General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[MarkCorrigan]

yes, I have a perfect solution:

ISRAEL SHOULD LEAVE THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.

Ok, sounds great.

When they start getting rocket attacks every day again, what should they do to retaliate?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

If Israel was a socialist state headed by a fat, blustering autocrat that seized property and ranted about America (like Hugo Chavez) would the commies and lefties stop their campaign of hate?

Seriously, stop making sweeping statements about "lefties". I'm a Socialist and if you hadn't noticed I'm pretty much in agreement with you here.

Your juvenile us v them mentality really doesn't help anyone.

 

[FireGarden]

That is your claim. Back it up. Quote the parts of the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Conventions that define "occupation", then show how the current situation fits it.




Maybe it would be if I were making that claim. It was the removal of Israeli troops that ended the occupation.




I'm glad we agree that revisionism is disgusting, that will come in handy later on. Right now I'll point out the BBC is not making a claim on the status of Gaza, it is only reporting that it has not been "internationally accepted". The internationals who don't accept it are deniers like you.

You mean the internationals who set international law? Cute.

I'll depend on the BBC. They list only Israel as accepting that the occupation is over.


ETA: And here are some more 'internationals' that you can call deniers:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.

Irrelevant, because it's not part of the definition of "occupation".

Relevant because it is part of living under a government -- no matter how much its supporters claim it has 'seperated itself from its enemies'.

We've got at least two arguments here. Don't conflate my claims about Hafrada with my response to you raising the occupation status of Gaza.

The fault of their leadership. Had Arafat followed the Oslo plan, "Palestine" would be 13 years old now. He chose to create more terror instead.




That's another claim of yours. Back it up. Name these assurances. I'm looking forward to seeing your list.

The assurances are all over the place. Arafat has been dead some time. Read the Palestine papers. A discussion on some aspects here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198838

Yes, the fence that saves lives. The non-violent solution to a violent problem. Please explain how non-violence is worse than "apartheid".

My argument is that Hafrada is worse than apartheid. And that is based on the claim of those I quoted in the linked thread. The fence is not the only manifestation of Hafrada.

 

[Virus]

Seriously, stop making sweeping statements about "lefties". I'm a Socialist and if you hadn't noticed I'm pretty much in agreement with you here.

Your juvenile us v them mentality really doesn't help anyone.

Most of the hate comes from the radical left and the neo-Nazi far right. It's not my fault it's true.

 

[Thunder]

Ok, sounds great.

When they start getting rocket attacks every day again, what should they do to retaliate?

don't know and don't care.

 

[Thunder]

Most of the hate comes from the radical left, neo-Nazi far right, and right-wing Zionism. It's not my fault it's true.

ftfy

 

[Thunder]

That is your claim. Back it up.

i already did.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

don't know and don't care.

I'm sure the smiley indicates a joke, so I'll ask again. If the Israeli's aren't going to occupy the occupied land, when the Palestinians start shooting at Israel again, targeting schools and houses as well as military installations, what should the Israeli's do about it?

You've pretty much got three choices, although if you find a better, fourth or fifth one please tell me.

1. Fire back. Given that the Palestinians use and/or hide behind women and children to launch these attacks, there will be some collateral damage.

2. Occupy the areas. You have already ruled this out.

3. Do nothing and be rocketed and fired upon, which will kill Israelis, men women and children.

So choose.

 

[Thunder]

I'm sure the smiley indicates a joke, so I'll ask again. If the Israeli's aren't going to occupy the occupied land, when the Palestinians start shooting at Israel again, targeting schools and houses as well as military installations, what should the Israeli's do about it?

don't know.....don't wanna know.

and certainly don't give a donkey's patootey.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Most of the hate comes from the radical left and the neo-Nazi far right. It's not my fault it's true.

Yes, certain groups in the far left are racist/hate filled scumbags. That doesn't mean we all are, but your constant attempts to slander all left leaning people (and don't lie, I know that you have seriously biased views towards left leaning people and you're willing to smear everyone you disagree with at the drop of a hat. Believe me, I take no comfort from being on your side in this issue) are both obvious and far too indiscriminate.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

don't know.....don't wanna know.

and certainly don't give a donkey's patootey.

So, it's ok for Hamas to kill civilians with constant rocket attacks, but it's absolutely awful for the IDF to occupy Gaza et al?

Really?

 

[bikerdruid]

Most of the hate comes from the radical left and the neo-Nazi far right. It's not my fault it's true.

codswallop!
the 'right' seems to express most of the hatred for muslims.
that is sadly evident on this forum.

 

[Skeptic]

Mark -- as you can see from my signature, Thunder doesn't really mind if people he dislikes get killed.

 

[Virus]

(and don't lie, I know that you have seriously biased views towards left leaning people

Left-leaning, no.

Marxist radicals and communists, yes.

 

[bikerdruid]

Left-leaning, no.

Marxist radicals and communists, yes.

...meet a lot of them in australia, do you?

 

[truethat]

As a former Muslim (for 6 years 12 years ago, now I'm atheist) I do know that you can't make a blanket statement about how Muslims feel about Jews.

When I was Muslim we were taught that the Jews and the Christians were considered the "people of the book" and were respected because Allah is the same god of the Torah and the Bible. The Muslim view is that the Torah and Bible were corrupted for political reasons.

You can't lump all "non believers" into the same pile, for this reason. Christians and Jews are considered BELIEVERS by Muslims. Many of passages about non believers actually refer to pagans.

Let's look at some passages

http://atheism.about.com/od/prophet...rawings-Pictures/Muhammad-Preaching-Islam.htm

One in particular is being taken out of context (if I remember correctly)

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

Quran - 5:51
al-Ma'idah - The Table, The Table Spread
Verse: 51

This site gives a sort of anti Muslim angry man view of it
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm

However it is my understanding (and I could be mixing up verses, my Islam is rusty) that this verse is taken out of historical context.

The speech was given during a war when many of the Muslims wanted to give up and go down to the villages and hide out with their neighbors. Mohammed is instructing them not to go to their friends but to continue to stay and fight.

Islam online is horribly corrupted by westerners. In addition the fanatical Muslims are as bad with corrupting verses as the West Boro Baptist church.

My understanding is that this is not what the Qu'ran actually says.

I'll see if I can find a better explanation.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm sure the smiley indicates a joke, so I'll ask again. If the Israeli's aren't going to occupy the occupied land, when the Palestinians start shooting at Israel again, targeting schools and houses as well as military installations, what should the Israeli's do about it?

You've pretty much got three choices, although if you find a better, fourth or fifth one please tell me.

1. Fire back. Given that the Palestinians use and/or hide behind women and children to launch these attacks, there will be some collateral damage.

2. Occupy the areas. You have already ruled this out.

3. Do nothing and be rocketed and fired upon, which will kill Israelis, men women and children.

So choose.

Bikerdruid, I'd love to hear your answer to this as well actually.

Given that Parky has expressed frank contempt for the safety of Israeli citizens, I'm sure that you would be a far more reasonable than him.

ETA: This genuinely isn't sarcasm, or aggression. I really do think you will try to come up with something better than "I don't care what happens to Israelis".

 

[truethat]

I found something that explains how I was taught. My ex was Egyptian and so is this poster.

Islam part nonmuslims into two parts :
1- Those who live among Muslims inside the Muslims' country - or community -.
They are protected by the government of Muslims -Khelafa- from any outside or inside attacks from nonmuslims or even Muslims As long as they live in peace and don't threaten the country, pay - al Jeiza - some kind of taxes (for the ones who have the ability to pay it if not they aren't forced to pay anything).
2- Those who live in other countries they have two conditions :
a- If the country is in peace with Muslims' country:
Then they are in peace and are not harmed anyway. And punishment should go to the one who does not conform to that peace from either countries as long as no one breached of the treaty.
b- The country is in war with Muslims :
If they show they want peace or want to refuge to the Islamic country then they are turned to the first condition (1)
If they try to harm anyone (nonMuslim or Muslim) now they are the enemy of the country.
An Egyptian, Arabian Muslim
Khaled Al-Nagar

Read more: why does the koran tell muslims to distrust christians and jews and not take them as friends and kill them? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2361252#ixzz1GIs4iLzM

Muslims don't have a problem with Jews unless they are waging war against Islam.

Historically Jews WERE treated with respect by Muslims as "people of the book." For example during the Ottoman empire Jews were welcomed.

Since 1492, through five centuries, the Ottoman sultans and the modern day Turkish Republic, welcomed the Jews and offered them a safe haven from persecution in the European countries. The Ottoman Empire at its zenith became one the largest empires in World History covering most of Mediterranean basin region extending from North Africa to Eastern Europe. It has been suggested that one of the characteristics that extended the domination of the Ottoman Empire was its allowance of religious freedom for the different nationalities and minorities under its rule. While many European nations expelled, persecuted or tried to convert the Jews under their dominion, the Turkish people of the Ottoman Empire, remained as an outstanding example of tolerance of different nationalities with different religions.

http://www.science.co.il/hi/turkish/

Also Wiki explains "the people of the book"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book

There are many statements in the Qur'an that promote tolerance towards People of The Book. For example:
And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. [Qur'an 29:46]
In other places the Qur'an says:
Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn .(3:113-115)
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3:199)'
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Qur'an 2:62]
Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God. [Qur'an 3:64]
Throughout Islamic history, Muslims have used these ayah (verses) to justify a variety of positions towards non-Muslims. In some places and times, Muslims showed a great deal of tolerance towards non-Muslims; in other places and times non-Muslims were treated as enemies and persecuted. Islamic law demands that Muslims treat Jews and Christians as dhimmis, a legal status inferior to that of a Muslim but superior to that of other non-Muslims.
One ayah in the Qur'an can even be interpreted to encourage a neutral position toward non-Muslims. This ayah says, "Those who follow the Jewish and the Sabi'een, Christians, Magians and Polytheists — Allah will judge them On the Day of Judgement:" (22:17). The acceptance of Zoroastrians as dhimmis is partly because of this ayah, as the Magians were Zurvanist Zoroastrians, and this verse, specifically mentions them alongside other People of the Book, and lists them ahead of polytheists.
[edit]

One more

Main article: Dhimmi
Historically, a dhimmi was a person who is protected under Islamic law by a pact contracted between non-Muslims and authorities from their Muslim government: this status was first made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), but was later extended to include Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Mandeans, Hindus[12] and Buddhists.[13][14] People of the Book living in non-Islamic nations were not considered dhimmis.
Non-Muslim People of the Book living in an Islamic nation under Sharia law were given a number of rights, such as the right to freely practice their faith in private and to receive state protection. They also had various legal impairments and responsibilities, such as the payment of a special tax called jizya ("tribute") in place of zakat. The social structure of the Ottoman Empire would serve as an example of how non-Muslims were treated.

 

[IDB87]

I found something that explains how I was taught. My ex was Egyptian and so is this poster.

One question TH:

How does Islam determine who is at war with it, and who is at peace with it?

 

[Thunder]

Given that Parky has expressed frank contempt for the safety of Israeli citizens,

spare us the drama.

you ask very silly questions and I respond with very silly answers.