DS Forums

 
 

Israel/Palestinie, Who's Side You On And Why?


View Poll Results: Who's Side You On, Israel or Palestine, or Both/Neither?
Israel 47 26.86%
Palestine 46 26.29%
Both 16 9.14%
Neither 66 37.71%
Voters: 175. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 14:03
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Israel is also unique in that it was formed by other countries allowing a group to take over land that was already owned and occupied by people, who were expelled from their land and denied basic human rights. It was a travesty that it was formed in the first place, has cost probably hundreds of thousands of lives and has contributed a major part of Middle East unrest.

However, it's been there for many decades and isn't going away, so somehow there needs to be a peace plan, which seems to be resisted equally by the Israeli government and Hamas.
Well, what about the partition of India and Pakistan?

That resulted in a major death toll; between 200,000 and 2,000,000 died in the immediate, resultant genocide (the variation is accounted for by the fact that on some figures, 2,000,000 set off but never made it to the other nation). UNHCR estimates 14,000,000 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition.

It's fair to describe the entire event as "controversial" and of course, problems subsist today.

But sometimes, for highly complex political and/or sociological reasons, events which with hindsight appear challenging occur, nations are founded/adjusted and the world moves on.

It's not as if (as some ignorantly or slyly suggest) the Jews had no connection with the land as they plainly did, on some analysis far closer and longer than the Palestinians, but that's a whole other story.

I agree with your second para but maintain that Israel's present resistance and political shift to the right is attributable, in large part, to years of frustrated attempts to make peace, endless waves of terror attacks and the overwhelming sense that a bunker mentality is the only viable holding formation.
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Yesterday, 14:11
jasmin_witkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 28
Harry isn't in a position to pardon or ignore anyone's crimes, unlike Bibi and his mates
I didn't state Harry could pardon anyone, I stated he supported the the release of 'Marine A' and his conviction being overturned.

It's interesting, Israel follows the rule of law, convicts a soldier and you still complain. This isn't bias, it's biogoty againt the state.

Israel is also unique in that it was formed by other countries allowing a group to take over land that was already owned and occupied by people, who were expelled from their land and denied basic human rights. It was a travesty that it was formed in the first place, has cost probably hundreds of thousands of lives and has contributed a major part of Middle East unrest.

However, it's been there for many decades and isn't going away, so somehow there needs to be a peace plan, which seems to be resisted equally by the Israeli government and Hamas.
The first part is both factually and historically inaccurate. The recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland became legally binding in 1920 and was accepted under international law. It was called Jewish Palestine and protected the rights Arab farmers.

The de-facto Palestinian state was Trans-Jordan. It is a fact there was no independent Arab nations before 1920 as it was the San Remo Agreement which created them.

If your are looking for who were forcefully moved from their land it was the creation of Pakistan and the partition of India. But you don't see Sikhs, Hindus and Christians terroring Pakistanis.

Please, get your facts right.
jasmin_witkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:12
Mark39London
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,847
For what it's worth, I voted neither, mainly because there are too many idiots on both sides for a peaceful solution to be achieved at the moment.
Mark39London is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:19
Elyan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,867
For millennia, there have been persecutions against Jews throughout the civilised world. It's happened just about everywhere at some point or other. But they always had somewhere to go where they could seek refuge - until what happened in Europe during the 1930s & 40s. Then they had nowehere to go - because nobody wanted them. They were left to the mercy of their persecutors while the world stood by and did nothing, and the result was horrendous beyond words.

That alone, in my opinion, is justification for a Jewish homeland.
Elyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:41
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,789
For millennia, there have been persecutions against Jews throughout the civilised world. It's happened just about everywhere at some point or other. But they always had somewhere to go where they could seek refuge - until what happened in Europe during the 1930s & 40s. Then they had nowehere to go - because nobody wanted them. They were left to the mercy of their persecutors while the world stood by and did nothing, and the result was horrendous beyond words.

That alone, in my opinion, is justification for a Jewish homeland.
No it isn't.

In early November, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Christianity is “the most persecuted religion in the world.”

That is no justification for a Christian homeland.
And if it was, that would be in the birthplace of Christianity - Israel.
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:42
Elyan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,867
No it isn't.

In early November, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Christianity is “the most persecuted religion in the world.”

That is no justification for a Christian homeland.
And if it was, that would be in the birthplace of Christianity - Israel.
There are already a great number of countries in the world that will always be safe havens for Christians.
Elyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:14
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,789
There are already a great number of countries in the world that will always be safe havens for Christians.
You can say the same for Jews
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:21
Mark39London
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,847
You can say the same for Jews
The USA for one is a very safe and successful country for Jewish people.
Mark39London is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:22
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,789
I didn't state Harry could pardon anyone, I stated he supported the the release of 'Marine A' and his conviction being overturned.

It's interesting, Israel follows the rule of law, convicts a soldier and you still complain. This isn't bias, it's biogoty againt the state.



The first part is both factually and historically inaccurate. The recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland became legally binding in 1920 and was accepted under international law. It was called Jewish Palestine and protected the rights Arab farmers.

The de-facto Palestinian state was Trans-Jordan. It is a fact there was no independent Arab nations before 1920 as it was the San Remo Agreement which created them.

If your are looking for who were forcefully moved from their land it was the creation of Pakistan and the partition of India. But you don't see Sikhs, Hindus and Christians terroring Pakistanis.

Please, get your facts right.
Twice in recorded history, the Jews have abandoned this so-called homeland and left it for others to occupy and own.
Twice they have retaken it by force
The first time by committing the first ever recorded act of genocide at the battle of Jericho
Now they are flouting international law, and taking it again by force from its rightful owners.
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:35
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,266
/. Well, what about the partition of India and Pakistan?

2/. It's not as if (as some ignorantly or slyly suggest) the Jews had no connection with the land as they plainly did, on some analysis far closer and longer than the Palestinians, but that's a whole other story.

I agree with your second para but maintain that Israel's present resistance and political shift to the right is attributable, in large part, to years of frustrated attempts to make peace, endless waves of terror attacks and the overwhelming sense that a bunker mentality is the only viable holding formation.
1/. What about it? We are discussing Israel here. If you want to discuss the partitioning of India, start a thread about it. All you are doing is showing you want to divert from discussing Israel.

2/. How far back do you want to go? Are you saying everyone in the world has the right to settle in Ethiopia as that is where all mankind originated from? How many settlers had a connection with the land they "settled"? Was this "connection" more important than the connection to the land that the people living and farming on it had?

The first part is both factually and historically inaccurate. The recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland became legally binding in 1920 and was accepted under international law. It was called Jewish Palestine and protected the rights Arab farmers.

The de-facto Palestinian state was Trans-Jordan. It is a fact there was no independent Arab nations before 1920 as it was the San Remo Agreement which created them.

If your are looking for who were forcefully moved from their land it was the creation of Pakistan and the partition of India. But you don't see Sikhs, Hindus and Christians terroring Pakistanis.

Please, get your facts right.
You say it's wrong, than say it was was accepted under international law. Did the people living and farming there have any say in their land being given to other people? You say the rights of farmers were protected. What happened to that protection when people came and threw them off their land?

Again, nice try at bringing up India and Pakistan. Is that in the Israeli Government propaganda handbook as an argument to bring out when you are losing?
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:36
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Twice in recorded history, the Jews have abandoned this so-called homeland and left it for others to occupy and own.
Twice they have retaken it by force
The first time by committing the first ever recorded act of genocide at the battle of Jericho
Now they are flouting international law, and taking it again by force from its rightful owners.
Well, here it is.

Its those dastardly Jews again.

First at the battle of Jericho in circa 1400 B.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

So that'll be when the Jews deployed their weapons of mass destruction; otherwise known as trumpets. In a battle which almost certainly never happened.

Second, following the murder of a mere 6 million of there bretherin when the world, more or less, stood by and watched.

As for abandoning anywhere, I take it you've heard of the diaspora and the reasons why this occurred? If not, see below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

Please tell me your post is a (bad) joke.
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:26
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,789
Well, here it is.

Its those dastardly Jews again.

First at the battle of Jericho in circa 1400 B.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

So that'll be when the Jews deployed their weapons of mass destruction; otherwise known as trumpets.
FYI, they also used swords ........

You can read about it here in the bible: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...ua%205:13-6:27

"They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

This was the first ever recorded act of genocide.
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:44
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
FYI, they also used swords ........

You can read about it here in the bible: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...ua%205:13-6:27

"They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

This was the first ever recorded act of genocide.
Except the "battle" probably didn't happen, as per my link, and your evidence is the book of Joshua! Linking to a christian bible bashing site does not assist your case.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to do this but the following from Wiki is pretty self explanatory...

"In 1868, Charles Warren identified Tell es-Sultan as the site of Jericho. In 1930–36, John Garstang conducted excavations there and discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls which he dated to about 1400 BCE, the accepted biblical date of the conquest. Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated the site over 1952–1958 and demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period, and that Jericho had been deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century. Kenyon's work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries. A small unwalled settlement was rebuilt in the 15th century, but the tell was unoccupied from the late 15th century until the 10th/9th centuries.

Most scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.The book's origin is usually dated to a time far removed from the times it depicts, and its intention linked with a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense. The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE; these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538. The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua led archaeologist William G. Dever to deem the biblical story of the fall of Jericho as "[not] founded on genuine historical sources" and "invented out of whole cloth.""
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 16:57
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,789
Except the "battle" probably didn't happen, as per my link, and your evidence is the book of Joshua! Linking to a christian bible bashing site does not assist your case.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to do this but the following from Wiki is pretty self explanatory...

"In 1868, Charles Warren identified Tell es-Sultan as the site of Jericho. In 1930–36, John Garstang conducted excavations there and discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls which he dated to about 1400 BCE, the accepted biblical date of the conquest. Kathleen Kenyon re-excavated the site over 1952–1958 and demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period, and that Jericho had been deserted throughout the mid-late 13th century. Kenyon's work was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction level to the late 17th or 16th centuries. A small unwalled settlement was rebuilt in the 15th century, but the tell was unoccupied from the late 15th century until the 10th/9th centuries.

Most scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.The book's origin is usually dated to a time far removed from the times it depicts, and its intention linked with a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense. The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE; these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538. The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua led archaeologist William G. Dever to deem the biblical story of the fall of Jericho as "[not] founded on genuine historical sources" and "invented out of whole cloth.""
Well, some people are holocaust deniers
I see you are a Torah denier
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:05
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Well, some people are holocaust deniers
I see you are a Torah denier
I'm a lapsed Jew, an educated decision made following many years of interesting but somewhat incredible religious education.

Question is,do you really believe this stuff

Also, the comparison between holocaust and Torah denial is a bit off; are you suggesting some equivalence between the two, or that denial of the holocaust (which is of course a cast iron fact) is no more or less reasonable
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:08
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
What don't you concede? Anything, ever!

Israel is an enlightened, advanced democracy. Just one that has to put up with everything to which jasmin witkins referred above, to which it reacts to aggressively and not infrequently poorly, as I think any country in a similar position would.

It's not even as if this is a phase, it's been under constant attack, its entire existence. And you wonder why it's developed a persecution complex.

You don't understand, or don't want to understand that your "anti Zionist" playset leads you directly into the hands of the Israeli right wing, who are only too happy to play on the alleged anti Semitic undertones (both actual and imagined) which this engenders.

I've asserted time and again that yours and many others specific objection to Israel is in truth politically motivated because "Zionism" is socialisms favourite post war whipping boy.
I think what you always try to do is try and portray Israel as a poor little country surrounded by powerful neighbours just waiting to destroy it.

The truth is, of course, it is the nuclear military superpower of the Middle East.

When implying that Israel is seriously threatened by the likes of Palestine you just look silly.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:13
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
Amnesty International stated more civilians were killed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas rockets in 2015 than Israel. If Hamas did not fire rockets there wouldn’t be retaliation.
The point being murder of an Israeli is not comparable to building a house.

Killing Israeli Jews or Zionists as Hamas call them is immoral and ends life.

The solution, in my opinion is Palestinians have to show they are capable of coexisting with Israelis and can they can live peacefully in their own state. They could form a peace
advocacy group, they could build a functioning state and ask where the $48 billion gone.
They could stop building tunnels in Egypt, who many people don’t also suffer in this
situation and they could digging tunnels into Israel.

A secular government is only real solution
. Netanyahu and his right wing government will
have no justification to build settlements if there is violence against Israelis.
The United Nations needs to start supporting the secularists, because the Palestinian
Authority is part of the problem. Israel despite its faults works because it is a secular
democracy.



