[iamzack]

Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are.  You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.

Didn't you guys steal your land from native Americans?

Collapsed their economies, forced them to move into ****ty land, forced them to move again when we discovered gold, oil, etc on that land, caged them off and let them pretend to be their own states...

As Turambar pointed out, that's probably why Americans support Israel.

[Dilmah G]

Ah, I missed that. Carry on. 

[StarSlayer]

Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are.  You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.

I can name three continents worth of nations living on "stolen lands," history is rife with that, not to mention the particular piece of property you're all arguing about has changed hands more times then I can count.  Unless Sandwich has a time machine he's not responsible for Israel existing and in a few decades I doubt anyone will be alive from that period anyway, so really just save the silly ass guilt trip crap.  Israel is an established country that's a fact and baring some genocidal war that isn't going to change, so demanding Israel ceases to exist is a unrealistic argument.  Now arguing that Israel needs to get it **** together and correct its mistreatment of Palestinians is a valid debate.  If the current orthodox nut bag gov't  in power got changed out for a moderate one then we might actually have a decent shot of obtaining real meaningful peace.  But arguing over whether or not Israel should exist is a bunch of bullocks, and if the parties involved can't even move beyond that then there is never going to be any peaceful solution and you might as well deport everyone and bulldoze the entire god forsaken land mass into the Med.

[Kosh]

Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are.  You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.

Didn't you guys steal your land from native Americans?

The difference is we practically wiped them out.

[karajorma]

I can name three continents worth of nations living on "stolen lands," history is rife with that, not to mention the particular piece of property you're all arguing about has changed hands more times then I can count.  Unless Sandwich has a time machine he's not responsible for Israel existing and in a few decades I doubt anyone will be alive from that period anyway, so really just save the silly ass guilt trip crap.  Israel is an established country that's a fact and baring some genocidal war that isn't going to change, so demanding Israel ceases to exist is a unrealistic argument.

The problem is that the refusal of Israelis to accept the parallels between themselves 60 years ago and the Palestinians now is part of the problem. The Israelis refuse to accept that their country only exists due to exactly the same kind of terrorism that they now decry from the Palestinians. In the case of the UK they did simply acknowledge that the land wasn't theirs, packed up and left. I'm not saying that Israel should do the same thing but they really need to realise that their country only exists because someone did.

Maybe then they'd realise that they really can't complain about the Palestinians doing what they are doing since they're the ones who showed them that it might just work.

I'm so glad you're here to contribute such statements. You just seem to have a knack for getting right to the heart of a matter, breaking it down, and then portraying things in such a delicately depicted light that I can't help but be convinced that you're absolutely, truly off your friggin' rocker.

Except that you have said the pretty much the same thing the other way round in the past. You've certainly claimed a god given right to Israel in the past. What is that if not "The Jews were not terrorists, they were just taking back their homes"

[Sandwich]

All my religious-God-gave-Israel-to-the-Jews statements have been, I believe, couched in disclaimers of personal belief. I also happen to believe that if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell, but you don't see me shoving that down people's throats, now do you? Are you going to claim that because I believe that way, anything I say about pretty much anything is suspect?

Fact of the matter is that for whatever its reasons were, the UN assigned this land as a Jewish homeland back in 47/48. Live with it - or die fighting it. Your choice.

Now, there have been many arguments tossed back and forth in this thread, but I recently ran across Netanyahu's response to the flotilla issue. It states simply and clearly what the crux of the matter is, far better than I ever could:

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time. Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes. Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now. But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry—smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities.

These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva—these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel. Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hizbullah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hizbullah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass—people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow. For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

And here’s our policy. It's very simple—Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot. And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.

On this occasion too, we made several offers—offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again. So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship—you can see this in the videos—the first soldier—they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed; they were clubbed; they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach; one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.

This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism. I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it—under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers—you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth. 

Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway—Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

Thank you.

[Titan]

All my religious-God-gave-Israel-to-the-Jews statements have been, I believe, couched in disclaimers of personal belief. I also happen to believe that if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell, but you don't see me shoving that down people's throats, now do you? Are you going to claim that because I believe that way, anything I say about pretty much anything is suspect?

I am Catholic, but, slightly off-topic, I find a bit of an inherent problem with that. Isn't it kindof unjust to damn people just because they explain something a little differently? No one religion has been proven right. I don't think God would kill people just because they said he was a bunch of gods.

No offense, just my opinion.

[Sandwich]

That is indeed a topic for another thread, so pardon if I don't encourage this one from dragging off-topic.

[StarSlayer]

All my religious-God-gave-Israel-to-the-Jews statements have been, I believe, couched in disclaimers of personal belief. I also happen to believe that if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell, but you don't see me shoving that down people's throats, now do you? Are you going to claim that because I believe that way, anything I say about pretty much anything is suspect?

I am Catholic, but, slightly off-topic, I find a bit of an inherent problem with that. Isn't it kindof unjust to damn people just because they explain something a little differently? No one religion has been proven right. I don't think God would kill people just because they said he was a bunch of gods.

No offense, just my opinion.

A deity isn't worthy of faith and devotion if s/he is going to damn folks to hell just because they weren't born into a particular belief system. 

[Scotty]

And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.

Same concept.  Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).

