Oh, you're still here?
Must be a trans woman somewhere to inform that she's a "man".
-
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!
Hamas must be eradicated
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Must be a trans woman somewhere to inform that she's a "man".
Not really, since I have been pointing out why the Palestinians are being killed, and more from bad Hamas decisions as much as what Israel is doing. All people matter, so it's just awful that Hamas don't seem to think their own people matter more than killing Israelis.
The sources of such conflicts? - in this case it appears to be the origins of a few religions and what has resulted from this. Hardly the first time the area has been a conflict zone.
Perhaps you are right, and perhaps it is also so many mainly Muslim countries poking their noses in.
That's ignoring Israel's choice to respond by
prioritizing death & destruction over accuracy.
That's ignoring Hamas being a response to
many prior decades of Israel's brutal oppression.
As well they should. Israel is violently anti-Arab
& anti-Muslim. Other countries will weigh in,
eg, USA in favor of Israel's war crimes, Muslim
countries in favor of Palestinian human rights.
Your small toolkit of fallacy arguments are nothing if not boringly predictable.
Orbit
I'm a planet
That was humor. I don't see any fallacy.
JerusalemBull
Member
Sure, no one knows what they -Hammas-did to the Arab Christian in Gaza and where the majority now. sad to say this fact
Bigger than yours.
Or Hamas not protecting the civilian population sufficiently.
Well it is a bad response - given all the civilians killed so far.
So what's new?
Nothing in Israel.
And likely, nothing will change, given that
they're bent on only increasing the violence.
Orbit
I'm a planet
I think everyone here agrees that Hamas is bad. The question is why do Israelis seem blind as to what radicalized them in the first place? Or treat Palestinian grievances as completely unfounded?
Sure, members of Hamas are radicalized (and hate Jews), and are terrorists. But it doesn't mean Palestinians as a group don't have legitimate grievances, which Israeli apologists downplay or ignore completely.
If there is ever going to be peace in the region, the endless whataboutism has got to stop, and negotiations have to begin.
Who exactly are the Palestinians you refer to? For example, are they Arabs who were living in what is now called Jordan? And what security was missing from those many rejected proposals? As for colonizers, Muslims have colonized the entire ME apart from the small sliver of land called Israel.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I think I've been pretty respectful in this discussion in only stating what I believe to be true as my opinion and why for your analysis. I've refrained from childish emotional responses like "your statement is "complete garbage" among those other personal attacks you've directed at me here.
You've suddenly made this discussion insulting and disrespectful instead of a reasonable response with your counterpoint. Just remember you've made this a personal attack instead of a reasonable discussion.
I've studied the 6 day war of 1967. I'm no expert military strategist but I've read many who are. Your quote and sophomoric reply concerning it belies the fact that you have a simplistic view of the realities of that war and what led up to Israel's strategic strike. You should have delved a little deeper than stopping at what you thought was a black and white answer concerning a dynamic situation.
Prior to Israel's preemptive strike Egypt "fired the first shots" of the subsequent war with Israel by implementing a blockade of Israeli goods through the strait of Tiran. Realize, there was ongoing and increasing tensions between the Arabs and the Israelis throughout the 60's and there was already ongoing skirmishes between them on Israel's northern and western borders with Arab insurgents, the Syrian military, and Palestinian guerilla's. So tensions were high.
Israel did not attack Egypt until other factors came into play which led up to making the attack a necessary component of Israel's strategic defensive strategy.
Those components were...From Wikipedia ;
1) "As tensions between Israel and Syria increased, Israel felt the threat of force was the only deterrent left.[22] On May 12, the Politburo was told that the IDF had formulated a large-scale attack on Syria and was simply waiting for a good time to begin it.[23] A day later, on May 13, 1967, the Soviet's gave the Egyptian President, Gamal Abd al-Nasser an intelligence report that claimed there were Israeli troops gathering on the Syrian border.[24] Dmitri Chuvakhin, Soviet ambassador to Israel, refused an Israeli Invitation to visit the border in order to disprove the report.[25
Note: Scholars debate why the Soviets were keen on seeing a war develop in the middle east.
2)On May 14, Nasser sent his chief of staff, General Mohamed Fawzi to the border to investigate the report, and was told there were no Israeli troop concentrations.[26] Although, Nasser knew that the Soviet report was wrong, he perhaps interpreted it to indicate Soviet support of an Egyptian offensive towards Israel.[27]
Egypt gets emboldened on going to war with Israel.
3) On May 15, Nasser sent the Egyptian army to Sinai and on May 18, 1967, Nasser requested that the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw from Egypt.[28]
Now I know you may not be able to follow the implications here, but the UNEF "patrolled the Egypt-Israel armistice demarcation line and the international frontier to the south of the Gaza Strip and brought relative quiet to a long-troubled area."
