|
Post by wannabee on Oct 15, 2024 18:42:10 GMT
You keep parroting a mantra that nobody disputes but which is detached from reality Prestwick has already cited Menachem Begin, I'll add three more to the pot (there are many others), Mandela, *Ghandi and Arafat. All were branded as terrorists and served gaol time for it yet two won the Nobel Peace Prize and the latter was instrumental in bringing about the Oslo Accords for the Two State Solution you are so entirely wedded to as the only possible solution to the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. Sometimes a corrupt regime dictates that no matter how much you abhor the actions the context of them can only be reviewed historically, I suppose another way of saying the victor writes history. * I deliberately included Ghandi as while it is well understood he preached and practiced non violence. The struggle for Indian Independence didn't occur in a vacuum and others unlike Ghandi were prepared to resort to more violent acts. Far from condemning them Ghandi said he perfectly understood why they would resort to violence. All of those examples (and I would add Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness to that list) received their plaudits by renouncing terrorism and achieving their political ends through peaceful means. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Isteali government have done nothing of the sort. They are all using terror to acheive their ends and there is no political solution in sight and there won't be until both sides abandon terrorism as the means to their political ends. You're not to the first to misrepresent me on this thread and I'm sure you won't be the last. I am not wedded to the 2 state solution as a point of principe. I raise it because it's the only solution on the table backed by credible players. The thing is you and others justifying your "freedom fighters" atrocities committed against innocent Isreali civilians are offering nothing in the way of practical, achievable solutions. You bang on about first causes and the plight of the Palestininian people but that's it - you offer nothing bar well meaning platitudes. If the people of Palestine rely on Hamas, Hezbollah and their western bleeding heart, well meaning sympathisers to improve their situation they are well and truly fucked. They are not going to acheive a peaceful solution through violence. It's not only morally dubious but they have absolutely no chance of success - in an all out war there is only going to be one winner. I believe you are reimagining History. Initially Mandela led the ANC Non Violent protest against the SA Apartheid Regime. It was the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 which convinced Mandela that non violent protests only played into the hands of the SA Regime that he turned to violence, quite prolifically. During his 27 years in Prison he was offered the option to be released several times if he renounced violence, he never did. Eventually F W de Klerk offered Mandela an unconditional release as keeping him in prison under International calls was no longer tolerable. Mandela never renounced violence, unless you can show where he did. Arafat made a pledge to Rabin that the PLO would renounce violence and 2 days later he was in the White House. Arafat never intended to keep that pledge and didn't. When PLO Terrorist attacks continued he made some efforts to quell them but never with any particular enthusiasm which he could have. Ghandi never condemned those seeking Indian Independence though violence Although Gandhi never used or advocated violence, he did not absolutely oppose it. He said "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence" In the early days after the GFA an integral part and a sticking point was the independent decommissioning of the Nationalist and Loyalist cache of Arms. When challenged on it Adams and particularly McGuiness remarked "The guns are silent". Basically it was sufficient for McGuiness that a token amount of Arms were decommissioned and the intent was to abide by the GFA but he wasn't prepared to unilaterally give up Arms or commit to never taking them up again if the terms of GFA weren't being met. Neither Adams nor McGuiness renounced violence as an option. So you have some like Mandela who began non violent and came to see the futility. Arafat words and actions were contradictory. Ghandi never ruled out violence in all circumstances, only for himself and Adams and McGuiness certainly never ruled out violence. In all of the above circumstances except Israel/Palestine the Regime became untenable to Govern due to internal and external pressures but the catalyst was violent protest against the Regime.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 15, 2024 19:28:17 GMT
Every single word completely on point but incredibly, it seems plenty of people still don't get it!
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Oct 15, 2024 21:43:50 GMT
You could say the essential difference between Israeli and British governments is that one is a relatively civilised, liberal democracy and the other is a promoter of apartheid and terrorism. chng.it/M2hKpTgnjYOut of interest, what do you call the government of Gaza? Gaza is an illegally occupied territory. It has no real autonomy since its borders, trade and even access to water are controlled by the occupying power. Like everyone else on this thread I call Hamas a terrorist organisation, and totally condemn the barbaric events of. October 7 2023, when up to 1200 Israelis were killed, the majority by Hamas terrorists. The people responsible for terrorist atrocities and contraventions of international law must be held responsible: whoever they are. I am ashamed that our government supports anyone who would commit terrorism with no regard to international law.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 16, 2024 9:10:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 16, 2024 9:10:30 GMT
All of those examples (and I would add Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness to that list) received their plaudits by renouncing terrorism and achieving their political ends through peaceful means. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Isteali government have done nothing of the sort. They are all using terror to acheive their ends and there is no political solution in sight and there won't be until both sides abandon terrorism as the means to their political ends. You're not to the first to misrepresent me on this thread and I'm sure you won't be the last. I am not wedded to the 2 state solution as a point of principe. I raise it because it's the only solution on the table backed by credible players. The thing is you and others justifying your "freedom fighters" atrocities committed against innocent Isreali civilians are offering nothing in the way of practical, achievable solutions. You bang on about first causes and the plight of the Palestininian people but that's it - you offer nothing bar well meaning platitudes. If the people of Palestine rely on Hamas, Hezbollah and their western bleeding heart, well meaning sympathisers to improve their situation they are well and truly fucked. They are not going to acheive a peaceful solution through violence. It's not only morally dubious but they have absolutely no chance of success - in an all out war there is only going to be one winner. I believe you are reimagining History. Initially Mandela led the ANC Non Violent protest against the SA Apartheid Regime. It was the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 which convinced Mandela that non violent protests only played into the hands of the SA Regime that he turned to violence, quite prolifically. During his 27 years in Prison he was offered the option to be released several times if he renounced violence, he never did. Eventually F W de Klerk offered Mandela an unconditional release as keeping him in prison under International calls was no longer tolerable. Mandela never renounced violence, unless you can show where he did. Arafat made a pledge to Rabin that the PLO would renounce violence and 2 days later he was in the White House. Arafat never intended to keep that pledge and didn't. When PLO Terrorist attacks continued he made some efforts to quell them but never with any particular enthusiasm which he could have. Ghandi never condemned those seeking Indian Independence though violence Although Gandhi never used or advocated violence, he did not absolutely oppose it. He said "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence" In the early days after the GFA an integral part and a sticking point was the independent decommissioning of the Nationalist and Loyalist cache of Arms. When challenged on it Adams and particularly McGuiness remarked "The guns are silent". Basically it was sufficient for McGuiness that a token amount of Arms were decommissioned and the intent was to abide by the GFA but he wasn't prepared to unilaterally give up Arms or commit to never taking them up again if the terms of GFA weren't