Israel - Palestine discussion thread

The Israelis aren't helping things by calling it a sham. The IRA disarmed, as did the ETA in northern Spain. There's no reason why Hamas cannot adopt a more moderate stance over time and gradually work towards a peace deal, especially if they get on the same page as Fatah. But being told that you're just postulating and aren't genuine at every step does far more to undermine the process.
When you include the caveat, "oh by the way, you have no right to exist", that is what i'd call postulating. I wouldn't take it seriously either with that hitch included.
 
The Israelis aren't helping things by calling it a sham. The IRA disarmed, as did the ETA in northern Spain. There's no reason why Hamas cannot adopt a more moderate stance over time and gradually work towards a peace deal, especially if they get on the same page as Fatah. But being told that you're just postulating and aren't genuine at every step does far more to undermine the process.
tenor.gif
 
Right, because all Muslims - in fact, all non-Christians - are incapable of change.

Love thy neighbour, but only if thy neighbour is just like you; if not, feel free to persecute to your heart's content.
So Hamas is not a terrorist group then?
 
Right, because all Muslims - in fact, all non-Christians - are incapable of change.

Love thy neighbour, but only if thy neighbour is just like you; if not, feel free to persecute to your heart's content.
Best. Post. Ever.

I'll have to tell my Muslim friends and the Syrian charities I donate to and spent time with that I'm persecuting them to my heart's content :lol:

If you want to stop jumping to conclusions (yeah right) then try reading this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/middleeast/hamas-khaled-meshal-gaza.html
 
If you want to stop jumping to conclusions (yeah right)

He may have jumped to a conclusion there, but you're not really helping things by just posting snarky gifs.

Instead, perhaps you could try providing a reasoned explanation for why you think Hamas is in the wrong but Israel is in the right, when they both want essentially the same thing - to destroy the other.
 
Instead, perhaps you could try providing a reasoned explanation for why you think Hamas is in the wrong but Israel is in the right, when they both want essentially the same thing - to destroy the other.

I think it's more about taking Hamas' statement with a bit of salt. They haven't shown anything so far that might help to let the rest of the world to take things they say serious.
 
He may have jumped to a conclusion there, but you're not really helping things by just posting snarky gifs.

Instead, perhaps you could try providing a reasoned explanation for why you think Hamas is in the wrong but Israel is in the right, when they both want essentially the same thing - to destroy the other.
These are the people who launch missiles from hospitals then complain when Israel fires back. As for dropping its Islamist motivations, as Dennisch said I doubt there's a salt mine big enough to believe they will ever do that.
 
How do you define provoked? If its by "simply being in the place Hamas wants" then its yes.

What I'm saying is that both sides fire rockets at each other. Much of the western world is quick to say that Israel only ever fires in defense, or as a retaliation, and that the Palestinians are always ultimately to blame.

Events like the 2009 strike on the Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque paint a bit of a different picture though. So I'm trying to get more information from DLR here about why he seems to think it's always Palestine's fault.
 
What I'm saying is that both sides fire rockets at each other. Much of the western world is quick to say that Israel only ever fires in defense, or as a retaliation, and that the Palestinians are always ultimately to blame.

Events like the 2009 strike on the Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque paint a bit of a different picture though. So I'm trying to get more information from DLR here about why he seems to think it's always Palestine's fault.
In the 10 year period up to 2016 there were 10,000+ rocket fired into Israel. That you have to go back to 2009 for an example of an Israeli rocket attack speaks volumes about the imbalance of aggression.
 
In the 10 year period up to 2016 there were 10,000+ rocket fired into Israel. That you have to go back to 2009 for an example of an Israeli rocket attack speaks volumes about the imbalance of aggression.

Or, it might just be saying that I could recall that incident off the top of my head, and didn't spend time poring through 10 years of records to find more examples.
 
Or, it might just be saying that I could recall that incident off the top of my head, and didn't spend time poring through 10 years of records to find more examples.
When you get up to five figures be sure and let us know.
 