[jr2]

For all my sympathy for Israel (which is at least as great as my sympathy for the Palestinians), posts like that are a big turn-off. They remind me of US conservative rhetoric.

Nothing is that black-and-white.

I must object to that statement.  ... It's black-and-white...

[StarSlayer]

And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.

Same concept.  Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).

Hardly the same concept, supporting or neglecting orphans is not the same thing as actively punishing them for something they have no control over.  Sending people to hell and fiery damnation for crimes they did not commit is not the indicative of a benevolent god, more like a church forcing folks into obedience through fear.

[Scotty]

And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.

Same concept.  Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).

Hardly the same concept, supporting or neglecting orphans is not the same thing as actively punishing them for something they have no control over.  Sending people to hell and fiery damnation for crimes they did not commit is not the indicative of a benevolent god, more like a church forcing folks into obedience through fear.

You apparently didn't read the second half of my post.  It's not an active process.  It's more akin to not going in and getting a sweepstakes prize than it is actively throwing someone into hell.  You do have control over it, people just merely refuse to exercise it, for some reason or other.

[iamzack]

And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.

Same concept.  Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).

But a human doesn't claim to be omnipotent and omniscient. Your god could easily rain bread down on everyone on earth, or even just the innocent babies. You know, if he gave a ****.

*snip*

Israel should never have existed. Israel wouldn't sound so damn retarded talking about defense if it recognized that. You know, "The UN made a mistake in 1947/8 but we're here now and that's that." But no. "PALESTINES IS TERRORISTS THEY'S KILLIN OUR CIVILIANS!!!" Israeli civilians kill Palestinian civilians too, but they don't get called terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence

And in fact, why is it a tragedy when someone who gets paid to kill dies (soldier) but a cause for celebration when someone who kills because they want freedom dies ("terrorist")? You probably like to think that Palestinian rockets come from people who just want political power or from individuals who only want to hurt others, but you have to realize they are just like your IDF. They have families, friends, et cetera, and they believe their fight might give them back the right to build a house or be employed, or have access to some damn books.

[SpardaSon21]

Nobody is saying the Palestinians don't have the right to fight for what they believe in.  The issue here is the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilian populaces.  Do you get that little fact zack?  Most of our objections would be gone if the Palestinians were attacking only valid military targets like bases, equipment, and soldiers.  There is absolutely no reason to target civilians, and the fact that their targets are civilians with the intent to cause terror is why we are calling them terrorists and not freedom fighters.

[iamzack]

Nobody is saying the Palestinians don't have the right to fight for what they believe in.  The issue here is the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilian populaces.  Do you get that little fact zack?  Most of our objections would be gone if the Palestinians were attacking only valid military targets like bases, equipment, and soldiers.  There is absolutely no reason to target civilians, and the fact that their targets are civilians with the intent to cause terror is why we are calling them terrorists and not freedom fighters.

Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars. The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we? Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.

[General Battuta]

Nobody is saying the Palestinians don't have the right to fight for what they believe in.  The issue here is the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilian populaces.  Do you get that little fact zack?  Most of our objections would be gone if the Palestinians were attacking only valid military targets like bases, equipment, and soldiers.  There is absolutely no reason to target civilians, and the fact that their targets are civilians with the intent to cause terror is why we are calling them terrorists and not freedom fighters.

Well, why was it okay when we deliberately targeted civilians?

[Flipside]

Actually, 'target' is really the wrong word, from what I understand of the weapons they use, you can't really target anything, you just point them in the general direction of Israel and fire. That doesn't make it acceptable, but, then, as the last shell-bombardment shows, neither side seems overly concerned about civilian casualities on the opposite side if it is in the execution of their little spat.

Fact is, Hamas was voted in because of Israels actions, not its existence, I personally think Palestine would not have voted for them if it hadn't been for the way Israel treats the Gaza area, it's like a protest vote, our current Mayor in London is there because of a protest vote, it's not that we liked him, it was that we hated the alternative, and I have a strong suspicion that's the motivation behind the formation of our entire government in the UK at the moment.

It's the situation breeding the anger, not vice versa.

Edit: In short, the current 'Road to Peace' is a Ringroad, and we are going round and round in a cycle of action/reaction/accusation/counter-accusation.

The Circle Must Be Broken.

[BloodEagle]

Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars.

You don't feel bad when civilians are killed? At all? Have you no conscience? No soul? [/parody of zack's trolling]

The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we?

A). How much flak has been taken over that?  And you saying we should regard these nations differently, because...?

B). It could be argued that, since it was the only way to force a surrender (there's a whole other topic in this forum on that issue), the action was justified in that it actually reduced the amount of casualties that would have occurred had a land war (which, in Asia, is one of the great blunders) been initiated.  Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.

Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

--

Now, please stop trying to Godwin (it's getting there, trust me) the Hell out of this thread. 

[Flipside]

Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission.  I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.

Actually, from what I understand, it was far more complex than simply 'let's attack the Americans while they aren't looking', but was far more a case of a breakdown of communications, so I'm not certain that would really count as a 'Terrorist' attack, more like a 'screw up of monumental proportions'.

Edit: And, can I re-re-reiterate that 'Terrorism' as a word has now lost any meaning to me, it's being bolted onto everything that happens that people don't like, it's lost any weight it once had as far as I'm concerned.