being met. Neither Adams nor McGuiness renounced violence as an option. So you have some like Mandela who began non violent and came to see the futility. Arafat words and actions were contradictory. Ghandi never ruled out violence in all circumstances, only for himself and Adams and McGuiness certainly never ruled out violence. In all of the above circumstances except Israel/Palestine the Regime became untenable to Govern due to internal and external pressures but the catalyst was violent protest against the Regime. Whatever they said and did earlier in life they all eventually gave up their arms and participated in a peaceful political solution and reconciled with the people they were fighting. Neither side in this conflict appear to be doing that at the moment. So basically without saying it you are actually saying that the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah are justified because of the acts of the Isreali government (although you probably prefer "freedom fighter" as it helps sanitize the rape and murder of innocent civilians). You accept that Hamas and Hezbelloah are terrorist organizations and you support what they are doing. That's fine, at least that's honest and you are the first to my knowledge who has actually admitted to holding this position. I wish others would be more honest. Having clarified your position tbe next step is to explain how this scenario will pan out (as no-one has as yet admitted to supporting the continued use of terrorism as the means of securing the future of the Palestinian people we are on new ground here). For what it's worth my take on this path is as follows: 1 Western government's are not going to cease supporting the Isreali government while the stated aim of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian regime is the eradication of the state of Isreal. This support is unconditional. 2 Hamas is outnumbered and out gunned in Gaza. Any armed struggle undertaken by Hamas alone will fail at the expense of thousands of civilian lives. If the armed conflict provides cover for the Israeli government to commit genocide in the region there are elements in the Isreali government who will encourage this to happen. 3 By their actions Hamas hoped to draw Hezbellah and the Iranian regime into the fight. They resisted and now Isreal has effectively decapitated Hezbollah and shown they are more than a match for Iran. Isreal probably won't be able to eradicate Hezbollah to the extent they can eradicate Hamas and will retreat from Lebanon at some point but any effective military support for Hamas will have been neutralised. 4 Iran will not go to war with Isreal because they know they will lose. They will continue to fund terrorism in the region but with the decimation of Hezbollah their impact in the region will be much reduced. So over and above any moral objection to this solution my main objection is entirely practical - in terms of improving the lot of the Paletsinisn people it isn't going to work. In fact it will make things worse. If you think I am wrong, please inform me of how your solution will pan out to the benefit of the Palestinian people.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 16, 2024 9:25:47 GMT
I believe you are reimagining History. Initially Mandela led the ANC Non Violent protest against the SA Apartheid Regime. It was the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 which convinced Mandela that non violent protests only played into the hands of the SA Regime that he turned to violence, quite prolifically. During his 27 years in Prison he was offered the option to be released several times if he renounced violence, he never did. Eventually F W de Klerk offered Mandela an unconditional release as keeping him in prison under International calls was no longer tolerable. Mandela never renounced violence, unless you can show where he did. Arafat made a pledge to Rabin that the PLO would renounce violence and 2 days later he was in the White House. Arafat never intended to keep that pledge and didn't. When PLO Terrorist attacks continued he made some efforts to quell them but never with any particular enthusiasm which he could have. Ghandi never condemned those seeking Indian Independence though violence Although Gandhi never used or advocated violence, he did not absolutely oppose it. He said "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence" In the early days after the GFA an integral part and a sticking point was the independent decommissioning of the Nationalist and Loyalist cache of Arms. When challenged on it Adams and particularly McGuiness remarked "The guns are silent". Basically it was sufficient for McGuiness that a token amount of Arms were decommissioned and the intent was to abide by the GFA but he wasn't prepared to unilaterally give up Arms or commit to never taking them up again if the terms of GFA weren't being met. Neither Adams nor McGuiness renounced violence as an option. So you have some like Mandela who began non violent and came to see the futility. Arafat words and actions were contradictory. Ghandi never ruled out violence in all circumstances, only for himself and Adams and McGuiness certainly never ruled out violence. In all of the above circumstances except Israel/Palestine the Regime became untenable to Govern due to internal and external pressures but the catalyst was violent protest against the Regime. Whatever they said and did earlier in life they all eventually gave up their arms and participated in a peaceful political solution and reconciled with the people they were fighting. Neither side in this conflict appear to be doing that at the moment. So basically without saying it you are actually saying that the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah are justified because of the acts of the Isreali government (although you probably prefer "freedom fighter" as it helps sanitize the rape and murder of innocent civilians). You accept that Hamas and Hezbelloah are terrorist organizations and you support what they are doing. That's fine, at least that's honest and you are the first to my knowledge who has actually admitted to holding this position. I wish others would be more honest. Having clarified your position tbe next step is to explain how this scenario will pan out (as no-one has as yet admitted to supporting the continued use of terrorism as the means of securing the future of the Palestinian people we are on new ground here). For what it's worth my take on this path is as follows: 1 Western government's are not going to cease supporting the Isreali government while the stated aim of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian regime is the eradication of the state of Isreal. This support is unconditional. 2 Hamas is outnumbered and out gunned in Gaza. Any armed struggle undertaken by Hamas alone will fail at the expense of thousands of civilian lives. If the armed conflict provides cover for the Israeli government to commit genocide in the region there are elements in the Isreali government who will encourage this to happen. 3 By their actions Hamas hoped to draw Hezbellah and the Iranian regime into the fight. They resisted and now Isreal has effectively decapitated Hezbollah and shown they are more than a match for Iran. Isreal probably won't be able to eradicate Hezbollah to the extent they can eradicate Hamas and will retreat from Lebanon at some point but any effective military support for Hamas will have been neutralised. 4 Iran will not go to war with Isreal because they know they will lose. They will continue to fund terrorism in the region but with the decimation of Hezbollah their impact in the region will be much reduced. So over and above any moral objection to this solution my main objection is entirely practical - in terms of improving the lot of the Paletsinisn people it isn't going to work. In fact it will make things worse. If you think I am wrong, please inform me of how your solution will pan out to the benefit of the Palestinian people. I stopped reading your post quite early as it contained so many distortions of what I have said I don't have the energy or inclination to debate them. Any reasonable person reading my posts would understand quite clearly what I'm saying, of course the opposite is also true that only an unreasonable person would distort.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 16, 2024 11:22:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 16, 2024 11:25:04 GMT
I believe you are reimagining History. Initially Mandela led the ANC Non Violent protest against the SA Apartheid Regime. It was the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960 which convinced Mandela that non violent protests only played into the hands of the SA Regime that he turned to violence, quite prolifically. During his 27 years in Prison he was offered the option to be released several times if he renounced violence, he never did. Eventually F W de Klerk offered Mandela an unconditional release as keeping him in prison under International calls was no longer tolerable. Mandela never renounced violence, unless you can show where he did. Arafat made a pledge to Rabin that the PLO would renounce violence and 2 days later he was in the White House. Arafat never intended to keep that pledge and didn't. When PLO Terrorist attacks continued he made some efforts to quell them but never with any particular enthusiasm which he could have. Ghandi never condemned those seeking Indian Independence though violence Although Gandhi never used or advocated violence, he did not absolutely oppose it. He said "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence" In the early days after the GFA an integral part and a sticking point was the independent decommissioning of the Nationalist and Loyalist cache of Arms. When challenged on it Adams and particularly McGuiness remarked "The guns are silent". Basically it was sufficient for McGuiness that a token amount of Arms were decommissioned and the intent was to abide by the GFA but he wasn't prepared to unilaterally give up Arms or commit to never taking them up again if the terms of GFA weren't being met. Neither Adams nor McGuiness renounced violence as an option. So you have some like Mandela who began non violent and came to see the futility. Arafat words and actions were contradictory. Ghandi never ruled out violence in all circumstances, only for himself and Adams and McGuiness certainly never ruled out violence. In all of the above circumstances except Israel/Palestine the Regime became untenable to Govern due to internal and external pressures but the catalyst was violent protest against the Regime. Whatever they said and did earlier in life they all eventually gave up their arms and participated in a peaceful political solution and reconciled with the people they were fighting. Neither side in this conflict appear to be doing that at the moment. So basically without saying it you are actually saying that the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah are justified because of the acts of the Isreali government (although you probably prefer "freedom fighter" as it helps sanitize the rape and murder of innocent civilians). You accept that Hamas and Hezbelloah are terrorist organizations and you support what they are doing. That's fine, at least that's honest and you are the first to my knowledge who has actually admitted to holding this position. I wish others would be more honest.Having clarified your position tbe next step is to explain how this scenario will pan out (as no-one has as yet admitted to supporting the continued use of terrorism as the means of securing the future of the Palestinian people we are on new ground here). For what it's worth my take on this path is as follows: 1 Western government's are not going to cease supporting the Isreali government while the stated aim of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian regime is the eradication of the state of Isreal. This support is unconditional. 2 Hamas is outnumbered and out gunned in Gaza. Any armed struggle undertaken by Hamas alone will fail at the expense of thousands of civilian lives. If the armed conflict provides cover for the Israeli government to commit genocide in the region there are elements in the Isreali government who will encourage this to happen. 3 By their actions Hamas hoped to draw Hezbellah and the Iranian regime into the fight. They resisted and now Isreal has effectively decapitated Hezbollah and shown they are more than a match for Iran. Isreal probably won't be able to eradicate Hezbollah to the extent they can eradicate Hamas and will retreat from Lebanon at some point but any effective military support for Hamas will have been neutralised. 4 Iran will not go to war with Isreal because they know they will lose. They will continue to fund terrorism in the region but with the decimation of Hezbollah their impact in the region will be much reduced. So over and above any moral objection to this solution my main objection is entirely practical - in terms of improving the lot of the Paletsinisn people it isn't going to work. In fact it will make things worse. If you think I am wrong, please inform me of how your solution will pan out to the benefit of the Palestinian people. It's not a case of being honest, it's a case of being factual. Hezboallah has a military and political wing, not even the European Union consider all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, neither do Arab League countries, New Zealand, most of Latin America etc..........
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 16, 2024 11:34:49 GMT
Whatever they said and did earlier in life they all eventually gave up their arms and participated in a peaceful political solution and reconciled with the people they were fighting. Neither side in this conflict appear to be doing that at the moment. So basically without saying it you are actually saying that the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah are justified because of the acts of the Isreali government (although you probably prefer "freedom fighter" as it helps sanitize the rape and murder of innocent civilians). You accept that Hamas and Hezbelloah are terrorist organizations and you support what they are doing. That's fine, at least that's honest and you are the first to my knowledge who has actually admitted to holding this position. I wish others would be more honest.Having clarified your position tbe next step is to explain how this scenario will pan out (as no-one has as yet admitted to supporting the continued use of terrorism as the means of securing the future of the Palestinian people we are on new ground here). For what it's worth my take on this path is as follows: 1 Western government's are not going to cease supporting the Isreali government while the stated aim of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian regime is the eradication of the state of Isreal. This support is unconditional. 2 Hamas is outnumbered and out gunned in Gaza. Any armed struggle undertaken by Hamas alone will fail at the expense of thousands of civilian lives. If the armed conflict provides cover for the Israeli government to commit genocide in the region there are elements in the Isreali government who will encourage this to happen. 3 By their actions Hamas hoped to draw Hezbellah and the Iranian regime into the fight. They resisted and now Isreal has effectively decapitated Hezbollah and shown they are more than a match for Iran. Isreal probably won't be able to eradicate Hezbollah to the extent they can eradicate Hamas and will retreat from Lebanon at some point but any effective military support for Hamas will have been neutralised. 4 Iran will not go to war with Isreal because they know they will lose. They will continue to fund terrorism in the region but with the decimation of Hezbollah their impact in the region will be much reduced. So over and above any moral objection to this solution my main objection is entirely practical - in terms of improving the lot of the Paletsinisn people it isn't going to work. In fact it will make things worse. If you think I am wrong, please inform me of how your solution will pan out to the benefit of the Palestinian people. It's not a case of being honest, it's a case of being factual. Hezboallah has a military and political wing, not even the European Union consider all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, neither do Arab League countries, New Zealand, most of Latin America etc.......... Maybe when Israel attacked Lebannon and Palestine nobody should have resisted and they all should have just let Israel murder them. Because ultimately it was the resistance of Israels attack which led the formation of Hamas and Hezzbollah. So I think CBUFAWKIPWH is insinuating that the Palestines and Lebanese shouldn't have defended their territories or resisted Israels attacks. Because in doing that, that is what created these "terrorist groups". And now CBUFAWKIPWH justification for Israels attacks is labelling the very groups formed to resist Israel aggression as terrorists to justify Israelis aggression. So how do the palestines and Lebanese defend their terriroties @cbufawkipwh? If they defend themselves then any group used as a defence gets labelled as terrorists. And thus you think it is justified to attack them. And if they don't defend themselves then there is no terrorist group... so then what. They just die instead? I can't comprehend it to be honest. Defend yourself = you're terrorists so our attacks are justified. Don't defend yourself = it's all ok? Because the only way these terrorist groups, which CBUFAWKIPWH uses as a justification for Israeli aggression, were formed was through the act of self defence from Israel in the first place... It's like the chicken and the egg conundrum. There wouldn't be a terrorist group in the first place if Israel wasn't attacking soverign terriroties. The groups were made to resist Israel aggression and attacks. They weren't made to eliminate Israel. They were made to stop Israel eliminating them...
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 16, 2024 11:48:58 GMT
Fuck war.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 16, 2024 12:36:46 GMT
There other thing I don't quite understand is.
We always hear about how every enemy of Israel supposedly was only formed because they hate Jews and want to destroy Israel.
Yet you look on the Internet and there are hundreds of videos just like this:
Where are all the videos of these supposed Palestines and Lebanese who want to take over Israel and settle in their lands?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 16, 2024 12:51:49 GMT
Whatever they said and did earlier in life they all eventually gave up their arms and participated in a peaceful political solution and reconciled with the people they were fighting. Neither side in this conflict appear to be doing that at the moment. So basically without saying it you are actually saying that the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah are justified because of the acts of the Isreali government (although you probably prefer "freedom fighter" as it helps sanitize the rape and murder of innocent civilians). You accept that Hamas and Hezbelloah are terrorist organizations and you support what they are doing. That's fine, at least that's honest and you are the first to my knowledge who has actually admitted to holding this position. I wish others would be more honest.Having clarified your position tbe next step is to explain how this scenario will pan out (as no-one has as yet admitted to supporting the continued use of terrorism as the means of securing the future of the Palestinian people we are on new ground here). For what it's worth my take on this path is as follows: 1 Western government's are not going to cease supporting the Isreali government while the stated aim of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian regime is the eradication of the state of Isreal. This support is unconditional. 2 Hamas is outnumbered and out gunned in Gaza. Any armed struggle undertaken by Hamas alone will fail at the expense of thousands of civilian lives. If the armed conflict provides cover for the Israeli government to commit genocide in the region there are elements in the Isreali government who will encourage this to happen. 3 By their actions Hamas hoped to draw Hezbellah and the Iranian regime into the fight. They resisted and now Isreal has effectively decapitated Hezbollah and shown they are more than a match for Iran. Isreal probably won't be able to eradicate Hezbollah to the extent they can eradicate Hamas and will retreat from Lebanon at some point but any effective military support for Hamas will have been neutralised. 4 Iran will not go to war with Isreal because they know they will lose. They will continue to fund terrorism in the region but with the decimation of Hezbollah their impact in the region will be much reduced. So over and above any moral objection to this solution my main objection is entirely practical - in terms of improving the lot of the Paletsinisn people it isn't going to work. In fact it will make things worse. If you think I am wrong, please inform me of how your solution will pan out to the benefit of the Palestinian people. It's not a case of being honest, it's a case of being factual. Hezboallah has a military and political wing, not even the European Union consider all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, neither do Arab League countries, New Zealand, most of Latin America etc.......... And both it's political and military wing are committed to the eradication of the state of Isreal and the return of the land to the Palestinian people. It may well have been formed in response to the Isreali invasion of southern Lebanon but it's political intentions go way beyond defending the Lebanese people. And a key component is the eradication of the state of Isreal. Hezbollah don't even represent the state of Lebanon or the Lebanese people. They are a proxy of the regime in Iran with political aims aligned more with Iran than the people of Lebanon. There are a good number of people in Lebanon who don't support their aims. So what exactly does supporting Hezbollah mean in practice? Do we arm them? Do we stop arming Isreal and allow Hezbollah and its allies to eradicate the state of Isreal? As I have asked on several occasions what is the end game here?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 16, 2024 13:01:16 GMT
It's not a case of being honest, it's a case of being factual. Hezboallah has a military and political wing, not even the European Union consider all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, neither do Arab League countries, New Zealand, most of Latin America etc.......... And both it's political and military wing are committed to the eradication of the state of Isreal and the return of the land to the Palestinian people. It may well have been formed in response to the Isreali invasion of southern Lebanon but it's political intentions go way beyond defending the Lebanese people. And a key component is the eradication of the state of Isreal. Hezbollah don't even represent the state of Lebanon or the Lebanese people. They are a proxy of the regime in Iran with political aims aligned more with Uran than the people of Lebanon. There are a good number of people in Lebanon who don't support their aims. So what exactly does supporting Hezbollah mean in practice? Do we arm them? Do we stop arming Isreal and allow Hezbollah and its allies to eradicate the state of Isreal? As I have asked on several occasions what is the end game here? Eradicating Israel as a state and returning the land to the Palestinian people as part of a one state solution (Jews, Arabs and Christians living together in said state) is a perfectly valid position to hold whether you agree with it or think it's viable. You didn't answer my question last time, if Iran are committed to the destructions of Jews (not Israel as a Jewish only state, just Jewish people) then why do 8,000-10,000 Persian Jews live there, why haven't they been driven out of the country or worse?
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 16, 2024 13:20:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 16, 2024 13:20:43 GMT
It's not a case of being honest, it's a case of being factual. Hezboallah has a military and political wing, not even the European Union consider all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, neither do Arab League countries, New Zealand, most of Latin America etc.......... Maybe when Israel attacked Lebannon and Palestine nobody should have resisted and they all should have just let Israel murder them. Because ultimately it was the resistance of Israels attack which led the formation of Hamas and Hezzbollah. So I think CBUFAWKIPWH is insinuating that the Palestines and Lebanese shouldn't have defended their territories or resisted Israels attacks. Because in doing that, that is what created these "terrorist groups". And now CBUFAWKIPWH justification for Israels attacks is labelling the very groups formed to resist Israel aggression as terrorists to justify Israelis aggression. So how do the palestines and Lebanese defend their terriroties @cbufawkipwh? If they defend themselves then any group used as a defence gets labelled as terrorists. And thus you think it is justified to attack them. And if they don't defend themselves then there is no terrorist group... so then what. They just die instead? I can't comprehend it to be honest. Defend yourself = you're terrorists so our attacks are justified. Don't defend yourself = it's all ok? Because the only way these terrorist groups, which CBUFAWKIPWH uses as a justification for Israeli aggression, were formed was through the act of self defence from Israel in the first place... It's like the chicken and the egg conundrum. There wouldn't be a terrorist group in the first place if Israel wasn't attacking soverign terriroties. The groups were made to resist Israel aggression and attacks. They weren't made to eliminate Israel. They were made to stop Israel eliminating them... What Hamas and Hezbolla have done goes way beyond self defence and the first cause argument for pinning down blame is completely fatuous. Even if it was Isreal who committed the first atrocity that does not justify the atrocities committed by the other side. Killing innocent people to further a political aims is wrong no matter who perpetrated it or in what order. I have repeatedly condemned the actions of the Isreali government but I see no difference between the killing of innocent Isreali citizens and the killing of Palestinian citizens. And while I have no doubt there are evil bastards in the Isreali government who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Palestiniam people I also have no doubt there are evil bastards in Hamas and Hezbollah who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Jews in Isreal. If you actually believe that if the West stepped aside or actively supported Hamas and Hezbollah in their political and military aims they would simply lay down their arms and create a harmonious state with Muslim and Jews happily coexisting you are beyond deluded. If Hamas and Hezbollah were given free reign there would be a bloodbath. Hamas and Hezbollah were not solely created for the purposes of self defence. Many of their actions can rightly be justified as self defence but they are also committed to the eradication of the state if Isreal and some of their actions amount to acts of terrorism with that political goal in mind. I'm really not buying into this innocent freedom fighter bollocks. The situation is way more complex and ambiguous than this simplistic good guys v bad guys narrative.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 16, 2024 13:26:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 16, 2024 13:26:50 GMT
Maybe when Israel attacked Lebannon and Palestine nobody should have resisted and they all should have just let Israel murder them. Because ultimately it was the resistance of Israels attack which led the formation of Hamas and Hezzbollah. So I think CBUFAWKIPWH is insinuating that the Palestines and Lebanese shouldn't have defended their territories or resisted Israels attacks. Because in doing that, that is what created these "terrorist groups". And now CBUFAWKIPWH justification for Israels attacks is labelling the very groups formed to resist Israel aggression as terrorists to justify Israelis aggression. So how do the palestines and Lebanese defend their terriroties @cbufawkipwh? If they defend themselves then any group used as a defence gets labelled as terrorists. And thus you think it is justified to attack them. And if they don't defend themselves then there is no terrorist group... so then what. They just die instead? I can't comprehend it to be honest. Defend yourself = you're terrorists so our attacks are justified. Don't defend yourself = it's all ok? Because the only way these terrorist groups, which CBUFAWKIPWH uses as a justification for Israeli aggression, were formed was through the act of self defence from Israel in the first place... It's like the chicken and the egg conundrum. There wouldn't be a terrorist group in the first place if Israel wasn't attacking soverign terriroties. The groups were made to resist Israel aggression and attacks. They weren't made to eliminate Israel. They were made to stop Israel eliminating them... What Hamas and Hezbolla have done goes way beyond self defence and the first cause argument for pinning down blame is completely fatuous. Even if it was Isreal who committed the first atrocity that does not justify the atrocities committed by the other side. Killing innocent people to further a political aims is wrong no matter who perpetrated it or in what order. I have repeatedly condemned the actions of the Isreali government but I see no difference between the killing of innocent Isreali citizens and the killing of Palestinian citizens. And while I have no doubt there are evil bastards in the Isreali government who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Palestiniam people I also have no doubt there are evil bastards in Hamas and Hezbollah who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Jews in Isreal. If you actually believe that if the West stepped aside or actively supported Hamas and Hezbollah in their political and military aims they would simply lay down their arms and create a harmonious state with Muslim and Jews happily coexisting you are beyond deluded. If Hamas and Hezbollah were given free reign there would be a bloodbath. Hamas and Hezbollah were not solely created for the purposes of self defence. Many of their actions can rightly be justified as self defence but they are also committed to the eradication of the state if Isreal and some of their actions amount to acts of terrorism with that political goal in mind. I'm really not buying into this innocent freedom fighter bollocks. The situation is way more complex and ambiguous than this simplistic good guys v bad guys narrative. Why were Hamas and Hezbollah created just out of interest?
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 16, 2024 13:49:35 GMT
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 16, 2024 13:49:35 GMT
What Hamas and Hezbolla have done goes way beyond self defence and the first cause argument for pinning down blame is completely fatuous. Even if it was Isreal who committed the first atrocity that does not justify the atrocities committed by the other side. Killing innocent people to further a political aims is wrong no matter who perpetrated it or in what order. I have repeatedly condemned the actions of the Isreali government but I see no difference between the killing of innocent Isreali citizens and the killing of Palestinian citizens. And while I have no doubt there are evil bastards in the Isreali government who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Palestiniam people I also have no doubt there are evil bastards in Hamas and Hezbollah who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Jews in Isreal. If you actually believe that if the West stepped aside or actively supported Hamas and Hezbollah in their political and military aims they would simply lay down their arms and create a harmonious state with Muslim and Jews happily coexisting you are beyond deluded. If Hamas and Hezbollah were given free reign there would be a bloodbath. Hamas and Hezbollah were not solely created for the purposes of self defence. Many of their actions can rightly be justified as self defence but they are also committed to the eradication of the state if Isreal and some of their actions amount to acts of terrorism with that political goal in mind. I'm really not buying into this innocent freedom fighter bollocks. The situation is way more complex and ambiguous than this simplistic good guys v bad guys narrative. Why were Hamas and Hezbollah created just out of interest? Is it me, or is this just going to go round and round in seemingly perpetual motion unless and until both sides accept they've consistently overstepped the mark irrespective of who started what? Both sides just need to listen to The Beloved's "Sweet Harmony".