Is it your contention that Israel has never fired first in any of their many conflicts with Palestinian groups?

I can't speak for what @DLR_Mysterion was actually contending that Hamas always fires first, but rather when Hamas does fire first, they often fire from hospitals or schools, so when Israel retaliates they get to point out the atrocity.

Only one side in this conflict makes use of innocent civilians as human shields.
 
Only one side in this conflict makes use of innocent civilians as human shields.
And only one side has a leader who suggests that a soldier who killed an unarmed man is a national hero and that no crime was committed.

They're both as bad as each other, albeit for very different reasons.
 
And only one side has a leader who suggests that a soldier who killed an unarmed man is a national hero and that no crime was committed

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
I'm guessing it's Palestine, since that's where terrorists' families receive compensation.
No, Israel. A group of Palestinians attacked an outpost a few years ago. Most of them were killed, but one of them was only injured. He was disarmed and completely incapacitated. He presented no immediate threat to anyone, and under the rules of war, he was effectively a prisoner of war. After the Israeli army unit regrouped, one soldier went back out and killed the Palestinian; he was heard to say that the Palestinian deserved to die. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter, but Netanyahu publicly called for him to be acquitted, if not outright pardoned and called him a national hero. Netanyahu's language made it pretty clear that he didn't think that killing unarmed Palestinians amounted to a crime.
 
No, Israel. A group of Palestinians attacked an outpost a few years ago. Most of them were killed, but one of them was only injured. He was disarmed and completely incapacitated. He presented no immediate threat to anyone, and under the rules of war, he was effectively a prisoner of war. After the Israeli army unit regrouped, one soldier went back out and killed the Palestinian; he was heard to say that the Palestinian deserved to die. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter, but Netanyahu publicly called for him to be acquitted, if not outright pardoned and called him a national hero. Netanyahu's language made it pretty clear that he didn't think that killing unarmed Palestinians amounted to a crime.
I guess he's out and free and clear now and he and his family are getting compensated for killing a Palestinian right?
 
And only one side has a leader who suggests that a soldier who killed an unarmed man is a national hero and that no crime was committed.

Are you seriously contending that "a leader who suggests that a soldier who killed an unarmed man is a national hero" is as bad as using civilians as human shields? Seriously?

They're both as bad as each other, albeit for very different reasons.

Why yes, yes you are. Whatever the reason.
 
Are you seriously contending that "a leader who suggests that a soldier who killed an unarmed man is a national hero" is as bad as using civilians as human shields? Seriously?
Netanyahu does exactly that. The Israeli government supports Jewish settlers who rent houses at a discounted rate in occupied areas. In many cases, children are among the settlers. They often require armed guards with them twenty-four hours a day. They do it to maintain control over areas by keeping Palestinians out. Watch Louis Theroux and the Ultra-Zionists and you'll see exactly what I mean. These settlers aren't living - they're deliberately put in harm's way. What's really scary is that supporters of the policy are as extreme as the Palestinians.

Israel would have us believe that they are a nation under siege, only ever doing just enough to defend themselves. They aren't. They're just as bad as the Palestinians.
 
Netanyahu does exactly that.

I'm not arguing that. But you're saying it's just as bad as using human shields.

The Israeli government supports Jewish settlers who rent houses at a discounted rate in occupied areas. In many cases, children are among the settlers. They often require armed guards with them twenty-four hours a day. They do it to maintain control over areas by keeping Palestinians out. Watch Louis Theroux and the Ultra-Zionists and you'll see exactly what I mean. These settlers aren't living - they're deliberately put in harm's way.

Are these settlers dragged kicking and screaming into these settlements? Or do Hamas' human shields volunteer for it? Otherwise, not the same thing at all.

What's really scary is that somesupporters of the policy are as extreme as the Palestinians.

Fixed that for ya. No charge.

Israel would have us believe that they are a nation under siege, only ever doing just enough to defend themselves. They aren't

Agreed.

They're just as bad as the Palestinians.

Disagree.
 
Back