Israel vs. Gaza: Another Bloody War?

[Stacy]

What justice is there for a group of people being genocide in europe by germans and whatever, and then for arabs having to forcefully pay the prize for it. Did the arabs cause the holocaust? Were the arabs slaughtering jews in europe? No so what did the palestinians do to deserve being chased out of their lands?

Not to be a dick but some Eastern European Arab Countries helped the Nazis get rid of their Jews that lived in their countries. I suggest you look that up.

Im probably not the only one aware of the great deal of media manipulation going on. Most of you seem like very wise guys to give into all those crap. You cant believe everything, even if it has long been indoctrinated into your head, realise that some of the things you may have learned in history class, may be bullshit as well.

Thank god for the internet though. No wonder they're wanting to restrict it so much

Your that one of those Conspiracy nutjobs that thinks all Jews want to take over the world?

Edited November 19, 2012 by BW199148

[Djawed]

I'll look it up but it'd be great if you could provide me a source.

And the answer is no. I assume you dont disagree with the remark on the media?

Edited November 19, 2012 by Djawed

[Candescence]

I edited my post a bit sorry. Anyway no palestine was a pieceful land like any other with probably ofcourse its own issues as well. But the fact is that jews ,muslims and christians could live piecefuly next to each other. I dont think there would have been any trouble if jews ended immigrating to palestine(or was it emigrating, excuse my english and grammar pls).

The troubles were started when the idea of a jewish state was being realised, by force.

*Sigh* Once again, do your research. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. As CSS said, Wikipedia is there for a reason. TvTropes also provides a decent (if more informal) summary. But if you want a history lesson that badly...

There had been conflicts in the region between the Muslims and Jewish immigrants for various reasons, and at the time, Palestine as a nation simply did not exist, as it was still part of the British Empire. During and after World War II, there was a massive influx of immigrants out of Europe into the region, which frustrated the British immensely, as they were trying to stop that (for the longest time they had been trying to quell any conflict there, which usually ended up with them favoring the Palestinians). The UN eventually stepped in, and with support from the US and the Soviet Union, told the British to get out of there, and establish a proper nation for the Jewish people alongside Palestine in the process, so they could keep the Israelis and the Palestinians at arms-length.

Problem is, the Arab states attacked the new state the moment it was formed. Palestinians fled the area immediately to avoid getting in the crossfire, and also believed that the Arab nations, with vastly superior numbers, would triumph easily and they'd be allowed to return... Except that didn't happen. Israel was already prepared, and with good reason, with a vastly better-trained army that easily trounced the disorganized Arab troops, starting the string of victories that would allow Israel to continue existing, despite always attacking in self-defense.

I recall a documentary that said they once used lipstick containers for their bullet casings. Isreal's pragmatic as hell, that's for damn sure.

Also, on the subject of pre-emptive strikes like that of the Six Day War, weren't countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Syria arrogantly broadcasting their intent to take out Isreal? Questionable as it may be to some, I wouldn't blame them for a pre-emp strike if their foes were willing to do something like that.

If they did, they really brought their own ass-kicking on themselves.

[Djawed]

@masaru

We learn something everyday. Look im not like an expert on the subject. I may have to do my research indeed because that story you just told me is one i've never heard. I never knew "palestine" was british land.

Still yeah its a very complicated situation. Thanks for your time

Edited November 19, 2012 by Djawed

[Tornado]

Just wanna throw this into the discussion.

What can we read from this?

That whoever made that doesn't know that before 1947 the concept of "Palestinian lands" and "Jewish lands" didn't exist?

Edited November 19, 2012 by Tornado

[Stacy]

I'll look it up but it'd be great if you could provide me a source.

And the answer is no. I assume you dont disagree with the remark on the media?

Wikipedia is your friend.

Some Arab groups collabreted with Nazis against the Jews and minorites:

http://en.wikipedia...._the_Arab_world

When I meant some Arabs I meant some Arabs some helped save some Jews despite their differences:

http://en.wikipedia....f_the_Holocaust

Yeah don't believe everything the media tells you but also don't believe some of the bullshit said on the internet either.

Edited November 19, 2012 by BW199148

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

We learn something everyday. Look im not like an expert on the subject.I may have to do my research indeed because that story you just told me is one i've never heard. I never knew "palestine" was british land

Protip: if you've never heard about something or even did some basic research on it, don't act like you do and start arguing with those who know it better.

[Djawed]

Protip: if you've never heard about something or even did some basic research on it, don't act like you do and start arguing with those who know it better.

Well, dont most of us only know a part of the bigger picture? Only difference seems that im openly saying it. I do know a share about the whole middle east situation. Allthough since we dont live there, we can never sure, hence why we have dialogue. Edited November 19, 2012 by Djawed

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well, dont most of us only know a part of the bigger picture?

That depends on the person, but that still doesn't excuse them from doing their research to find out more about the picture.

I don't know the full picture myself, but the least I could do is find out on the internet and ask whether the source is legit or not from those who've been studying it longer.

Edited November 19, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Badnik Zero]

There's been a ceasefire as of yesterday afternoon. A bus bomb went off in Tel Aviv, Israel sent one last helicopter missile in response and Hamas responded with some rockets. But it's been silent since then. Egypt helped broker the deal as usual, Morsi is a good guy.

Also that graphic with the land comparisons is propaganda. The third map is correct. No land loss has occurred since 1967 except the incremental creep by Israeli settlements, which is the light green around Jerusalem in the middle. The final map maybe represents places the Israeli army sometimes patrols (I know they control the Jordanian border 100%), but Israel lays no claim to these lands. Also Gaza is suspicious for not being solid green when they have been autonomous with zero Israeli presence since 2005. Possibly represents a blockade of ports, but that is not land loss, Gaza is Gaza.

Edited November 22, 2012 by American Ristar

[Shawshank Redemption]

This is the first fact-based account I have seen in a while of who broke the ceasefire and what's happening in Gaza from the mostly useless lamestream media.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[TheGerkuman]

That wouldn't solve the problem of Hamas being murderous terrorists, nor would Israel admit to any wrongdoing even if they were forced to accept it. It's a one-sided argument, and no argument can be one sided in a conflict like this because, in general, humans will do the wrong thing during warfare to get what they want.

Sorry to be blunt, but I get annoyed when people (i.e. the man in the video) act as if wars are good vs evil. They never are. Even in World War II the allies committed atrocities, they just happened to be a lot better by comparison. I have the right to be against both sides. I don't have to pick between governments who kill.

I feel REALLY sorry for the people of Palenstine who are caught in the middle of a conflict between ideological nutcases that they never asked for.* No-one gives them a voice, because anyone who brings them up invariably uses them as a reason to side with one over the other, instead of asking what they'd actually want.

* Yes, you could make an argument that they voted Hamas in, but they were pissed off with Fatah. It's like when people voted the tories last election because they were sick of Labour. No-one asked for a civil war, but they got one.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Gerkuman

[Shawshank Redemption]

That wouldn't solve the problem of Hamas being murderous terrorists, nor would Israel admit to any wrongdoing even if they were forced to accept it. It's a one-sided argument,

You don't see your own one-sided argument which is ironic. The Palestian leaders you so freely call murderious terrorists when they didn't break the ceasefire but you would never describe the Israeli leadership as bloodthirsty war criminals, even though that is also an accurate description. Don't pretend not to be taking a side while you straddle that fence harder.

When people put any blame on Israel it's always couched in false-equivalency "but both sides do it" rhetoric which wipes away the enormous number of deaths and crimes against humanity the state has commited.

When people blame the ideologue nutters in Hamas (who were elected after 40 YEARS of occupation) it's always in the worst possible terms so they can blame the Gazans and disgustingly justify the entire history of occupation.

To be truly "balanced" you must first admit that this is not a "balanced" conflict but an ongoing Israeli war crime.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[TheGerkuman]

but you would never describe the Israeli leadership as bloodthirsty war criminals, even though that is also an accurate description.

Yes I have. Multiple times, albeit not in this topic. But this is what I'm arguing about. The idea that one side being better than the other means that they should win is... laughably wrong. Neither of them should win. What is there actually to win? Why are you so quick to defend Hamas? Do you honestly want them in power, just so that you can vent your spleen against Israel?

What happens if they get what they want? They'll continue to oppress their own people, as they've clearly done ever since they got elected. But apparently that's fine.

Sod the Israeli government and sod Hamas.

[Shawshank Redemption]

Yes I have. Multiple times, albeit not in this topic. But this is what I'm arguing about. The idea that one side being better than the other means that they should win is... laughably wrong. Neither of them should win.

There is no "win" to be had here.

The only good resolution is the end of occupation and a two-state solution.

Putting it in terms of winning like a football game and using Hamas as some kind of boogie man to justify not ending the occupation is wrong, morally and historically.

Gazans will elect moderates again when they don't have their backs to the wall.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Ball Hog Badnik

[TheGerkuman]

The only good resolution is the end of occupation and a two-state solution.

And then Hamas can be got rid of, since their purpose doesn't exist anymore, right?

Of course not. They'll still be there, throwing their rhetoric at Israel. And Israel is never going to face any repercussions for their actions due to the US supporting them. And then there'll be more fighting, because nether side wants the other to exist. (The main difference being how long they've done it for.)

The two state solution is the least worst option, and yes it should be the goal. But until that happens, Hamas is thrown out and Israel takes responsibility for its actions, nothing will change.

Edit: It's like there's this radar in your head that takes everything I say and then tries to find a pro-Israel anti-Palestine bias in it. Can I not be taken at my word value? It feels like you're accusing me of being a liar, and it's pissing me off.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Gerkuman

[Badnik Zero]

This is the first fact-based account I have seen in a while of who broke the ceasefire and what's happening in Gaza...

Which ceasefire? Rockets have been launched from Gaza on almost a weekly basis since the beginning of this year. They fall on southern Israeli towns constantly. The news doesn't even report it over there anymore because it's taken for granted that the south is always under Hamas mortar fire. Escalations in March and October were responses to rocket attacks. Jabari (the leader they assassinated) was indirectly negotiated with for some time, as one guy who could somewhat keep the peace by keeping the attacks under wrap. The Israeli government is content to ignore rocket fire on small towns, but Hamas targeted Israel's two major cities - there was no way this wasn't provoking a response. When the sirens go off the city stands still, which Israel would never allow in their two capitals. Hamas is stupid and cries when it gets bitchslapped by a modern military - they do it for the international sympathy. They actually declared this short war a victory with celebrations in Gaza. Israel is stupider for allowing a collective punishment model and falling into this trap, but don't act like Hamas is not the provocateur in most of these clashes. Israel would have many more rockets fall on it if it did not pay millions and millions now for their Iron Dome interception system. Iron Dome shot down 90% of the rockets fired during this conflict.

Edited November 24, 2012 by American Ristar

[Tornado]

The Palestian leaders you so freely call murderious terrorists when they didn't break the ceasefire but you would never describe the Israeli leadership as bloodthirsty war criminals, even though that is also an accurate description.

Pretty sure no one in this thread has lined up to say that Israel is the coolest group in the world (though "bloodthirsty war criminals" is just you so obviously looking to pick a fight that it's actually pretty funny). Gerkuman even said the people living there are caught between "two ideological nutjobs."

So... what's your point, exactly, aside from complaining because Gerkuman didn't say how totally awesome Hamas was and awful Israel is?

You don't see your own one-sided argument which is ironic.

Don't pretend not to be taking a side while you straddle that fence harder.

To be truly "balanced" you must first admit that this is not a "balanced" conflict but an ongoing Israeli war crime.

Oh please. You are are the last person in this thread with any right to lecture anyone about any of that. I disagree with Palas on this issue, but now that we've discussed it extensively I can at least see his reasoning for feeling the way he does being based on disillusionment with the entire region and how callously the groups involved treat loss of life of innocent people.

You on the other hand have done nothing but attempt to glorify a terrorist group under the apparent reasoning that because Israel has done shitty things (and yeah, they have, as many people have pointed out in this thread which you keep ignoring when you rail on about double standards and one sided arguments) that means what Hamas is doing is justified. The problem is that it's not.

Hamas is a terrorist group that came into power because of Israel's tendency to overreact when dealing with every little thing made it so the people living in the area had finally had enough, but that doesn't automatically make Hamas the good guys. Being balanced doesn't mean you must sympathize with both sides of every story, and it certainly doesn't mean "the underdogs are that way because of what the big guy did, so you have to support them" like you keep acting.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

I think that we need to get some perspective on this whole nasty affair. I've posted this in the videos thread, but I feel it bears repeating in here:

Throughout history, Israel/Palestine has been one of the most fought over pieces of land in the world, due in no small part to the confluence of three major religions in the area. The warring isn't going to end soon, not with how personal it has become to both sides. Even if the great powers intervene, redraw the maps and force capitulation from both groups, the peace will only ever be temporary. It might take the eventual nuclear bombardment of Jerusalem, Israel and Palestine in general, rendering the whole area uninhabitable for many generations, to finally bring some semblance of peace to the place. Maybe. And then someone else will come to claim it for their own, and their claim will be disputed, and the warring will resume.

[SuperStingray]

As a Jew, I've been raised on Israel's history, and at the end of the day I find it to be more trouble than it's worth. The basis of its creation made sense- Jewish refugees from the holocaust needed a place of safety and security and their historical homeland seemed like the best choice, but now that it seems to have become more of a reason for antisemitism and warfare than protection from it. The scale of the conflict is not relevant to my siding on this- people always end up taking Machiavellian measures in extended conflicts and this is no exception. In a practical sense, Israel's statehood has just outlived the reason for existence, like the appendix. But now that it's inflamed it's no longer vestigial, it's a burden.

[SuperStingray]

Palestine has officially been recognized as a state by the UN.

[Patticus]

Palestine has officially been recognized as a state by the UN.

Sort of. Its status has been upgraded to Non-Member Observer State, one step below a fully recognized state.

Predictably, Israel and the US are against this move, and the UK abstained on voting altogether.

[Tornado]

It was also most likely done to clarify what UN-sponsored groups are actually allowed to do in the region when they are distributing aid and whatnot rather than as any attempt to further Palestinian statehood ideals.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

Republicans and Democrats alike in the US Congress are up in arms about the move, threatening to reduce or cut off US aid to Palestine. Because apparently Palestine edging a wee bit closer to getting UN recognition of its statehood (which I would think a vital part of any two state peace agreement) is a crime against humanity worthy of such actions, because Israelis think all/most Palestinians don't recognize their right to exist (most actually do recognize it), whereas Israel treating Palestinians little better than Jews in Nazi ghettos and being surprised when they then democratically elect to power a terrorist group (which does good deeds for Gazans) is clearly, you know, just a normal thing to do. Yet another reason why political lobby groups should be banned from operating in the US.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I can tell this is gonna complicate things even more.

So who has the news on the best and worst-case scenarios? Because I can't predict this path for shit.