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 16, 2024 13:53:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 16, 2024 13:53:35 GMT
What Hamas and Hezbolla have done goes way beyond self defence and the first cause argument for pinning down blame is completely fatuous. Even if it was Isreal who committed the first atrocity that does not justify the atrocities committed by the other side. Killing innocent people to further a political aims is wrong no matter who perpetrated it or in what order. I have repeatedly condemned the actions of the Isreali government but I see no difference between the killing of innocent Isreali citizens and the killing of Palestinian citizens. And while I have no doubt there are evil bastards in the Isreali government who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Palestiniam people I also have no doubt there are evil bastards in Hamas and Hezbollah who would gladly indulge in the genocide of the Jews in Isreal. If you actually believe that if the West stepped aside or actively supported Hamas and Hezbollah in their political and military aims they would simply lay down their arms and create a harmonious state with Muslim and Jews happily coexisting you are beyond deluded. If Hamas and Hezbollah were given free reign there would be a bloodbath. Hamas and Hezbollah were not solely created for the purposes of self defence. Many of their actions can rightly be justified as self defence but they are also committed to the eradication of the state if Isreal and some of their actions amount to acts of terrorism with that political goal in mind. I'm really not buying into this innocent freedom fighter bollocks. The situation is way more complex and ambiguous than this simplistic good guys v bad guys narrative. Why were Hamas and Hezbollah created just out of interest? Hezbollah were created on the back of the Isreali invasion of Lebanon. Ideologically they were and are committed to creating an Iranian style theocracy in Lebanon (which is opposed by the majority of people on Lebanon) aligned to the regime in Iran and committed to the eradication of Isreal. Hamas was formed as an armed resistance movement against the the Isreali occupation of Palestinian lands. It's aim is to resolve the conflict in the area by eradicating the state of Isreal and creating the unitary state of Palestine. I've had the decency to answer your question so please have the good grace to answer mine: Do you deny that a central aim of both Hezbollah and Hamas is to eradicate the state of Israel and if not on what grounds do you believe that Hezbollah and Hamas would not deliver on their commitment if they had the opportunity?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 16, 2024 14:22:47 GMT
Why were Hamas and Hezbollah created just out of interest? Hezbollah were created on the back of the Isreali invasion of Lebanon. Ideologically they were and are committed to creating an Iranian style theocracy in Lebanon (which is opposed by the majority of people on Lebanon) aligned to the regime in Iran and committed to the eradication of Isreal. Hamas was formed as an armed resistance movement against the the Isreali occupation of Palestinian lands. It's aim is to resolve the conflict in the area by eradicating the state of Isreal and creating the unitary state of Palestine. I've had the decency to answer your question so please have the good grace to answer mine: Do you deny that a central aim of both Hezbollah and Hamas is to eradicate the state of Israel and if not on what grounds do you believe that Hezbollah and Hamas would not deliver on their commitment if they had the opportunity? This isn't a chicken and egg situation. Without the murderous, colonial oppression of the Palestinian (and to an extent Lebanese) people over the last 75 years, by the state of Israel, then the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah wouldn't even exist/have existed. Indeed you can go back even further to the 1920's, when Jewish paramilitary terrorists started reeking havoc in the region. The Jews introduced the concept of terrorism into Palestine and three of those terrorist leaders went on to become Prime Minister's of Israel. The state of Israel itself was forged out of a 20 year campaign of brutal terrorism. When such a rogue regime is allowed by the West to trample all over another territory completely unchecked and is indeed actually financed by the West, it creates a vacuum allowing fundamentalist extremists to step in and piggy back on the back of those fighting for their freedom. You, I or indeed anybody else on this messageboard would fight for your family as best you could, when faced with such brutal oppression, such overwhelming odds and when you find yourself so totally and utterly deserted by the international community.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 16, 2024 14:31:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by gawa on Oct 16, 2024 14:31:49 GMT
It's not a case of being honest, it's a case of being factual. Hezboallah has a military and political wing, not even the European Union consider all of Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, neither do Arab League countries, New Zealand, most of Latin America etc.......... It may well have been formed in response to the Nazis attacks on jews but it's political intentions go way beyond defending the Israeli people. And a key component is the formation of the promised land which zionists believe god promised to them.. I'd reword your second paragraph to the above. If the above isn't true. Then why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebannon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then? Aside from the zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 16, 2024 14:47:12 GMT
Why were Hamas and Hezbollah created just out of interest? Hezbollah were created on the back of the Isreali invasion of Lebanon. Ideologically they were and are committed to creating an Iranian style theocracy in Lebanon (which is opposed by the majority of people on Lebanon) aligned to the regime in Iran and committed to the eradication of Isreal. Hamas was formed as an armed resistance movement against the the Isreali occupation of Palestinian lands. It's aim is to resolve the conflict in the area by eradicating the state of Isreal and creating the unitary state of Palestine. I've had the decency to answer your question so please have the good grace to answer mine: Do you deny that a central aim of both Hezbollah and Hamas is to eradicate the state of Israel and if not on what grounds do you believe that Hezbollah and Hamas would not deliver on their commitment if they had the opportunity?I've asked you 3 times about Jews in Iran, and you still haven't answered, so don't give me that bollocks And I've answered the question previously, I believe that the end of the state of Israel doesn't mean the genocide of all Jews in most people's eyes. It means a one state solution where Jews and Arabs live together, or it could even mean the realigning of borders as part of a two state solution. Of course there are extremists who will take a different stance, but like many so-called terrorist organisations there are moderates in the political wing that will take a pragmatic view where they feel some kind of deal is on the table. So no I wouldn't use the word "eradicate" for the majority of people. The longer the war, the more radical ordinary people on both sides will become and the less chance of that happening.......