So what do you think Egypt's request signaled to the Israelis? Egypt masses its army in the Sinai and requests the piece keepers withdraw from the area. Hmmm...sounds like a preparation for piece.
4) "on May 22 he closed the Tiran straits to Israeli ships."
Countries have gone to war for less yet Israel waited for international diplomatic efforts led by the U.S. to play out. They failed.
5) At the same time Syria increased its border clashes with Israel and mobilized its Army along the Israeli border.
Gee wiz, sounds like their preparing for piece as well.
6) Finally...."The Israelis interpreted the closing of the straits of Tiran as an act of war, and attacked Egypt on June 5, 1967, destroying hundreds of airplanes.[29]"
Or an act of emanate war...
Keep in mind that the Israelis were outnumbered militarily 3 to 1 and were fighting on 3 different fronts.
It was absolutely understandable, strategically critical, and logically necessary that Israel would seek to give themselves a better chance through a pre-emptive strike on Egypt.
Of which I contend - due to the factors leading up to it - that the strike was technically reactive rather than pre-emptive.
Any grade school child could see its necessity as a measure of a successful self defense. But you chose to quote only the little snippet of all that happened as a way to paint Israel as the evil aggressor. Dare I say - garbage? Typical anti-Semite tactics.
Now if you have any reasonable counterpoints you'd like to share back I'm willing to receive them and think about them but only in so much as you leave the personal insults out of the discussion. Else no need to respond to me.
Since your "Conscious and Capable" I would think you would be able to do that.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
When I was a young man the British government were advertising for men to join the Palestine police force to protect against the Jewish zionist terrorists. They are now the Israel government. They are still terrorists.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
This is interesting. Might you have some source you can point me to? I'd like to study this.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
You sir have said something revolting...est
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
The possibility of a Jewish homeland in Palestine had been a goal of Zionist organizations since the late 19th century. In 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour stated in a letter to British Jewish community leader Walter, Lord Rothschild that:
Through this letter, which became known as the Balfour Declaration, British government policy officially endorsed Zionism. After World War I, the United Kingdom was given a mandate for Palestine, which it had conquered from the Ottomans during the war. In 1937 the Peel Commission suggested partitioning Mandate Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, though the proposal was rejected as unworkable by the government and was at least partially to blame for the renewal of the 1936–39 Arab revolt.
In the face of increasing violence after World War II, the British handed the issue over to the recently established United Nations.
Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence - Wikipedia
You'll need to study a lot more than "6 days of war", in order to understand the conflict.
Basically, a Zionist agenda has disrupted the region upon the downfall of the Ottomans.
This was happening before the holocaust, and not as a result of it.
The issue is not confined to Israel/Palestine, but to the whole "Arab World".
Germany was partioned after the WWII, but is now unified .. BY GERMANS!
OK.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Radical anti-Semitism exists and has existed since before Israel became a state. What was their excuse then? The facts seem to indicate that its been and was always related to social/religious differences.
Simplistically, its my understanding that Israel exists because the powers that were wanted to separate the Arabs and Jews. So they split the difference. Jews and Arabs have had continuous presence in the region for millennia and have clashed with each other for millennia.
You will notice that the original proposal for the Jewish state would have been 70+% larger but was reduced to its present size at its creation. Also you will notice that their is a quarter of a million Arab Palestinians living within Israel now but only 20,000 or so are in the "Arab quarter". Any other "refugees" are refugees because their Arab "brothers" didn't want them in their countries which itself has a history behind it. And when Israel occupied Gaza and prior to its removal of its settlers there, while there were Jewish settlers there wasn't Gaza productive and progressive giving the Arabs jobs and security? And when those settlers were removed while leaving behind improvements to Gaza's infrastructure didn't Arabs wreck the improvements seemingly only because they were Israeli in origin?
So apparently according to Arabs; Israel, Israeli's, and Jews shouldn't exist because all of Palestine should only belong and be ruled by Arabs. Even though Jews have lived in the area just as long with their religion originating millennia before Islam and a thousand years in Palestine previous to Muslims.
It seems as if the main reason their is never any piece in the region is because Israel is constantly defending itself against hate filled threats, rhetoric, and assault against its right to exist. Even the examples given of so called Israeli cruelty and aggression seem to actually be reactions to such threats against its own safety and security.
Israel didn't create itself. It was created by international agreement. Israel hasn't to my knowledge attacked any other people except in response to perceived and arguably justified reaction to threats against its people or very existence.
Now before somebody wants to jump all over me for being ignorant or biased or anti Arab or Palestinian or whatever....let me just say that the above is my understanding to date and can be subject to adjustment pending offered data in counterpoint.
I hope to peacefully discuss this with someone so that I might better understand counter points of view. If possible.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
As you say.
So you say.