Zionism

[enwiabe]

I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.

The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that is the correct version of events...

1) It was the Balfour declaration
2) It was more than just the west bank
3) You skipped over about 5 different wars.
4) Hamas was only formed in 1987, 40 years after the formation of Israel. Countless other militias and groups existed before them, do not even understand how you could gloss over all of that.
5) Wow.

[Biceps]

I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.

The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that is the correct version of events...

1) It was the Balfour declaration
2) It was more than just the west bank
3) You skipped over about 5 different wars.
4) Hamas was only formed in 1987, 40 years after the formation of Israel. Countless other militias and groups existed before them, do not even understand how you could gloss over all of that.
5) Wow.

That's beside the point, this is a grossly oversimplified sequence of events, all these events lead to what israel is today.
1)I did talk about the Balfour declaration i just simplified it because i don't have the time to elaborate on it.
2)It was primarily the West Bank
3)All those wars eventually resulted in todays map of Israel/Palestine.
4)All those military groups had the similar objectives so why would i bring them up?

[Truck]

Israel has a moral obligation to defend it's from a Terroist Organization otherwise known as Hamas.

Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, you get nowhere by labelling other groups as terrorist organisations, just because they are of different people to you and just because they stand for different causes doesn't mean that they are a terrorist organisation.

To many people, Hamas are freedom fighters who are fighting to get back land that (according to them) they rightfully own.

Resolving disputes requires both sides to understand the motives of each other and accept that both their motives are understandable and reasonable. To call a party a terrorist organisation is just inciting hatred and not assisting others to understand why Hamas do what they do. This will never assist to resolve the current situation in Gaza.

Israel has been targeted time and time again in it's history by Arab Countries. Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War. It is justified to have such Arsenal in order to deter these states from using aggressive tactics in order to get rid of Israel. Back in that time , Arab Leaders aimed to drive the Jews into the Sea.

Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by the EU and US not because it represents Palestine, but because it deliberately does not discriminate between civilians and terrorists. Whose Reality, perceptions etc etc aside, what makes them terrorists is the fact that they attack civilians on PURPOSE, whereas nowadays (not in the past), Fatah does not. Fatah is more or less a real political party that isn't defined as a terrorist group because they mostly don't support indiscriminate attacks (although they still kinda do... morally ambiguous area).

@pi, it's interesting that you would look at raw deaths as a way of measuring who is right or wrong in this situation. Firstly, let's look at the rockets fired into Israel over the past 12 years - more then 13,000 rockets have been fired. Now, assuming these rockets have the POTENTIAL to kill one person each (although one can and has killed more) - if they were in fact killing Israeli's, would that in your mind give Israel the moral impetus to fight back and somehow make them more in the right? This in my opinion is flawed logic... I would argue that although more Palestinian civilians have died (a tragedy in itself), having Israeli kids need to run into bomb shelters every second day for a few years is equally tragic. Israel is acting to prevent future deaths, and it is precisely that which has ensured their death toll remains relatively low.

The next element is WHY are more Palestinian civilians dying? Now on the one hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Israel does not need to somehow retaliate to the Hamas rocket threat because it is a substantial threat that in reality, no other country would tolerate. These fighters for Hamas are not bastions of morality who are fighting for some grand cause, it is a well documented fact that Hamas will place their rocket launch sites in areas where they can maximize civilian casualties. What then can Israel do to reduce casualties? JellyDonut touched upon this earlier, when he suggested that Israel could be using more discretion in their air strikes. Well firstly, as according to your link, look at the civilian deaths and compare Cast Lead to Pillar of Defense - yes, Pillar of Defense was shorter, but the militant:civilian death ratio was also much lower. I would argue that Israel is improving it's air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian deaths.

I think that ultimately Israel is in an incredibly precarious position where the cliche "damned if you do, damned if you don't" really does apply. It has to protect its citizens and respond to the rocket strikes, but on the other hand that is what Hamas wants Israel to do as the only way for them to generate Western support is if there's a constant stream of photos of wounded children and crying mothers. The real victims in this situation are the Palestinian population, and I emphasize with them for what it must be like to live as puppets in a regime which cares little about them.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[Truck]

Sorry for double post, but in terms of original Land ownership, I recommend you skim through this link;
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
which I posted earlier.

It explains the blatant exaggerations and misconstructions of reality which the Palestinian side has been doing for many years.

FINALLY: At the original topic which cited the UN as evidence;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

I recommend this video... it's enlightening. Enwiabe I think you'd also agree with it.

[QuantumJG]

I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.

The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Jerusalem is holy land to all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Labeling Hamas as terrorists is not accurate since their objective is not to kill innocent people, it is to defend land they believe they own.
Sadly there can't be complete peace until one side gets the land. This can only be achieved by one side, unfortunately, wiping out the other.
Since the land originally belonged to the Palestinians I believe that they deserve the land.

I understand that Jerusalem is the holy land to all three Abrahamic religions. Considering Judaism is the oldest of the three, wouldn't that mean they were the original inhabitants? I was merely using that as an argument, since you were saying the original inhabitants should have all the land.

Again, I said before that my knowledge on this topic is zilch. However, in my opinion there should be a way to satisfy both parties in a way that's peaceful.

[Biceps]

I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.

The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Jerusalem is holy land to all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Labeling Hamas as terrorists is not accurate since their objective is not to kill innocent people, it is to defend land they believe they own.
Sadly there can't be complete peace until one side gets the land. This can only be achieved by one side, unfortunately, wiping out the other.
Since the land originally belonged to the Palestinians I believe that they deserve the land.

I understand that Jerusalem is the holy land to all three Abrahamic religions. Considering Judaism is the oldest of the three, wouldn't that mean they were the original inhabitants? I was merely using that as an argument, since you were saying the original inhabitants should have all the land.

Again, I said before that my knowledge on this topic is zilch. However, in my opinion there should be a way to satisfy both parties in a way that's peaceful.

I hope someone could come up with some compromise. It is unlikely though because both parties are so adamant about their entitlement to the land.
Even if they weren't i don't think any would just give the land for 2 reasons
1) Pride would be at stake.
2) This conflict gives both sides a good reason to blast each other since there is more than just political hatred between both parties.

[Truck]

I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.

The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Jerusalem is holy land to all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Labeling Hamas as terrorists is not accurate since their objective is not to kill innocent people, it is to defend land they believe they own.
Sadly there can't be complete peace until one side gets the land. This can only be achieved by one side, unfortunately, wiping out the other.
Since the land originally belonged to the Palestinians I believe that they deserve the land.

I understand that Jerusalem is the holy land to all three Abrahamic religions. Considering Judaism is the oldest of the three, wouldn't that mean they were the original inhabitants? I was merely using that as an argument, since you were saying the original inhabitants should have all the land.

Again, I said before that my knowledge on this topic is zilch. However, in my opinion there should be a way to satisfy both parties in a way that's peaceful.

I hope someone could come up with some compromise. It is unlikely though because both parties are so adamant about their entitlement to the land.
Even if they weren't i don't think any would just give the land for 2 reasons
1) Pride would be at stake.
2) This conflict gives both sides a good reason to blast each other since there is more than just political hatred between both parties.

During the Oslo accords Israel gave Arafat (Palestine) 98% of their demands. It is clear which side is more often than not unwilling to compromise, and it's not Israel.

EDIT: To clarify, Israel had agreed to withdraw from a net 98% of the disputed territories in exchange for peace. If that isn't a compromise then I don't know what is.

[pi]

@pi, it's interesting that you would look at raw deaths as a way of measuring who is right or wrong in this situation. Firstly, let's look at the rockets fired into Israel over the past 12 years - more then 13,000 rockets have been fired. Now, assuming these rockets have the POTENTIAL to kill one person each (although one can and has killed more) - if they were in fact killing Israeli's, would that in your mind give Israel the moral impetus to fight back and somehow make them more in the right? This in my opinion is flawed logic... I would argue that although more Palestinian civilians have died (a tragedy in itself), having Israeli kids need to run into bomb shelters every second day for a few years is equally tragic. Israel is acting to prevent future deaths, and it is precisely that which has ensured their death toll remains relatively low.

The next element is WHY are more Palestinian civilians dying? Now on the one hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Israel does not need to somehow retaliate to the Hamas rocket threat because it is a substantial threat that in reality, no other country would tolerate. These fighters for Hamas are not bastions of morality who are fighting for some grand cause, it is a well documented fact that Hamas will place their rocket launch sites in areas where they can maximize civilian casualties. What then can Israel do to reduce casualties? JellyDonut touched upon this earlier, when he suggested that Israel could be using more discretion in their air strikes. Well firstly, as according to your link, look at the civilian deaths and compare Cast Lead to Pillar of Defense - yes, Pillar of Defense was shorter, but the militant:civilian death ratio was also much lower. I would argue that Israel is improving it's air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian deaths.

Well firstly, I didn't make any point in mentioning who was "wrong" or "right". Neither side are "right" in my honest opinion, not that I ever tried to address that. I haven't taken a side, but I do feel for civilian losses.

The point I was trying to address was whether the response from Israel is and was justified.

As aforementioned in this thread "Israel does not target cvilians" (and I have seen a similar line on the IDF site) and from a few posts (and knowledge), it can be inferred that clearly Israel has the superior protection for it's citizens and the better weaponry to respond. Personally, I find it ironic that although (again as aforementioned) "Whenever civilians are killed in an IDF mission, that it is considered a failure of the mission", civilians in Palestine continue to die by the hands of the IDF despite their being so many of these "failure missions".

Surely Israel could and should have rethought their approach to combat the strikes made my Hamas to one that meets their goal? You make mention of the recent developments/improvements (which is fine, although I can't find much evidence on the net to support the claim), but in Cai's post, the discussion was one that was referring to missile strikes "over years", not just more recent strikes: The justification to retaliate they way they have done so over many years. Hence, my links and my stance.

Again I ask, was and is Israel's overall response justified?

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[Biceps]

They did offer that land. However that peace process was violated very quickly.
"A Palestinian spokesmen repeatedly explained that the collapse of the Oslo peace process was due first and foremost to the expansion of Israeli settlements and the disappointing extent of the territorial control of the Palestinian Authority. Polls of Palestinian public opinion indicate that (((((the broad populace shared this view)))))." [tried to put in bold but dont know how ]

[Planck's constant]

Pi, the problem with this so-called debate, is that it is not a debate at all. The OP barges in and states 'The Israeli Defense Force are murdering terrorists. Discuss'. It is totally understandable that the OP gets pulled up and his motives questioned.

Personally I think the OP trivialised a very complex historical issue which goes back decades with some random Wikipedia and YouTube references. This ain't history, my friend.

[Truck]

@pi, it's interesting that you would look at raw deaths as a way of measuring who is right or wrong in this situation. Firstly, let's look at the rockets fired into Israel over the past 12 years - more then 13,000 rockets have been fired. Now, assuming these rockets have the POTENTIAL to kill one person each (although one can and has killed more) - if they were in fact killing Israeli's, would that in your mind give Israel the moral impetus to fight back and somehow make them more in the right? This in my opinion is flawed logic... I would argue that although more Palestinian civilians have died (a tragedy in itself), having Israeli kids need to run into bomb shelters every second day for a few years is equally tragic. Israel is acting to prevent future deaths, and it is precisely that which has ensured their death toll remains relatively low.

The next element is WHY are more Palestinian civilians dying? Now on the one hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Israel does not need to somehow retaliate to the Hamas rocket threat because it is a substantial threat that in reality, no other country would tolerate. These fighters for Hamas are not bastions of morality who are fighting for some grand cause, it is a well documented fact that Hamas will place their rocket launch sites in areas where they can maximize civilian casualties. What then can Israel do to reduce casualties? JellyDonut touched upon this earlier, when he suggested that Israel could be using more discretion in their air strikes. Well firstly, as according to your link, look at the civilian deaths and compare Cast Lead to Pillar of Defense - yes, Pillar of Defense was shorter, but the militant:civilian death ratio was also much lower. I would argue that Israel is improving it's air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian deaths.

Well firstly, I didn't make any point in mentioning who was "wrong" or "right". Neither side are "right" in my honest opinion, not that I ever tried to address that. I haven't taken a side, but I do feel for civilian losses.

The point I was trying to address was whether the response from Israel is and was justified.

As aforementioned in this thread "Israel does not target cvilians" (and I have seen a similar line on the IDF site) and from a few posts (and knowledge), it can be inferred that clearly Israel has the superior protection for it's citizens and the better weaponry to respond. Personally, I find it ironic that although (again as aforementioned) "Whenever civilians are killed in an IDF mission, that it is considered a failure of the mission", civilians in Palestine continue to die by the hands of the IDF despite their being so many of these "failure missions".

Surely Israel could and should have rethought their approach to combat the strikes made my Hamas to one that meets their goal? You make mention of the recent developments/improvements (which is fine, although I can't find much evidence on the net to support the claim), but in Cai's post, the discussion was one that was referring to missile strikes "over years", not just more recent strikes: The justification to retaliate they way they have done so over many years. Hence, my links and my stance.

Again I ask, was and is Israel's overall response justified?

A sad fact of military conflict is that there will be civilian casualties. As much as Israel can attempt to minimize them, you are burying your head in the sand if you think it's ever possible to execute missions without any civilian deaths, especially when facing a force which does all they can to put these people in harms way. In terms of improvements, I'm simply talking about the ratio of civilians:militants being killed - which is substantially better in the 2012 conflict then 2009, which I like to think is an improvement. I'd like to ask you what you think is an alternative to air strikes? Israel called up 100,000 reservists in the recent operation and it was widely acknowledged that a ground offensive would result in many more deaths than their current policy of targeted air strikes.

If you're saying that the response from Israel is not justified, I'd like to ask how you think they should respond to 2 violent intifada's, suicide bombers and bus bombings, daily rocket attacks and other forms of attack which indiscriminately target civilians. I think if you look into the history of the past 12 years, more often than not their response has been justified, although I will of course acknowledge that they are not perfect and have made mistakes in the past.

@Oglow, whilst it's true settlement building activity contributed to the failure of the Oslo accords, the answer is a lot more complex and involves failures on both sides. What you just wrote is a gross oversimplification :p. 

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[mr.politiks]

The entire basis for this debate is whether or not the IDF actively terrorises civilians. Those who claim that when it does, investigations are launched, and themselves claim that they can POST the links for these investigations, could you please post the link for the investigation that followed this attack:

 

Over the past 72 hours, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have escalated their aerial and ground attacks against the Gaza Strip.  Five Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, have been killed, and 52 others, including 6 women and 12 children, have been wounded.  Four of these deaths and 38 of the injuries resulted from an Israeli attack on a football playground in al-Shoja’iya neighborhood east of Gaza City.  Additionally, 2 members of the Palestinian resistance were killed, and some civilian facilities were destroyed or damaged.

 

 

According to investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), at approximately 15:30 on Saturday, 10 November 2012, Israeli military vehicles stationed at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel fired an artillery shell at a number of Palestinian children who were playing football at al-Mentar Hill east of al-Shoja’iya neighborhood, which is east of Gaza City and nearly 1,500 meters away from the border.  As a result, 2 children were instantly killed:

 

1- Mohammed Ussama Hassan Harara (16); and

2- Ahmed Mustafa Khaled Harara (17).

 

Following this attack, a number of Palestinian civilians, who were gathered to mourn a bereaved in the house of the Harara family, rushed to the area, where the IOF immediately fired another 3 shells.  As a result, 2 Palestinian civilians were instantly killed:

 

1- Ahmed Kamel Al- Dirdissawi (18); and

2- Matar ‘Emad ‘Abdul Rahman Abu al-‘Ata (19).

 

Additionally, 38 civilians, including 8 children, were wounded; the wounding of 10 of these civilians was described by medical crews as being serious.

 

Earlier, on Thursday evening, 08 November 2012, the IOF killed a Palestinian child during an incursion in the ‘Abassan village, east of the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis.  According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 16:30 on Thursday, as a result of the indiscriminate shooting by IOF military vehicles that had moved into the ‘Abassan village, 13-year-old Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa was seriously wounded by a bullet to the abdomen.  At the time he was shot, Ahmed had been playing football with his friends in front of his family’s house, located nearly 1,200 meters away from the area where the IOF were present.  He was evacuated to the European Gaza Hospital in Khan Yunis, but he was pronounced dead 15 minutes later. 

source: http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8978:new-israeli-escalation-against-the-gaza-strip-7-palestinians-including-3-children-killed-and-52-others-including-6-women-and-12-children-wounded-&catid=145:in-focus#

It was this agression by the IDF that led to the latest escalation (which was followed by operation Pillar of Cloud). There are many more such incidences, but as long as you can provide evidence of independent investigation and prosecution of the guilty soldiers to prove that the IDF does not believe it is ok to kill civilians, i'll give you the debate. (this should be really easy, after all the most im asking you to do is produce two links, one giving evidence of investigation, the other giving evidence of prosecution)

[enwiabe]

Let me get this straight. You want a full investigation report and the trial proceedings over an event that happened less than a month ago.

Are we living in the same world?

[enwiabe]

Also, do you acknowledge the fact that Hamas fired 171 mortar shells and rockets into Israel during the month of October, attacks which well precede the event you have referred to?

[TheMirrorMan]

A question directed to mr.politiks. Do you believe Israel has a right to exist? Regardless of whether or not you believe the IDF is a terrorist organisation.