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 16, 2024 15:24:36 GMT
Brilliantly spoken. By a professor sacked for airing anti zionist views who win his tribunal.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 17, 2024 4:00:48 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 17, 2024 7:57:38 GMT
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 17, 2024 7:57:38 GMT
It may well have been formed in response to the Nazis attacks on jews but it's political intentions go way beyond defending the Israeli people. And a key component is the formation of the promised land which zionists believe god promised to them.. I'd reword your second paragraph to the above. If the above isn't true. Then why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebannon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then?Aside from the zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason? Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 in response to attacks launched on it by the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 17, 2024 9:01:01 GMT
I'd reword your second paragraph to the above. If the above isn't true. Then why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebannon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then?Aside from the zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason? Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 in response to attacks launched on it by the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon. Which was a massive mistake as it created Hezbollah or rather the various massacres that subsequently took place did. Former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak noted in a 2006 interview: "It was our presence there (in Lebanon ) that created Hezbollah." It also soured the relationship with the West who the Lebanese Authorities had appealed to for help, most Lebanese to this day hold the West (US, France, Italy and UK) Multinational Peacekeeping Force complicit with Israel in the massacres. Sounds familiar? This is exactly the point some of us have been making that Terrorist Organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas are not created in a vacuum but are triggered by extreme events. If a former Israeli Prime and Defense Minister can understand and acknowledge that fact I find it difficult to understand why some on here can't.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 17, 2024 9:02:07 GMT
I'd reword your second paragraph to the above. If the above isn't true. Then why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebannon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then?Aside from the zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason? Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 in response to attacks launched on it by the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon. And why did they attack Palestine? You didn't answer that. And why was the PLO formed? Was it in response to anything? Or just a lust for jewish blood? We're getting somewhere here
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 17, 2024 10:05:05 GMT
I'd reword your second paragraph to the above. If the above isn't true. Then why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebannon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then?Aside from the zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason? Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 in response to attacks launched on it by the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon. Well you've got to ask yourself two questions. 1. Why did the PLO exist in the first place? and 2. What directly led to the creation of Hezbollah?
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 17, 2024 10:05:06 GMT
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 17, 2024 10:05:06 GMT
Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 in response to attacks launched on it by the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon. And why did they attack Palestine? You didn't answer that. And why was the PLO formed? Was it in response to anything? Or just a lust for jewish blood? We're getting somewhere here Probably because I just replied to this - " Why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebanon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then? Aside from the Zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason?" Now you're asking why the PLO was formed. Best go back a bit first, then. Ultimately, the UK and UN are to blame for the furthering of the catastrophic mess (arguable, but my opinion nonetheless) following on from the management of immigration from Europe during and following The Holocaust, but lets not pretend that Arabs were not already fighting over the old British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 (1937 Arab General Strike - an armed uprising). The 1948 UN Resolution 181, although accepted by the international community, was rejected outright by the Arabs and in May 1948. So, Israel was already born into a region with unresolved disputes over borders, security, land ownership, and other matters through no fault of its own. As British troops withdrew from the area in 1948 the conflict escalated, with both Jewish and Arab forces committing hostile acts. Egypt launched an aerial assault on Tel Aviv; Arab forces from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the UN partition of Palestine and then captured East Jerusalem, including the small Jewish quarter of the Old City. For their part, the Israelis won control of the main road to Jerusalem through the Hills of Judaea and repelled repeated Arab attacks. The PLO was formed officially in 1964 in order to centralize the leadership of various Palestinian groups that previously had operated as clandestine resistance movements. After the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 the Arab states, notably Egypt, undertook a military struggle against Israel. The Palestinians themselves had been dispersed among a number of countries following the creation of Israel, and so formed small, diffuse resistance organizations, often under the patronage of the various Arab states. The PLO came into prominence only after the Six-Day War of June 1967, after which it engaged in a protracted guerrilla war against Israel during the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s. When it was set up in 1964 ( prior to the Six Day War), the PLO's legislature, the Palestine National Council (PNC) embraced a charter (The Covenant) which set out its goals which included the complete elimination of Israeli sovereignty in Palestine and the destruction of the State of Israel. Following the 1967 Six Day War, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Old City of Jerusalem, and Golan Heights; which obviously has become a point of contention in the Arab-Israeli conflict. This created hundreds of thousands of refugees and brought more than one million Palestinians in the occupied territories under Israeli rule. The UN passed Resolution 242, which called for Israel’s withdrawal from the territories it had captured in the war in exchange for lasting peace. So, with organisations like the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah being established on the subtext/pretext (delete as applicable) that they are hellbent on the destruction of Israel, and Israel seemingly hellbent on destroying them, is it any wonder things reach something of an impasse. Do I think Israel needs to hand back the Occupied Territories and agree to a two-state solution? Yes. Do I think Hamas and Hezbollah need to agree to disband and disarm? Yes Do I think the Iranian Regime needs to be confronted directly to stop it deliberately interfering in the Palestinian cause as a cover to defend itself? Yes. All very simplistic answers, I know, and it needs fleshing out a bit. But quite who started this isn't going to solve who ends it primarily because you end up back with Isaac and Ishmael all over again in perpetual motion. It takes compromise and both sides - Arab and Israeli - need to do so. The only problem Hamas and Hezbollah appear to have is that they do not have widespread Arab support across the region.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 17, 2024 11:06:28 GMT
