• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
They should boycott the Arabs. It's their fault the West Bank and Gaza got occupied. If they didn't start that stupid war then Palestine would still be a part of Jordan and Egypt.

...and right-wing Zionists would be demanding that "Eretz Yisrael" be conquered in order to regain the Jewish people's "birthright".
 
By the way, if anything, the ridiculous religious way Hamas puts its desire to genocide the Jews in its charter makes it more dangerous, not less.

If it simply said its goal is to kill the Jews for political reasons, it is conceivable (although still, of course, not likely) that it sees the killing itself as a necessary evil, and could be persuaded to forgo it to get some of its political goals achieved.

Now that they see genociding the Jews as Allah's command, it becomes non-negotiable.

Excellent point and excellent analogy. People who kill for delusional reasons are more dangerous, not less. You can reason with the guy who wants money, power, independence or whatever. You can't reason with the guy who believes the spaceship is coming for his people or that the rocks and trees will animate themselves to help you in your holy slaughter.

And the denial is astonishing. In a skeptics forum where presumably everyone knows not to trust the cultist offering the kool-aid, we see outright denial that these people really say what they say, then denial that what they say should be taken seriously, then denial that what they say applies to the ordinary people. These religious extremists are already killing in the name of their religion, have been for years, and yet the deniers claim they wouldn't.
 

Because separating yourself from an enemy that's been waging war against you for decades is a bad thing?

You can coin a new term for it and try to whip up a propaganda thing, but the truth is that Israel's separation fence is a non-violent solution to a violent problem. It hasn't just saved Israeli lives, it's saved Palestinian lives as well.

Non-violent solution to a violent problem. You can try to say that's a bad thing, but the reality is it's hard to think of something more ethical than finding a non-violent solution to a violent problem.
 
Because separating yourself from an enemy that's been waging war against you for decades is a bad thing?

Do you genuinely believe that Israel has seperated itself from the Palestinians? The point is that they lead seperate lives, while both being under the rule of a single government.

The West Bank is, effectively, Israeli territory. The current bid by the Palestinians to have a state recognised in September this year may well be the last attempt at a two-state solution. If Israel wises up and accepts a Palestinian state -- for real, rather than in principle -- THEN Israel will have seperated itself from its enemies.
 
Do you genuinely believe that Israel has seperated itself from the Palestinians? The point is that they lead seperate lives, while both being under the rule of a single government.

Yes, the wall separates Israelis from Palestinians. It has effectively ended Palestinian suicide-bombings.

Claiming they both live under the same government is one of those revisionist things, kinda like calling Gaza "occupied" or a "concentration camp." I don't even think it's worth arguing against. Revisionism is disgusting, shame on you.


The West Bank is, effectively, Israeli territory...

Huh? I guess it is when saying so helps you make some point. At other times you claim it's Palestinian territory. Get back to me when you figure out a consistent line and stick with it.


The current bid by the Palestinians to have a state recognised in September this year may well be the last attempt at a two-state solution. If Israel wises up and accepts a Palestinian state -- for real, rather than in principle -- THEN Israel will have seperated itself from its enemies.

Israel has a right to demand reasonable assurances that a new Palestinian state won't just be a platform to continue to wage war against Israel. Until they get that, your laying the whole issue at Israel's feet is just so much air.

So, you seem to have dropped defending the whole "Hafrada" thing after only one post. Where are you going with this and what do you want to say that can't be said in the General Israel/Palestine discussion thread?
 
Yes, the wall separates Israelis from Palestinians. It has effectively ended Palestinian suicide-bombings.

Claiming they both live under the same government is one of those revisionist things, kinda like calling Gaza "occupied" or a "concentration camp." I don't even think it's worth arguing against. Revisionism is disgusting, shame on you.

Gaza is occupied. What's revisionism is pretending that removing the settlements from Gaza ended the occupation. The reality is that building settlements on occupied land is a war crime. So the removal of settlements is not enough to indicate the end of an occupation. The removal of the settelements did not end the occupation -- it ended the crime of building settlements on occupied land.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5122404.stm

BBC said:
In 2005, Israel pulled out the troops occupying Gaza, along with thousands of Jews who had settled in the territory. As far as Israel was concerned that was the end of the occupation.

However, that has not been accepted internationally as Israel still exercises control over most of Gaza's land borders, as well as its territorial waters and airspace. Egypt controls Gaza's southern border.

So Gaza is still under occupation. Revisionism is disgusting, shame on you.

Are you up to denying that the Israeli government runs the lives of people who do not get a vote for it? It decides what they can import/export. It decides whether their taxes are passed on to their local government officials. It decides on the movement of people via checkpoints. It decides on the use of land. It decides on law enforcement.

And this has gone on for the whole lives of a lot of Palestinians. Time Israel gave these people true independence or a vote in the government that runs their lives.

Huh? I guess it is when saying so helps you make some point. At other times you claim it's Palestinian territory. Get back to me when you figure out a consistent line and stick with it.

I said 'effectively'.
Morally, the West Bank is Palestinian. Legally, I reckon, the West Bank is Palestinian. But they don't have control of the land. Israel controls the land. So 'effectively' the West Bank is Israeli.

Israel has a right to demand reasonable assurances that a new Palestinian state won't just be a platform to continue to wage war against Israel. Until they get that, your laying the whole issue at Israel's feet is just so much air.

They've had assurances.
It's time for a state.

So, you seem to have dropped defending the whole "Hafrada" thing after only one post. Where are you going with this and what do you want to say that can't be said in the General Israel/Palestine discussion thread?

Where do you get that idea?
I said they lead seperate lives. That is Hafrada. Two sides of a fence, one government.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the wall separates Israelis from Palestinians. It has effectively ended Palestinian suicide-bombings.

Claiming they both live under the same government is one of those revisionist things, kinda like calling Gaza "occupied" or a "concentration camp." I don't even think it's worth arguing against. Revisionism is disgusting, shame on you.

as the Occupying power, Israel maintains over-all security and authority over the West Bank. It is still under ultimate Israeli soverignity. This shall be the case until a new soverign is declared and recognized in the West Bank.

As for "revisionism", it is the right-wing Zionists who have a monopoly.
 
No, it's not. And yes, I read your attempt to justify your characterization. It fails.

Thanks for that detailed explanation. You truely do put the E in JREF.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, I will take the BBC's opinion over yours.
 
No, it's not. And yes, I read your attempt to justify your characterization. It fails.

which nation controls the airspace over Gaza?

which nation controls the waters of Gaza?

which nation represents Gaza in the UN?

which nation is bound by international law to come to the aid of Gaza in the case of natural or man-made disaster?


:)
 
the koran forbids the killing of women and children-

It does and then it doesn't. It contradicts itself.

and speaks of compassion for the 'people of the book'.

It also says this:

9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

:boggled:
 
since hama's charter is in direct opposition to the koran, that poses a problem for them.
the koran forbids the killing of women and children and speaks of compassion for the 'people of the book'.
I don't think reason has ever been one of Hamas' strong points...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom