In voting for this resolution, your government has now endorsed that pernicious endeavour.

The resolution refers to “occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.” There is no such thing as “Palestinian territory” and never was.

First of all, the term “Palestinian” is itself bogus. Palestinian identity was an artificial creation invented solely to destroy the Jewish entitlement to their own homeland.

“Palestine” was invented by the Romans to rename Judea, in order to eradicate Jewish entitlement to land the Romans had conquered and to expunge all trace of its Jewish identity.

Arabs who lived in pre-Israel Palestine were either nomadic or considered themselves Syria or pan-Arab. As many Arabs have acknowledged over the years, there is no such thing as a “Palestinian”.

Second, the land in dispute never belonged to the “Palestinians” nor indeed to any Arab state. Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria, which it renamed the West Bank, between 1949 and 1967. That territory is in effect no-man’s land. And given the terms of the British mandate which have never been overturned, it is only Israel which has any legal, moral or historical right to settle its people there.

Prime Minister, the picture accompanying this letter is of a young girl who was one of the victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre. Hebron, one of the holiest places in Judaism, had a substantial Jewish community until in 1929 the Arabs carried out a three-day pogrom, slaughtering 67 Jews. The rest of the Jewish community was driven out, rendering Hebron empty of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years.

During the war to destroy Israel in 1948, the Jewish residents of Gush Etzion were expelled and murdered. The Arabs similarly depopulated the Jewish villages of Kalya and Atarot, drove out the Jews living in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and blew up all of their synagogues.

Obscenely, resolution 2334 deems all these places and more that were ethically cleansed of their ancient Jewish populations to be “Palestinian territory” and that it is against international law for any Israeli to live there. Prime Minister, in supporting this resolution the British government has made itself party to the proposed racist ethnic cleansing once again of the Jews from their own ancient land.

Worse yet, it has also struck at the very heart of Jewish religious identity.

By stating that everything beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines is “occupied Palestinian territory” the resolution denies the Jewish claim to the Old City of Jerusalem and thus to Temple Mount, the holiest place in Judaism.

Nor is this the only way the British government has now struck not just at Israel but at the Jewish people. Recently, and with great fanfare, it officially adopted the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Providing examples of where this definition might apply, the IHRA states that it may do so in respect of the State of Israel by “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

That double standard is precisely what the British government has applied in voting for resolution 2334. For other countries have disputed borders and displaced populations: Cyprus, for example, or western Sahara. Yet it is only Israel that is singled out for condemnation in this way. By the standard the British government has itself adopted, it therefore now stands condemned for an antisemitic act in voting for resolution 2334.

Prime Minister, the Israeli settlements are not the impediment to a solution of the Arab-Israel impasse. The war against the Jewish homeland started decades before Israel took over these disputed territories. A state of Palestine cannot possibly be the solution because the “Palestinians” have been repeatedly offered it; their only answer has always been to launch yet more wars or terrorist campaigns against Israel.

As the Arabs have repeatedly made clear, the sole purpose of a state of Palestine is to bring about the extermination of the Jewish homeland. The Arab-Israel impasse continues principally because Britain, Europe and America have consistently sanitised, rewarded and incentivised Arab aggression against Israel while punishing it for trying to defend its right to the land.

Britain bears primary responsibility for this. In the thirties, it betrayed its Mandate obligations by reneging on its treaty obligation to settle the Jews in the land and instead rewarded genocidal Arab aggression by offering the Arabs part of the Jews’ own entitlement to the land. Voting for UNSC resolution 2334 merely continues that history of British infamy.

There are now well-sourced reports that President Obama intends to take even more malicious action against Israel at the UN before he leaves office. Prime Minister, is your government intending to support those moves too? If so, it will be a dreadful irony that someone who is so obviously well-disposed towards the Jewish people should go down in history as one of its most bitter enemies."
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Much like the issue of slavery was a rallying cry here in the States but the reality is that it was only one issue that was involved that led to the Civil War.

And thanks for your feedback.