And why did they attack Palestine? You didn't answer that. And why was the PLO formed? Was it in response to anything? Or just a lust for jewish blood? We're getting somewhere here Probably because I just replied to this - " Why did Israel attack Palestine and Lebanon before the formation of these "terrorist groups"? What was the reason then? Aside from the Zionist belief of it being their promised lands... what was the reason?" If it's because you just responded to that then can you tell me where in your answer you explain why Israel attacked Palestine before the formation of these terrorist groups? I don't see the answer here: "Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 in response to attacks launched on it by the Palestine Liberation Organization from southern Lebanon." It's nearly as if Israeli aggression led to the formation of resistance groups isn't it? What makes you a terrorist though? So Hamas are terrorists because they attack Israel. Hezzbollah are terrrorists because they attack Israel. So is Israel a terrorist state because they've attacked all these countries? Lebanon Syria Egypt Jordan Iraq Tunisia Sudan Iran Gaza (Palestinian Territories) West Bank (Palestinian Territories) Or how does this terrorist definition work? If an ally attacks other countries they aren't terrorists. But if countries our allies attack do resist it means they are terrorists? So how do you defend yourself without being a terrorist? Note: Lordb liked this before I edited to add the below. Making that clear as not sure if he would agree with below statements Or in reality does terrorist mean little more than "A militant organisation fighting against an ally"? And thus it means very little because depending on who you speak to the terrorist changes. And thus it's just a silly label and emotive language used to create a negative association in peoples head with certain groups which our government wants us to think negatively of. Because at the end of the day they are the ones who define who is and isn't a terrorist. Personally I won't be looking towards the British or American government when it comes to my moral compass and deciding who is and isn't a terrorist. I'll look at what I'm seeing on the ground with my own eyes and use my own due diligence to come to that decision. I certainly will not be relying on two countries who support turning off the water and electric for Palestines and who continue to support Israel through diplomacy and military support while I witness 10s of thousands of kids dying. Respectfully I know some people here are very quick to believe that every child died, died simply because they're a human shield or they were sat next to ammunition in a tent and Israel is acting morally. You're entitled to that view. I personally disagree and I absolutely disagree with our governments position on this too. So I certainly won't be looking at the government who justifies and supports ethnic cleansing when it comes to deciding who is and who isn't a terrorist. Also I know you mentioned terrorist sympathiser in response to Paul at one stage (about me possibly?) and I'm not offended if you wish to use that label for me. I don't support any loss of human life, I feel bad when Russians/Ukranians/Palestines/Israelis die over issues which can be solved diplomatically with the right people in power. But I like to try to understand WHY things happen and I think when you look into the WHY it then stimulates the mind to understand the reasoning for things and you begin to question labels like terrorist. I think the word terrorist is just a quick way to create a negative assosciation and to stop people looking into the reasoning because when they hear the word that's enough. "Oh it all makes sense now... they did it because they're terrorists and hate them". It just feels too simple for me. Nobody is born with hate or wanting to kill, especially large groups and swathes of people. So you look into the why. And when you look into it you then begin to question if everyone assosciated is a terrorist or if some people joined for what they may consider noble causes?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 17, 2024 11:48:13 GMT
Israel was already born into a region with unresolved disputes over borders, security, land ownership, and other matters through no fault of its own. That's a long post and the reason I've highlighted this specific sentence, is because in my opinion, it goes to the very heart of the point you're making and it is a point that I think is just plain wrong. The reason the PLO existed, was self evident by it's name. To liberate Palestine. To liberate Palestine from who? The Zionist colonisers who were stealing their lands. There wouldn't be a need for liberation if their territory hadn't been invaded. Jewish paramilitary terrorist groups had been operating as far back as the 1920's, The Haganah, Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang were all terrorist groups which all committed terrible terrorist atrocities, which ultimately gave us three of Israel's future Prime Ministers, the IDF itself was formed out of these paramilitary groups. In the 20's and 30's the Jews took great pride in announcing to the World that they were colonizing Palestine. And yes, you are completely correct when you say that the British were instrumental in the creation of this whole sorry mess. As far back as 1903 we originally offered Theodore Herzl (the father of Zionism) Uganda as the location for his Zionist homeland. An offer that originally the Jews accepted but it was an offer that ultimately we had to renege on, when white British farmers threatened to take up arms against the 'invaders' coming to steal 'their' lands. Israel could quite literally have been in East Africa. Britain was still very much in the throes of Empire and was a deeply racist country. We believed that we could simply take other people's lands from them and duly give away those lands to other people as we saw fit. Indeed prior to the War, Churchill said this about the plight of the Palestinians ... ‘I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.’ You see the UK and the Zionists saw the Palestinians as second class citizens and it didn't really matter what happened to them, they were just dogs in the desert, it was the perfect place to establish a Zionist homeland. And I think it's incredibly important for us today, to recognise that this belief is still just a prevalent now as it was back then, especially across large swathes of Israeli society. And let us not forget, that Truman's Secretary of State and envoy to the Middle East at the time, George Marshall (who Truman described as the greatest living American), totally opposed the US recognising the State of Israel in 1948, as he claimed it would lead to decades of war and would threaten to draw other Muslim nations into conflict with the West. As a result, their great friendship ended and here we are 75 years later and it is absolutely clear which of the two was right. It's not the Palestinians fault that this happened, it's not the Palestinians fault that they have been oppressed, slaughtered and booted off their lands, whilst the World has done nothing to help them. It's not the Palestinians fault that they've been forced to fight back in any manner that they can. And most importantly of all, it's not the Palestinians fault that they're not in a position to end this. Probably the most important two minutes of dialogue spoken in the last twelve months on either side but sadly you won't find it on any Western news channels ...
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 17, 2024 13:35:08 GMT
I don't dispute anything which either of you say, necessarily. I enjoyed reading both posts.
At some point, though, both sides have to stop trying to drive their car with their face in the rear view mirror all of the time. It's going to take both sides to want to do it. Both sides have justified grievances against the other and whichever bias you have (we all have one - no matter how egalitarian you think you are) you have to recognise that. Pro-Palestinians who want the destruction of Israel are just as bad as Israeli Zionists who want to wipe Palestinians off the earth due to their entrenched mindsets. There is no right side of history when both sides just want the mutual termination of the other. To my mind the whole discussion needs the application of unemotive logic.
I think that's my point.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 17, 2024 13:36:14 GMT
Ariel I can't pm you for some reason, it just doesn't send. So to condense what I was going to say in private.
My views are simply that, mine. It doesn't make me right but it's what I think at present and I'm always open to my mind changing.
While we dont agree on many things, i do enjoy our discussions and feel they are generally respectful with good debate. So thanks for challenging me and likewise thanks for answering the stuff i challenge you on too. It makes for good discussion.
|
|