there is zero difference between your cultures. Each of you is as good as the other. You want to be classed as civilised, as Western, but in reality your government is acting just like a bunch of savages.
Scores die in Israeli air strikes
- Thread starter IhabX7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
there is zero difference between your cultures. Each of you is as good as the other. You want to be classed as civilised, as Western, but in reality your government is acting just like a bunch of savages.
Oh yes, undoubtedly that's true. I only brought up the point about history because you mentioned it.
I get uncomfortable when I keep hearing in these discussions mentions of 1967 borders etc. In my opinion, it's best to forget things from so far back, and start from the situation we find ourselves in now. Admittedly where we find ourselves is in a pretty shit situation for everyone, but a situation that is made even harder to solve by constant references to decades old events.
a more moderate one. Killing hundreds of people in response to a few rockets isn't acceptable. It's like shooting dead someone for throwing a stick at you.
Don't forget, the ceasefire wasn't really a ceasefire - both sides routinely flouted it. Israelis kept up the blockade, and rockets kept being fired. Israel also attacked some tunnel in November. So there wasn't really much to break there.
let me ask you a question: if a country killed thousands and thousands of your countrymen over years of unequal fighting, would you not want to destroy that country too?
Or would you just lay down your arms and say 'here you go, we are stopping'?
Maybe if _you_ stop killing Palestinians they would stop wishing your destruction?
plus West Bank and Jerusalem. De facto, Israel still controls them.
Perhaps you should come up with an imperial measure of 'response'. I'm not sure what 'moderate' means.
there is reasonable retaliation, and then there is the killing of 300 people in two days. The reaction is disproportionate.
Let me answer it since you have as much knowledge of both the region and it's conflict as a tree stump.
It is Israel that has constantly been attacked by the Soviet backed Arab states who started three stated genocidal wars and have continued to bully Israel via this palestinian proxy.
Thats why Iran and Syria are supplying Hamas & Hezbollah. Thats why saudi are funding suicide bombing etc
So how many would you want killed - what is reasonable?
I'm not sure what the proper response is to rockets landing in your cities. 
The rockets were fired in response to what Hamas feels Isreal was not doing to uphold it's end of the cease fire. So couldn't Hamas have found another way other than fire rockets? It's like when someone calls you a name and you then throw sticks at them.
The rockets were fired in response to what Hamas feels Isreal was not doing to uphold it's end of the cease fire. So couldn't Hamas have found another way other than fire rockets? It's like when someone calls you a name and you then throw sticks at them.Any negotiation should be based on 1967 borders. Military power should not be a criteria for land grab. They're stealing land on a regular basis. They'll not stop until they wipe out the Palestinians from the face of the earth. It's not in Israels' interest for peace as that would jeopardise their chance to steal further land.
Not an occupation by any agreed legal standard. Look it up please.
Let's say the amount of people you injure in retaliation is similar to the amount of people you lost in the action you are retaliating to?
Please Sultan - tell the thread what claims the Palestinians actually have without beginning your response 'Everybody knows...'
Sorry - we can only injure?
unfortunate to you see that you turn to insults as soon as your 'argument' is challenged.
Israel has given back as good as it got, and much, much more on top. Don't forget the Suez crisis, the two Lebanon wars, the massacres of 1948, the last 8 years (when Palestinian causalties were many many times the Israeli ones) etc etc
[/QUOTE]Thats why Iran and Syria are supplying Hamas & Hezbollah. Thats why saudi are funding suicide bombing etc[/QUOTE]
let me restate my question (which you failed to answer): if you had thousands of your countrymen killed by an invading power, would you not fight back? Or would you just say 'oh well that's ok, we surrender' like you expect Hamas to do?
Okay, lets assume that you're right that Israel's primary concern is to enlarge their country (I'm not convinced, but anyway...); why does Israel want to keep further extending it's territory? Is it out of necessity because of overpopulation? Is it out of desire for a valuable resource in the acquired territory? Is it out of a basic instinct for expansion? Is it out of some sense of retribution? etc.
If we know what the primary motive, so to speak, is; then we can try to accommodate their needs and concerns better in any negotiation.
I'm not sure what the proper response is to rockets landing in your cities.
it's a bit more than calling someone a name: the Israeli/Egyptian blockade was creating real problems in Gaza, with many people suffering greately as a result.