It’s the fashion in the UK these days, Prince Harry supported the release of ‘Marine A’ who
shot a Taliban commander in the head. Do you want to try again?
Agreed. The PLO is secular, but Israel helped the Islamist Hamas in its early days because they hate them too.

Israel doesn't really want a two state solution.

And maybe Israel can become a truly secular state, rather than the "Jewish state".
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:19
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
Well, here it is.

Its those dastardly Jews again.

First at the battle of Jericho in circa 1400 B.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

So that'll be when the Jews deployed their weapons of mass destruction; otherwise known as trumpets. In a battle which almost certainly never happened.

Second, following the murder of a mere 6 million of there bretherin when
the world, more or less, stood by and watched.

As for abandoning anywhere, I take it you've heard of the diaspora and the reasons why this occurred? If not, see below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

Please tell me your post is a (bad) joke.
Quite a bit of the world was fighting a war against the perpetrators at the time.

Didn't you know?
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:20
mungobrush
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 7,789
I'm a lapsed Jew, an educated decision made following many years of interesting but somewhat incredible religious education.

Question is,do you really believe this stuff

Also, the comparison between holocaust and Torah denial is a bit off; are you suggesting some equivalence between the two, or that denial of the holocaust (which is of course a cast iron fact) is no more or less reasonable
I am not questioning the historical fact (or otherwise) of either the battle of Jericho or the holocaust

I'm suggesting that some people deny stuff that they would otherwise find uncomfortable to explain in the context of their beliefs.
mungobrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:25
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
I think what you always try to do is try and portray Israel as a poor little country surrounded by powerful neighbours just waiting to destroy it.

The truth is, of course, it is the nuclear military superpower of the Middle East.

When implying that Israel is seriously threatened by the likes of Palestine you just look silly.
Its a nuclear power because of the neighbors waiting to destroy it.

You've heard of the chicken and the egg, I'm sure...

As has been intimated elsewhere, if you're going to walk into a saloon bar full of bad hombres intent on killing you, you'd best bring a big gun; or as the IRA famously put it to Thatcher, we only need to be lucky once, you need to be lucky every time.

Anyway, who is suggesting that the Israeli's are about to nuke the Palestinians? That might be an unwise strategy , given the way nuclear weapons work...
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:26
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
Quite a bit of the world was fighting a war against the perpetrators at the time.

Didn't you know?
Not on behalf of the Jews they weren't.
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 17:30
Beanybun
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,739
I am not questioning the historical fact (or otherwise) of either the battle of Jericho or the holocaust

I'm suggesting that some people deny stuff that they would otherwise find uncomfortable to explain in the context of their beliefs.
Its hardly uncomfortable to deny a story about bringing down the walls of Jericho with trumpet blasts, any more than its uncomfortable to deny some beardy bloke walking on water, or turning it into wine. Or any number of other biblical stories, of whatever stripe as they are plainly ridiculous, albeit better understandable, if interpreted as allegories.

Anyway, I think we're getting slightly off topic!
Beanybun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:46
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
Its a nuclear power because of the neighbors waiting to destroy it.

You've heard of the chicken and the egg, I'm sure...

As has been intimated elsewhere, if you're going to walk into a saloon bar full of bad hombres intent on killing you, you'd best bring a big gun; or as the IRA famously put it to Thatcher, we only need to be lucky once, you need to be lucky every time.

Anyway, who is suggesting that the Israeli's are about to nuke the Palestinians?
That might be an unwise strategy , given the way nuclear weapons work...
Not me - I am pointing out that Israel is the military superpower of the area, both in nuclear and conventional arms terms.

Palestine is as much a threat to its existence as a gnat is to a rhinoceros.

Israel is not the victim here - despite constantly trying to make out it is.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:54
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
Not on behalf of the Jews they weren't.
What an odd statement.

Can you explain its meaning, please, in relation to your statement that the rest of the world stood by and watched while the Jews were slaughtered?

Are you somehow implying that the struggle against the Axis in the war by the Allies is somehow lessened by the fact that it was not born out of the German treatment of the Jews before September 1939?

The war had already started before the mass killing of Jews began, remember.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:55
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
Except the "battle" probably didn't happen, as per my link, and your evidence is the book of Joshua!
Why believe anything in the Old Testament / Torah?
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21.