Yes, that makes sense. Despite the drive of ideologues on both (all?) sides to make them so, real-world situations tend to be messy and nuanced.

Thanks for appreciating my feedback!
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Indeed, as this letter to Theresa May points out: (from An open letter to Theresa May | MelaniePhillips.com )
"Dear Prime Minister,

It was sickening to see that your government last week voted for the declaration of diplomatic war against Israel embodied in resolution 2334 passed by the UN Security Council.

Bad enough that Britain didn’t use its position as a permanent SC member to vote against this vicious resolution and thereby stop it in its tracks. Worse, far worse was that your government voted for it. In doing so, Britain signed up to propositions that repudiate law, justice and truth.

Now reports have surfaced that, yet more appallingly, Britain was actually instrumental in getting 2334 passed by helping draft the resolution and then stiffening New Zealand’s resolve in proposing it.

I don’t know whether that is correct. I suspect it may well be. I think, nevertheless, that you spoke from the heart the other week when you told the Conservative Friends of Israel of your admiration for Israel as a “remarkable country” and a “beacon of tolerance” and your warm feelings towards the Jewish people.

I also think, however, that you know little about the history of the Jews in the Middle East, the part played in that history by previous British governments or the infernal strategic aims of the people known as the “Palestinians”. I believe, therefore, you might not fully grasp the implications of supporting UNSC resolution 2334.

So let me spell out exactly what your government has done by voting in this way.

It has put itself firmly behind the attempt to exterminate the State of Israel under the cowardly cover of vacuous pieties about supporting two democratic states and opposing terrorism and incitement. It has done this by endorsing the inflammatory falsehoods and legal and historic fictions deployed by those whose purpose is to destroy the State of Israel.

It has shredded the concept of diplomatic integrity by delegitimising Israel’s legal actions in defence of its survival while legitimising the manifestly false claim to the land by those who want Israel gone.

It has put rocket fuel behind the discriminatory and bigoted BDS movement whose aim is to delegitimise Israel and bring about its destruction.

By declaring that Israel’s borders should be established on terms demanded by its mortal enemies, the British government has backed coerced surrender to aggressors bent on Israel’s extermination.

Through this vote, your government has shown its contempt for international law. It has helped tear up the treaty obligation under the Oslo Accords to decide through negotiation the borders of Israel and the status of Jerusalem.

Prime Minister, your officials will not be informing you of crucial facts about the legal validity of Israel’s actions. So I will.

Despite the wilful misreading by the Foreign Office of the Geneva Conventions through flagrantly twisting and distorting the meaning of the word “transfer” in that context, Israel’s settlements are legal several times over.

Under the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, the British administration was instructed to “facilitate… close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”.

The land on which the international community thus gave the Jews the right to settle included what is now Israel, the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. That legal right has never been abrogated.

Israel has no borders, only ceasefire lines which marked the cessation of hostilities in 1947 after it defeated the Arab attempt to destroy it at its rebirth. It continues to have no borders because the war of extermination mounted against it by the Arabs has never ended.

A country is entitled under international law to occupy land it seizes from a belligerent enemy and retain it as long as the belligerency continues. That was why Israel was entitled to retain land beyond the ceasefire lines seized in the 1967 Six-Day War.

UN resolution 242 called for Israel’s withdrawal merely from “territories” seized at that time. It deliberately eschewed the definite article, which would have required withdrawal from all “the” territories, on the understanding that they would only be yielded up if the Arabs ended their aggression. That has never happened. To this day, these territories are used as a launching pad for the mass murder of Israelis.

Worse even than ignoring these legal realities, your government has now struck at the very heart of Jewish identity.

The essence of the strategy to delegitimise and destroy Israel is the attempt to airbrush the Jewish people out of their own history in the land – a history which gives them and them alone the right to live there. In voting for this resolution, your government has now endorsed that pernicious endeavour.

The resolution refers to “occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.” There is no such thing as “Palestinian territory” and never was.

First of all, the term “Palestinian” is itself bogus. Palestinian identity was an artificial creation invented solely to destroy the Jewish entitlement to their own homeland.

“Palestine” was invented by the Romans to rename Judea, in order to eradicate Jewish entitlement to land the Romans had conquered and to expunge all trace of its Jewish identity.

Arabs who lived in pre-Israel Palestine were either nomadic or considered themselves Syria or pan-Arab. As many Arabs have acknowledged over the years, there is no such thing as a “Palestinian”.

Second, the land in dispute never belonged to the “Palestinians” nor indeed to any Arab state. Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria, which it renamed the West Bank, between 1949 and 1967. That territory is in effect no-man’s land. And given the terms of the British mandate which have never been overturned, it is only Israel which has any legal, moral or historical right to settle its people there.

Prime Minister, the picture accompanying this letter is of a young girl who was one of the victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre. Hebron, one of the holiest places in Judaism, had a substantial Jewish community until in 1929 the Arabs carried out a three-day pogrom, slaughtering 67 Jews. The rest of the Jewish community was driven out, rendering Hebron empty of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years.

During the war to destroy Israel in 1948, the Jewish residents of Gush Etzion were expelled and murdered. The Arabs similarly depopulated the Jewish villages of Kalya and Atarot, drove out the Jews living in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and blew up all of their synagogues.

Obscenely, resolution 2334 deems all these places and more that were ethically cleansed of their ancient Jewish populations to be “Palestinian territory” and that it is against international law for any Israeli to live there. Prime Minister, in supporting this resolution the British government has made itself party to the proposed racist ethnic cleansing once again of the Jews from their own ancient land.

Worse yet, it has also struck at the very heart of Jewish religious identity.

By stating that everything beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines is “occupied Palestinian territory” the resolution denies the Jewish claim to the Old City of Jerusalem and thus to Temple Mount, the holiest place in Judaism.

Nor is this the only way the British government has now struck not just at Israel but at the Jewish people. Recently, and with great fanfare, it officially adopted the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Providing examples of where this definition might apply, the IHRA states that it may do so in respect of the State of Israel by “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

That double standard is precisely what the British government has applied in voting for resolution 2334. For other countries have disputed borders and displaced populations: Cyprus, for example, or western Sahara. Yet it is only Israel that is singled out for condemnation in this way. By the standard the British government has itself adopted, it therefore now stands condemned for an antisemitic act in voting for resolution 2334.

Prime Minister, the Israeli settlements are not the impediment to a solution of the Arab-Israel impasse. The war against the Jewish homeland started decades before Israel took over these disputed territories. A state of Palestine cannot possibly be the solution because the “Palestinians” have been repeatedly offered it; their only answer has always been to launch yet more wars or terrorist campaigns against Israel.

As the Arabs have repeatedly made clear, the sole purpose of a state of Palestine is to bring about the extermination of the Jewish homeland. The Arab-Israel impasse continues principally because Britain, Europe and America have consistently sanitised, rewarded and incentivised Arab aggression against Israel while punishing it for trying to defend its right to the land.

Britain bears primary responsibility for this. In the thirties, it betrayed its Mandate obligations by reneging on its treaty obligation to settle the Jews in the land and instead rewarded genocidal Arab aggression by offering the Arabs part of the Jews’ own entitlement to the land. Voting for UNSC resolution 2334 merely continues that history of British infamy.

There are now well-sourced reports that President Obama intends to take even more malicious action against Israel at the UN before he leaves office. Prime Minister, is your government intending to support those moves too? If so, it will be a dreadful irony that someone who is so obviously well-disposed towards the Jewish people should go down in history as one of its most bitter enemies."