Unlike the majority of present Israeli's, the Palestinians great grandfathers were born in that region.
Proof enough
who are we kidding here... no one in the West Bank can lift a finger without Israel's say so, because if they misbehave, Israeli forces will be there in no time.
De facto, they are still masters in the West Bank. And in Jerusalem, they still control it.
The questions wrong.
Israel never 'invaded'. It gained Gaza from Egypt and the west Bank form Jordan - who both attacked Israel. Look it up.
ok, kill, whatever. Point is, killing 300 people in response to a few rockets is _not_ a reasoned response
Legally, the Gaza Strip's "ownership" is ambiguous rather than belonging to either Party.
In 1983, on the Tsemel Case, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled:
http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR26/FMR2608.pdf
Since Israel retains control over Gaza's airspace, is this the case?
Land warfare only covers physical land occupation - but we're not dealing with lots of soldiers like in previous World Wars - we now have flight. When you occupy a city, you don't necessarily have troops inside it - you could have a significant air and sea presence to assert authority over said land - which is what occupation refers to.
Thats not proof Sultan, that's nothing . Give me maps, sourced statistics, UN resolutions. C'mon!
The above are good reasons. For further reasons/clarification, it's best asking Israeli's why they keep expanding.
Lebanon was an occupation - no problem with that example.
Why?
Because it's a soveriegn state. Gaza is not.
'gain' and 'invade' are the same thing. Point is, Israel holds land that does not belong to it, with people in it who do not want it.
Well, until you understand why they keep wanting to expand, then how can you even hope to accommodate their concerns in negotiation? It's going to take a desire to understand from both sides.
Well rockets landing in your city streets is a real problem also. With that choice Isreals response was certain. Until both sides can start over and negotiate with real intention of peace this will not end. Given the deep nature of the hatred and the idealologies involved I can't see an end that doesn't include many many deaths.
Gain and invade are too very different things and Israel holds land promised to it in 1922, 48 and 67. By the league of nations and the UN.
"Occupation" does not necessarily refer to a country. It refers to any substantial piece of land - for example, a city.
When the Germans occupied Paris during World War II, that was an occupation, but Paris was obviously not a sovereign state.
They occupied France.
Israel dont seem to consider the human side of things when involving in such procedures.
Take the Lebanon war a few years ago as an example - Hezbollah capture a few Israeli soldiers, and in response the Israelis completely demolish Beirut.
The same thing has happened now. In striking back against a broken ceasefire, Israelis decide to ruthlessly kill 300.
Take the Lebanon war a few years ago as an example - Hezbollah capture a few Israeli soldiers, and in response the Israelis completely demolish Beirut.
The same thing has happened now. In striking back against a broken ceasefire, Israelis decide to ruthlessly kill 300.
precisely. Settlements constatly keep being built, and encroach into Palestinian land. The Palestinian territory is constantly being eroded. And then they wonder why the Palestinians hate them and wish their destruction!
The sooner a two-state solution, along 1967 border lines, is adopted, the better.
They've been done to death on here
Indeed, but they occupied Paris before the rest of France (unlike the Allies who occupied Berlin last within Germany).
You might look at the Hamas charter. Something about the destruction of Isreal. Going to be hard to have a two state resolution when one thinks the other should be destroyed.
Its not a problem to me and I dont see any reason why it should become one. The 40 or so sane countries in the World for good humanitarian/economic reasons (idealism or self interest) want a peaceful world and see the solution as being based on
Israels right to exist without fear
Palestines right to be a viable independent nation.
(in short the two state solution)
Despite the protestations of the Israeli and Palestinian governments that they BROADLY agree with that kind of sanity.......neither has shown any real enthusiasm for it.
And even if they tried to go for it, they probably could not really deliver on it because of the Extremists within their own territories who would shout sell -out.
If the rest of the world shrugs its shoulders and says "well we tried but these two wont listen" then the rest of the world should just WALK AWAY.
If one or both nations gets obliterated that would be sad for the innocents but in the absence of an agreed settlement..........then both sides seem happy enough with a constant war........always controlled.
Sooner or later somebodys luck is going to run out and somebody is going to lose badly and more than likely BOTH will lose badly.
And not many people elsewhere will really care
And that why it's an occupation.