Israeli-Palestinian conflict (13 Viewers)

[Seven]

We'll have to disagree on that.

If the border would have been breached, Israeli civilians would have died. It's a given.

- - - Updated - - -

And regarding the premeditated stuff, I see it's just your opinion based on what you assume are Israel intent. Not a very strong case

I don't assume this is Israel's intent. This intent has become obvious over decades.

The question is also:
- do you believe there were other means at Israel's disposal to prevent breaching the border?
- do you believe Israeli citizens would have died if the border had been breached?

Regarding the first question I think it's likely that the killings were not strictly necessary. Regarding the second question I do know enough about the particular surroundings of the border. Most likely none of us do.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Tomice]

I don't assume this is Israel's intent. This intent has become obvious over decades.

The question is also:
- do you believe there were other means at Israel's disposal to prevent breaching the border?
- do you believe Israeli citizens would have died if the border had been breached?

Regarding the first question I think it's likely that the killings were not strictly necessary. Regarding the second question I do know enough about the particular surroundings of the border. Most likely none of us do.

Of course there were other means, I criticized Israel several time in this thread for how they handled the events including excessive use of force and admitted that significant part of deaths were unjustified or at least unnecessary. With that said not all killings were unjustified and not all of them were intentional, hence collateral damage which is of course unfortunate. It's just very tiering to need to say all of that every post I make and I apologize if I didn't make it clear to you specifically or gave the impression I take it lightly.

To the second question, I'm 100% certain that there would have been deaths on the Israeli side, Hamas invest tens of millions of dollars a year to build terror tunnels under the border, a bearched fence is a god given gift for them.

It's important to understand that the army must act as if it's a certainty as well, an army can't take deliberate or calculated risks with the lives of its citizens and it's important to remember that when you judge the army response to the events.

There are many settlements less the few km from the border, it's essentially a 10 min walk. What would you think the number of deaths on the palestinian side would reach if the border was crossed and Israel settlements were under threat? it would have been a hundred fold worse and I think it was also a consideration for Israel to stop it before it gets out of hand even at the risk of using excessive force, it was a lose lose situation for us from the start.

 

[Seven]

Of course there were other means, I criticized Israel several time in this thread for how they handled the events including excessive use of force and admitted that significant part of deaths were unjustified or at least unnecessary. With that said not all killings were unjustified and not all of them were intentional, hence collateral damage which is of course unfortunate. It's just very tiering to need to say all of that every post I make and I apologize if I didn't make it clear to you specifically or gave the intention I take it lightyl.

To the second question, I'm 100% certain that there would have been deaths on the Israeli side, It's important to understand that the army must act as if it's a certainty as well, an army can't take deliberate or calculated risks with the lives of its citizens and it's important to remember that when you judge the army response to the events.

There are many settlements less the few km from the border, it's essentially a 10 min walk. What would you think the number of deaths on the palestinian side would have reached if the border was crossed and Israel settlements were under threat? it would have been a hundred fold worse and I think it was also a consideration for Israel to stop it before it gets out of hand.

So basically we agree .

My main problem with all of this is that because it's Israel, nothing will be done about it. Sure, there will be international protests. Most countries will say they disapprove of the excessive force used. But none of them will actually hold Israel accountable.

As for everything else in your post, yes, I do not necessarily disagree with you there.

 

[Tomice]

So basically we agree .

My main problem with all of this is that because it's Israel, nothing will be done about it. Sure, there will be international protests. Most countries will say they disapprove of the excessive force used. But none of them will actually hold Israel accountable.

As for everything else in your post, yes, I do not necessarily disagree with you there.

We are getting there . I mostly don't like some of the rhetoric you and some other use but I don't necceserly disagree with everything you are saying

The only reason the world criticise Israel is because they need to pay the lip tax to the arab oil countries and their voters in some cases. No one actually cares, but it goes both way imo, the palestinians aren't being held accountable as well and on them it has an even worse effect I think. The west keeps feeding them with false hope that they will save them one day and they are holding tightly to that, I think they already gave up on other arab countries helping them.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

the first map, labeled “1946”, is actually a map of what the League of Nations in the 1920s predicted Palestine would be like in 1946. I don't trust maps that rely on on the future. It's worth noting that the british mandate of palestine was actually much bigger originally and 70% of it was already been given to Jordan in the late 20's.

Beyond that it's intentionally mislabels the division between jew and arabs who both were referred to as palestinians at the time by the brits. The actual map this first map is misrepresenting includes a third category, called "public land" which is basically government owned land. The true division was that just 40% was privately owned by arabs, 10% by jews and 50% was british owned.

The second map is just irrelevant in this context. Why is the UN partition plan, which was accepted by the Jews but was never implemented because it was rejected by the arabs, part of this sequence? A plan that never happened cannot be considered an accurate depiction of reality because it never was. The arabs were supposed to get 47% of the land (similar to what they owned) but they rejected it and declared a war.

The third map attributes sovereignty to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It would be hard to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were sovereign Palestinian lands from 1949 to 1967. Seeing as Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and held onto it until 1967, it’s clear that this land was not Palestinian. Likewise, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military control for the large majority of that period. Why didn't they asked for independence from either Jordan or Egypt btw? two countries who "supposedly" fought for their cause in 48'

The fourth map is an accurate representation of Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty so far as I can tell, but its context has been completely hijacked by the inaccurate maps that precede it. Again we are talking about temporary sovereignty alone and not actual land appropriation. The settlements today are around 6-7% of the land in the west bank not the whole white thing.

Thank you for the information.

I was mostly using it to illustrate the settlement issue, though it could've been done better.

 

[Tomice]

Thank you for the information.

I was mostly using it to illustrate the settlement issue, though it could've been done better.

No problem.

I vehemently oppose the settlement movement btw, It's probably the most divisive issue currently in Israel society.

I think the whole endeavor is not only foolish but unjust to the palestinians as well and adds further complication to an already complicated issue. It's an unfortunate by product of the failure to reach a permanent deal, the longer it goes the more legitimacy that section in Israeli society will benefit from.

If there is one issue I wished Israel would be held accountable for it's exactly this one @Seven. As long as we have a right wing government that cater to a significantly loud part of their vote base for strictly political reasons and there is no settlements with the palestinians it will only get worse I'm afraid.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

No problem.

I vehemently oppose the settlement movement btw, It's probably the most divisive issue currently in Israel society.

I think the whole endeavor is not only foolish but unjust to the palestinians as well and adds further complication to an already complicated issue. It's an unfortunate by product of the failure to reach a permanent deal, the longer it goes the more legitimacy that section in Israeli society will benefit from.

If there is one issue I wished Israel would be held accountable for it's exactly this one @Seven. As long as we have a right wing government that cater to a significantly loud part of their vote base for strictly political reasons and there is no settlements with the palestinians it will only get worse I'm afraid.

No worries, I know from reading through other posts in this thread. Hence why the original post was aimed at someone else

 

[Nzoric]

Because it’s bullshit. Changing history to fit a modern narrative

How do you suppose contemporary Italy is linked with the Romans?

 

[AndreaCristiano]

How do you suppose contemporary Italy is linked with the Romans?

What’s your point with this question. The romans weren’t basically nomadic tribes inhabiting lands that were not a nation

 

[piotrr]

 

[GordoDeCentral]

What’s your point with this question. The romans weren’t basically nomadic tribes inhabiting lands that were not a nation

Wrong, romans in bc era were original inhabitants of rome, later any free person within their empire was a roman, there never was an italy as a nation in the history of humanity before Garibaldi

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Wrong, romans in bc era were original inhabitants of rome, later any free person within their empire was a roman, there never was an italy as a nation in the history of humanity before Garibaldi

I understand that but Rome was a nation an empire with borders and laws and land given to those people rulers and inhabitants. “Palestine” was non of these things

 

[AndreaCristiano]

That’s horrible

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I understand that but Rome was a nation an empire with borders and laws and land given to those people rulers and inhabitants. “Palestine” was non of these things

That's the point, neither was Italy, what both places have is a common language/culture and to some that's a nation even if not a sovereign one.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

That's the point, neither was Italy, what both places have is a common language/culture and to some that's a nation even if not a sovereign one.

Well Rome was a nation it was a global empire. So romans we’re under that nation. The Palestinian difference is there was no nation of Palestine it was lands where multiple tribes not just the Palestinians lived

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Well Rome was a nation it was a global empire. So romans we’re under that nation. The Palestinian difference is there was no nation of Palestine it was lands where multiple tribes not just the Palestinians lived

Ok i give up

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Ok i give up

I think we’re just looking at this differently. I’ll say this. The Israelites have a claim albeit slight because Israelites had a kingdom there with Jerusalem as their capital. It was an established kingdom after the time of tribes. So even though this Israel was established by in 1957 its still on those lands. The issue of anything is those who created this Israel and the errors that were made.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I think we’re just looking at this differently. I’ll say this. The Israelites have a claim albeit slight because Israelites had a kingdom there with Jerusalem as their capital. It was an established kingdom after the time of tribes. So even though this Israel was established by in 1957 its still on those lands. The issue of anything is those who created this Israel and the errors that were made.

That also is inaccurate, there was a kingdom of judea for a very short time and throughout history the area was called Palestine even at the time of Jesus. Let's just call this as it is, the only people who believe israel should exist there are people who believe in Bible prophecies otherwise there's no logical out convincing reason for a polish or german national to have a historical claim on Palestinian land.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

That also is inaccurate, there was a kingdom of judea for a very short time and throughout history the area was called Palestine even at the time of Jesus. Let's just call this as it is, the only people who believe israel should exist there are people who believe in Bible prophecies otherwise there's no logical out convincing reason for a polish or german national to have a historical claim on Palestinian land.

Why does the Bible come into this discussion ? The Bible clearly states the Jews should wander until the end times so that has no bearing on it. We’re both speaking of the same kingdom and like you said he kingdom of Judea was an Israeli kingdom hence why they extend it to today’s Israel so I don’t see where I was inaccurate?

 

[Linebreak]

Miko Peled.

His grandfather was Avraham Katsnelson, one of the signatories to Israel's of Declaration of Independence.

He is the son of the famous general Mattityahu Peled, who fought in the 1948 war to establish Israel and served as a General in the 1967 war.

Here's what he had to say about Israel and their policy in Palestine.

“Israel has been on a mission to destroy the Palestinian people for over six decades,” Peled has said. “Why would anyone not give solidarity to the Palestinian people?”
“every single Israeli city is a settlement” and that “expressing solidarity with Palestinians is the most important thing people can do.”

This man has no reason to side with the Palestinians, be it economical (to the contrary), safety (to the contrary), media or societal pressure (to the contrary) - in fact, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by taking the stances he takes against Israel (he's a Jew, the son of major Zionist figures).

The only reason he says the things he says are on the ethical and moral grounds. Read or watch some of his work if you want to hear some truth about Palestine if you think every Palestinian (be they Muslim or Christian) is a biased liar, or if you think everyone anti-Israel is a crazed lefty or a terrorist.

Hear it straight from the horses mouth and don't fall for Israeli hasbara.