A few of these points could be quibbled with on the grounds of historical accuracy, to say the least. Others on grounds of irrelevance.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I was arguing against your impression of the root of the issue and how to solve it. It seems like you were saying that the problem is religion and by relaxing religious outlook and being friendly it would solve the problem. I'm saying that religion is not the source of the problem and being more friendly isn't going to solve anything.
No, religion is just a factor, & one which needn't be an impediment.
(I can see I wasn't clear enuf. You should read smarter posters.)
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
The fact is that not just the UN, but also the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and every nation in the world (save Israel) has described the settlements as illegal. I could only trace 4 non-Israeli lawyers who defended them, and three of those were Jews.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Jerusalem is part of Israel. All the time people whine about Israel not just annexing the West Bank. Well Israel did that with Jerusalem and people still whine.

And anyone who spends a few minutes on how the situation from 48-67 in the divided Jerusalem was has to be absolutely insane to want that back.

That actually brings to mind a good point: annexing the West Bank isn't the only problem with Israel. The country has more corruption on its hands than just that.

> vote in a Terrorist organisation
> renew your war against Israel
> send thousands of rockets to Israel
> Israel shoots back
> whine about Israel shooting back
> everyone whines about Israel shooting back

Cry
Me
A
River

Well, by what logical criterion does Israel get to pull out the "vote in a terrorist organization" card when its government has contained the likes of Netanyahu? It's a two-sided war, not one in which Israel is the defending sheep and Gaza is the wolf.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
@Debater Slayer : How clear, if at all, it is that the issue is one of clash of religious beliefs as opposed to the at first glance more convincing explanation of unchecked pride and nationalism? Although I am not sure on how clear the distinction is from the Arab side.

I think it's a combination of both. The dispute over the land is an absolutely crucial element of the conflict, but I also think we should keep this in mind, for instance:

Qur'an 5:82 said:
You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.

(Source of translation.)

To many Muslims, there's a strong religious element in the conflict, and the phrase "I don't hate Jews; I just hate Zionists" is far from uncommon. I don't think it's a matter of religious conflict only, but it's also not merely a matter of pride and unchecked nationalism. I think it's more reasonably seen as both.
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
That actually brings to mind a good point: annexing the West Bank isn't the only problem with Israel. The country has more corruption on its hands than just that.

Yes any country on earth has some form of corruption.


Well, by what logical criterion does Israel get to pull out the "vote in a terrorist organization" card when its government has contained the likes of Netanyahu? It's a two-sided war, not one in which Israel is the defending sheep and Gaza is the wolf.

March 18, 2007
al-Quds Brigades Palestinians fire five Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel in three different barrages after a relative period of calm. One of the rockets landed in Ashkelon's southern industrial zone, near a strategic facility. The rest of the rockets landed south of Ashkelon and in open areas in the western Negev. There were no reports of injuries.[2]

May 16, 2007
Thirty Qassam rockets are fired at the Western Negev, leaving two residents of Sderot injured. Ten others suffered from shock.[3]
May 17, 2007
Two people in Sderot were slightly injured by one of the ten rockets that landed on Israeli territory.[4] In response to these attacks, an Israeli air attack against a Hamas security building killed at least two and injured more than 40.[5][6]
May 18, 2007
In a Qassam rocket attack on Sderot three people were injured. Twenty rockets were fired at a kibbutz in Sderot. In response, an Israeli air strike on a Hamas building killed at least 5 Hamas members.[7]
May 20, 2007
Ten rockets are fired from Gaza with four landing in southern Israel, but no injuries are reported, according to an Israeli spokesman, whilst an Israeli strike killed 8 members of Khalil al-Hayya's family and one other and injured at least 15 others.[8][9]
May 21, 2007
Shir-El Feldman, 32, was killed and two others wounded in a Qassam rocket strike on Sderot.[10]
A first round of five rockets were fired towards Sderot, one striking the city, two landing south of Ashkelon, and two striking the western Negev. A Qassam rocket that struck Sderot killed an Israeli woman, the first fatality from a rocket attack in the country since November. Another man was moderately injured from the attack. The rocket struck a commercial center near a bakery in Sderot. Israeli civilians burned tires in the street after the attack, though the protest was interrupted by the Red Dawn rocket early-warning siren.
A second round of three rockets was later fired towards Israel, which landed near a kibbutz in the western Negev. A third series launched two more rockets towards Israel. No injuries were reported from these further attacks.[11][12][13]
May 22, 2007
Hamas militants say that they have fired several rockets towards Israel, a total of ten, according to various groups. A total of seven rockets landed in western Negev, but caused no injuries.[14][15][16]
May 23, 2007
Militants fired eight rockets at southern Israel, but no injuries were reported. One rocket that was fired, landed in an open area of Sderot. No injuries or damage were reported from the rocket landing. Later, two rockets hit the Sderot area, one of them inside the city. One women suffered from shock after the attack. Two more rockets landed south of Ashkelon, one of which killed a horse in Kibbutz Nir Am.
A total of nine Qassam rocket were fired from Gaza, by Palestinians, towards the Israeli western Negev. Two of the rockets landed near kibbutzim in the area of Eshkol Regional Council, and the rest landed near Sderot and the area of Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. After one of the rockets landed, a fire broke out close to one of the kibbutzim. Some of these rockets landed in Israel without warning, due to a malfunction in the Red Dawn system that notifies of incoming rocket fire.
May 24, 2007
In the northern Gaza Strip, a mortar was fired towards Israel. The mortar round landed near the Erez Crossing. No injuries were reported, but the structure was somewhat damaged.[17][18][19][20]
May 25, 2007
Seven Qassam rockets were fired towards Israel's western Negev from the Gaza Strip. The first five Qassams landed in open areas close to the southern town of Sderot and south of Ashkelon. No casualties were reported from these, though a wheat field near Sderot caught fire due to a Qassam landing.[21] Two rockets were later fired towards the Israeli town of Sderot. One of them landed near a house inside the town. This Qassam lightly wounded four people from shrapnel, and ten other nearby residents suffered from shock. The other rocket landed in Sderot's industrial area, damaging some equipment in a facility.[22]
May 26, 2007
Five Qassam rockets were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip, though no people were injured.[23]
May 27, 2007
Two Qassam rockets landed in Sderot, Israel. Oshri Oz, 36, was killed when a Qassam rocket struck near his car and fatally wounded him.[24] The Qassam hit the street, it caused shrapnel to hit Oshri Oz's car, and he crashed into a wall. He got out of the car, but died of his wounds at Barzilay Medical Center in Ashkelon. One other man was wounded and other residents suffered from shock. Another Qassam rocket later hit Sderot injuring one Israeli civilian.[25][26]
May 28, 2007
Seven rockets struck Sderot in southern Israel, but no injuries are reported.[27]
May 29, 2007
Seventeen Qassams hit the Negev, three landed in Sderot. The Popular Resistance Committees and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks.[28]
May 30, 2007
Six Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip hit western Negev. One rocket hit a power line and an apartment building in Sderot. Some residents experienced and were treated for shock after the attack. The Qassam also caused a temporary blackout in some parts of the city, because of the hit on the power line. Another apartment building was hit, causing six people to experience shock, though no people were inside at the time. The latter had a claim of responsibility by the militia of the Popular Resistance Committees.[29]
May 31, 2007
Militants in the Gaza Strip fired three Qassam rockets into Israel, but caused no injuries.[30]

Call me when Israel uses the M270 rocket launchers and other artillery to indiscriminately fire into Gaza and not against areas where rocket and mortar attacks originated.


the phrase "I don't hate Jews; I just hate Zionists" is far from uncommon

Yes and its a lie. It was a lie in 1929 (non-Zionist Haredim massacred in Hebron), it was a lie in 1948 (all Jews, Zionists and non-Zionists alike thrown out of their homes in the Westbank, including Eastern Jerusalem, all Synagogues being destroyed, Jewish cemeteries destroyed and its tombstones used as roads and toilets and the Western Wall used as a dump), it was still a lie in during the various Intifadas where Jews regardless of their political opinions were murdered and it still will be a lie in a couple of hours and therefore 2017,
 
Top