Lol,thats quite good,i'm an English Zionist,the only thing missing is control of the Movie industry,the world banks and Mrs Miggins Knitting circle,really is that your best shot.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Israel Palestine Conflict?
- Thread starter F0uad
- Start date
Lol,thats quite good,i'm an English Zionist,the only thing missing is control of the Movie industry,the world banks and Mrs Miggins Knitting circle,really is that your best shot.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I agree but I see it as a continuation of a spiritual problem that goes back to Abraham's sons. As I am sure you know he had two sons one named Isacc and one named Ishmael. Isaac was the son through which the Jewish people descended and inhereted the right hand blessing. Ishmael was the one that recieved the lesser but still significant left hand blessing and who is father to the Arab people. This is what the Bible says about him and his descendants.
English Revised Version
And he shall be as a wild-*** among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Here is a commentary on that verse:
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
God himself has sent them out free - he has loosed them from all political restraint. The wilderness is their habitation; and in the parched land, where no other human beings could live, they have their dwellings. They scorn the city, and therefore have no fixed habitations; for their multitude, they are not afraid; for when they make depredations on cities and towns, they retire into the desert with so much precipitancy that all pursuit is eluded. In this respect the crying of the driver is disregarded. They may be said to have no lands, and yet the range of the mountains is their pasture - they pitch their tents and feed their flocks, wherever they please; and they search after every green thing - are continually looking after prey, and seize on every kind of property that comes in their way.
It is farther said, His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him - Many potentates among the Abyssinians, Persians, Egyptians, and Turks, have endeavored to subjugate the wandering or wild Arabs; but, though they have had temporary triumphs, they have been ultimately unsuccessful. Sesostris, Cyrus, Pompey, and Trajan, all endeavored to conquer Arabia, but in vain. From the beginning to the present day they have maintained their independence, and God preserves them as a lasting monument of his providential care, and an incontestable argument of the truth of Divine Revelation. Had the Pentateuch no other argument to evince its Divine origin, the account of Ishmael and the prophecy concerning his descendants, collated with their history and manner of life during a period of nearly four thousand years, would be sufficient. Indeed the argument is so absolutely demonstrative, that the man who would attempt its refutation, in the sight of reason and common sense would stand convicted of the most ridiculous presumption and folly. The country which these free descendants of Ishmael may be properly said to possess, stretches from Aleppo to the Arabian Sea, and from Egypt to the Persian Gulf; a tract of land not less than 1800 miles in length, by 900 in breadth; see Genesis 17:20.
Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
Of course this is my opinion and a hard thing to prove but verses that accurate are hard to deny. It is definately interesting. I would also throw in that the Bible also says that God will not allow Israel to be removed from their land again. They should have been, outnumbered 100 - 1 in many cases and yet have always prevailed.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What? No one shooting rockets at children on purpose can claim to be a victum, at least to justify what they are doing. I just posted quotes from many of the principle leaders in the Middle East that said they not only did not recognize Israel's right to exist that they determined to wipe them out completely. I selected only about six quotes from a list with more than a hundred. Which of Israels neighbors have agreed to recognize Israel? When the country was made a nation by the UN every Arab neighbor they had attacked at once. Israel was fine with and respected the Arabs right to exist, however not a single Arab country recognized Israel's right to exist as a nation or at all in many cases at that time It is hard to begin to see how Israel defeated them all without divine help. During that war many Arabs fought with Israel and all Arabs were granted full citizen ship at that time that desired it. I have no idea to what you refer.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What is your deal? I have no idea what it is that you are so distressed about. I have attempted to not get tangled up with someone so upset and abrassive all the time, but you are tracking me down and answering my posts to others. What is your contention here?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Proportional defence does not have to mean doing the exact same thing back to the enemy. If Israel had stopped with the killing of Jabari, I'd actually say Israel is 100% in the right (in this isolated instance). One thing is for sure, though, nobody can argue that the current and continuing Israeli response to a few rockets being fired, most being shot down, few doing any damage to people or property justifies a naval bombardment, aerial strikes, a potential ground invasion, and the killing of dozens of Palestinians, most of whom are civilians, with doubtless more to come.
Like I said before, any Hamas strike within Israel's 1967 borders is completely unjustified and Israel is perfectly in the right by retaliating. But any attack outside those borders is justified because those settlements are illegal under international law. Every day I grow more and more strongly in the opinion that the only way Hamas will stop firing rockets into Israel and peace will be achieved is if an international peacekeeping force occupies Gaza and Israel lifts its blockade. I doubt too many countries would be willing to sign onto that one, though.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
How the media censors the Palestinian side of the story ... from first hand account ...
Israel and Palestine, Choosing Sides
It is sad indeed.
Israel and Palestine, Choosing Sides
It is sad indeed.
I'm sorry loverOfTruth, but anything that starts with "The most monumental cover-up in media history may be the one Im about to describe." is not likely to be responsible journalism, and I could point to reports of gross distortions on the other side. I just don't think it useful.
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
I have definitely been doing so. It is a sad waste of life for something that really shouldn't be an issue.
jazzymom
Just Jewish
The Palestinian territory was partitioned into 2 states, one for the Palestinians and one for the Jews.
The Jews said yes and the Palestinians/Arab countries turned it down.
They were offered a state 64 years ago.
And what was the Palestinian vote?
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
Hi Jayhawker Soule, you seem to be a reasonable person so I am willing to listen to what you might have to object to in that story. However, I have read/heard similar things from multiple sources. For example, the following video : OCCUPATION 101 (The real tragedy mainstream media won't tell you about)
If nothing else, it gives a very different perspective and shows the plights of the Palestinians which you never see highlighted in the mainstream media. One such scenario occurred with a BBC report after the recent incidents started.
The big bold headline was : "Three Israelis Killed by Gaza rocket..."
And hidden somewhere in the middle of the story stated : "Fifteen palestinians ... have REPORTEDLY been killed in the continuing Israeli Operation".
Any reasonable and fair person can tell the difference - you be the judge.
But please feel free to point out anything you think is a false representation in that video or the link.
esmith
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say 630 rockets in 2011 and more that 12,800 rockets and mortars since 2010 is "few rockets being fired" information is from:
http://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures/rocket-attacks-toward-israel/
There is no way that Israel should or would accept the 1967 borders, all this would do is put more of Israel in jeopardy.
Yeah, a "international peacekeeping force" been there seen that, it doesn't work. There is only one way that Israel would or should lift the blockade is every vessel entering the waters of Gaza be search from stem to stern by the IDF or a coalition of nations approved by Israel. Hamas will continue to move Iranian rockets into Gaza via the Sudan unless they are stopped. I see no enduring peace in Gaza until Hamas is removed either by force or the will of the people of Gaza.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
It's clear from the context of my post that I was referring to this latest incident alone, specifically Israel's response to a handful of rockets that actually hit and did damage to people and property. I'm not sure why you're giving me the numbers from 2010 to the present. That isn't to undermine the damage to people and property those rockets did, but the destruction and casualties in Gaza are grossly disproportionate to those sustained by Israel. That was the point. There is no arguing that fact.
Maybe there is no way they would accept the 1967 borders, but they should because anything Israel occupies beyond that is illegal under international law. There is no basis in international law for the illegal occupation of territory for the purposes of security, no matter how much you want to imagine that to be so.
In fact, the United States has tried and is still trying just that. The war in Iraq was predicated on weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly going to be used on the US or its allies. The coming war on Iran is predicated on weapons of mass destruction that are supposedly going to be used on the US or its allies. The international community found no legal basis for the Iraq War, nor is it finding any legal basis for the coming conflict with Iran (it's almost inevitable). Why does Israel get to circumvent international law to suit itself? If Israel is attacked within its 1967 borders, it is justified in retaliating against the Palestinian state. If it isn't attacked, there is no need for retaliation. Case closed.
So the only way Israel will agree to peace is if it still has de facto control over the affairs of Palestine? Sorry, up until the point where those weapons are used to attack Israel, Israel or any other nation has no business meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Again, Israel isn't a special snowflake that gets to circumvent international law to suit its fancy.
The reason why Israel is being attacked is rather simple: It is illegally-occupying and controlling lands that do not belong to it under international law. It seems the logical pathway to peace is for Israel to withdraw from these illegally-held settlements, remove the illegal blockades, and then peace talks can begin.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Jayhawker Soul said:
I actually missed this part in my initial reply. My apologies.
The proportionality mandate would ignore the build-up of Iranian armaments, command and control centers, and similar targets only if you also ignore the massive military aid Israel has received from the US. Nuclear weapons, no less.
I'm not sure how anyone reasonable can equivocate a limited supply of Fajr-5 rockets with Israel's nuclear weapons, advanced Iron Dome systems which renders over 80% of the rockets useless anyway, highly advanced weaponry and military equipment, not to mention billions of dollars in aid.
Now I can probably guess what you're going to say next. You'll probably argue something along the lines of "Well, Israel received all that so it can defend itself". But how is it defending itself if it is illegally-occupying Palestinian land under international law? The UN is quite clear about it. As far as Palestine and Iran are concerned, they're receiving their crap Fajr-5s so they can defend themselves. And those are their good weapons. It's a step above throwing stones.
All this conflict, but nobody is admitting to be the aggressor. Both are to blame. Hamas, for incurring civilian casualties by firing from civilian areas, as well as for attacking Israel within its 1967 borders. Israel for illegally-occupying Palestinian land and illegally-blockading Gaza.
Peace will only be achieved when both sides make concessions. Israel is too powerful to feel the need to make concessions and Hamas is too fundamentalist to realize that continuing firing rockets at Israel will only mean more deaths and accomplish nothing for them.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Actually Occupation 101 is a propaganda film produced by IfAmericansKnew, which happens to be an Anti-Israel company that is known for publishing blood libels and has been criticized by the ADL, The New York TImes and the Guardian.
It is about as one-sided as it comes. Find something a little less bias and I might listen.
If you believe this to be a rational position there can be no expectation of rational discourse.
Thank you. I believe the same to be true of you.
Yes, and it's also true that a BBC journalist was also behind Photos of Syrian Massacres Recycled as Gaza Atrocities. Meanwhile, there are groups such as Camera dedicated to fighting press bias and distortion. Finally, finding examples of the most disgusting antisemitic hate speech saturating the area would be trivially easy.
I just don't think hurling propaganda packets at one another is particularly helpful. I read Haaretz, the International Herald Tribune, the BBC, Ynetnews, and Al Jazeera daily and, during periods such as this, multiple times throughout the day. I share a few articles that I think have value, but I'm trying very, very hard to limit the selection to articles that I believe to be reasonably balanced.
L'shalom / Salaam.
esmith
Veteran Member
When an entity, in this case Hamas attacks another country, Israel in this case, they should expect retaliation. When the attackers, in this case Hamas, locates their means of attack within the civilian population there is going to be collateral damage to non-military infrastructure and non-combatants. Whether the destruction and casualties in Gaza is disproportional to those in Israel is not germane to the issue. Israel is prosecuting targets that are the source of attacks against the civilian population of Israel. What would you have Israel do? Ask Hamas to please stop shooting at our civilian population? Unfortunately the people of Gaza have brought the destruction on themselves by allowing a organization that is recognized as a terrorist entity to occupy and govern their country.
Some of the following was copied from: Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Six-Day War" was a result of terrorist attacks, Syrian military activity along Israel's boarders false intelligence from Russia led Egypt to believe that Israel was going to attack Syria. These actions and other precipitated the Six-Day War, which led to Israel expanding their borders to provide additional security for Israel. The UN passed resolution 242 in Nov 1967. Resolution 242 recognized the right of "every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1978, after the Camp David Accords, and disengaged from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, seaports and airports. Therefor your statement
is invalid.
Only the current administration has ever mentioned that Israel revert back to their pre-1967 borders. I have no intention of rehashing the Iraq conflict other that say that a ruthless dictator was removed from power. Your assumption that there is a coming war with Iran may or may not be valid. The majority of the world community including many Arab nations have made it quite clear that Iran can not obtain nuclear weapons. Your conclusion that Israel does not have the right to defend itself is totally invalid.
I do not know where you keep coming up with the idea that Israel is circumventing international law. No, Israel does not want control over Palestine, they only want to be sure that there are no offensive weapons that can reach into Israel. If the people of Gaza want to live in peace then they or someone is going to have to remove those that are responsible for attacking Israel.
Your point is totally incorrect. Hamas is a puppet of Iran who has made it quite clear that the Nation of Israel should be removed from the face of the earth. Hamas is one of their arms attempting to achieve this goal. Hamas, knows that it can not prevail against Israel militarily and is attempting to bring discredit against Israel by using the people of Gaza as their propaganda tool.
Last edited:
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
I have no problem accepting that IfAmericansKnew might have their own agenda and hence might be somewhat biased in their reporting from time to time. But I wouldn't be surprised at all that entities such as New York Times and Guardian would be criticizing them given IfAmericansKnew is working on criticizing those medias for not being fair. Also, you have to take into account that media monitoring orgs such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting actually praise their reporting. So you can't simply brush it off as anti-semitic.
Furthermore, the reason I would watch that video to get some information from there is because it shows people mostly non-arabs and including Jews and Christians who should not have any reason/interest to take the side of the palestinians over the Israelis except to bring the facts out - even if they end up exaggerating a bit. Mostly, what they show is the plight of the palestinians which is not shown in the mainstream media. So if you can point to a specific thing(i.e. palestinians homes being bulldozed, more and more lands being taken away by settlers etc.) that they show which is not true, I will be more than wiling to investigate that further.
Last edited:
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
Once again we can keep categorizing media outlets as Anti-Israel and Pro-Israel all we want - and we'll never get to the Truth. For example, the CAMERA organization you mentioned is clearly a pro-Israeli media monitoring groups who even criticizes NPR and who is criticized by Boston Globe, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs etc.
As I have stated in the above post, I will state again. But the reason I would watch those video is to get some information from there because it shows people mostly non-arabs and including Jews and Christians who should not have any reason/interest to take the side of the palestinians over the Israelis except to bring the facts out - even if they end up exaggerating a bit. Mostly, what they show is the plight of the palestinians which is not shown in the mainstream media. So if you can point to a specific thing(i.e. palestinians homes being bulldozed, more and more lands being taken away by settlers etc.) that they show which is not true, I will be more than wiling to investigate that further. Notice, I have not provided any story/information produced by Muslims/Arabs - that would have more chances of it being biased and propaganda material.
Finally, just labeling something as propaganda and anti-semitism wouldn't get us anywhere. We have to start with the information and investigate. And first of all, we need to recognize where it all started - that is the illegal occupation of the palestinian lands by Israel.
Last edited: