Israel, Palestine and Iran

[Mic09]

42 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Yah they are in a broader sense of the conflict and i dont care about any side who does that. I think Israel main cause is to try to survive and defend their land from parties countries who dont like Israel existing. I really dont think that israel main thinking right now is that we were here 2000 years ago so we justified or entitled to that or that.

I think Israel main cause is to try to survive

I think Israel will be absolutely fine with that.

Palestine might not be.

Again, not picking sides - but the fight between Hamas and Israel is not exactly an even one. 

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, a-k said:

Why the cut-off date of 1948? Many things relevant to the current conflict happened in the 50ish years prior and are just as important but seemingly neglected.

Because that was the date of the creation of Israel as far as I understand it. You could probably go back hundreds of years for further context I guess.

[Jareth]

4 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

Yah they are in a broader sense of the conflict and i dont care about any side who does that. I think Israel main cause is to try to survive and defend their land from parties countries who dont like Israel existing. I really dont think that israel main thinking right now is that we were here 2000 years ago so we justified or entitled to that or that.

A recent historic fact for you - since 2005, 96% of all deaths in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, have been Palestinians. That's not being used to excuse Hamas, it's being highlighted and protested about because it seems grossly unfair. 

[bickster]

4 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

I think Israel main cause is to try to survive and defend their land from parties countries who dont like Israel existing.

Not sure if this is entirely serious. Are you a comedy scriptwriter by any chance? Because the statement....

"I think Palestine main cause is to try to survive and defend their land from parties countries who don't like Palestine existing." is equally if not more valid, after all it's Israel that is continually taking land from the Palestinians, not the other way around.

I'm not taking sides in any of this but come back to us with that statement when Palestinians have taken land from Israel that is internationally recognised as Israeli.

Currently there is only one country of the two that is having it's very existence threatened and it isn't Israel.

I find your argument most disingenuous and exhibiting bias which is fine in itself but I will also treat it accordingly

 

[Tumblerseven]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Not sure if this is entirely serious. Are you a comedy scriptwriter by any chance? Because the statement....

"I think Palestine main cause is to try to survive and defend their land from parties countries who don't like Palestine existing." is equally if not more valid, after all it's Israel that is continually taking land from the Palestinians, not the other way around.

I'm not taking sides in any of this but come back to us with that statement when Palestinians have taken land from Israel that is internationally recognised as Israeli.

Currently there is only one country of the two that is having it's very existence threatened and it isn't Israel.

I find your argument most disingenuous and exhibiting bias which is fine in itself but I will also treat it accordingly

 

So if im not mistaken Hamas were elected in pretty democratic election by their standards in 2006. By then Hamas were established terrorist organization who made multiple suicide bomber and other attacks. So i guess we have completely different view of what country fighting for survival looks like.

 

I think if a country wants to survive or they are fighting for their survival they elect leaders who promise to strengthen their country. I think we should see strengthening army focuses on the allies economy prosperity international relationships and trade building. For those who still have no idea who i am talking about its Israel.

 

I guess in your view when you see country who is fighting for their survival you expect to see a country whose terrorist organization gains their popularity and votes by using suicide bombers against the country they want to destroy or weaken. People were so satisfied of Hamas business and what they are doing they elect them so they could do what? a non stop attacks for years to come and weaken the country they dont like? For those who still have no idea who im talking about its Palestine. 

Or do you actually believe they elected them with an idea or promises of better safer life better economy better infrastructure trades and allies? 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[NurembergVillan]

19 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

non stop attacks for years to come and weaken the country they dont like? For those who still have no idea who im talking about its Sinn Fein and the Republic of Ireland prior to the Good Friday Agreement.

FTFY

If people who feel oppressed also feel like the democratic approach isn't working, they'll explore other alternatives.

In other words, treat people like animals and the law of the jungle will prevail.

[VILLAMARV]

6 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

Well i hoped to show the hypocrisy of VILLAMARV with that comment. Do i really need to explain more? 

feel free to point to the hypocrisy if you can find any, I'll happily engage with you about it if you do. Or indeed if you're talking nonsense as I suspect. You really do need to explain more though as I'm not following you at all.

Quote

i dont think im prepared to explain every sentence to you. You mentioned something about language barrier the other day i dont think i can help you with that.

I genuinely don't think I'll be needing your help with my language skills so no worries.

Quote

Or maybe you should calm down because this is very emotional topic and then calmly look at what is being said here.

Jeebus.

Quote

I wanted to show how people in here from day 1 actually from minute 1 minimizing or excusing the events (ONE OF THE BIGGEST TERORIST ACTS) Yes calling it a riot is excusing and minimizing.

Cool, I;ve been trying to keep some of the rhetoric honest too. I'm not sure how to interact with the last bit. Perhaps you could go back and re-read my posts. If at any stage you find me calling the barbaric actions of Hamas "a riot" feel free to quote them back at me. You wont of course. Because it simply hasn't happened. I did quote MLK. Perhaps the reason for doing so has escaped your understanding.

Quote

I see games being played in this forum by some people including you and i dont like it. I see demonization i see dishonesty back handed comments who excuse or rationalize one side but not another. I think this is left leaning space so people are prepared to ignore some really really bad comments and they let them fly by like its nothing. Im not prepared to do that.

Feel free to quote anything you think falls into these categories that you've invented in your own head.

Quote

I dont think i can persuade any person who is using 60 or 100 year historic excuses to minimize or excuse violence in 2023. I dont think people even understand what are they saying or implying when they use those excuses.

I understand and stand by everything I've posted in this thread. I disagree in the strongest possible terms to your accusations.

Quote

They basically saying that a terrorist or an army can look at a world map in 1900 and they can justify any war or any violence in 2023 by "historic territorial dispute".. And thats crazy.

Utter strawman drivel of the highest order.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Currently there is only one country of the two that is having it's very existence threatened and it isn't Israel.

It’s both of them. You’re right that it’s more so and more immediate for Gaza, but Israel is absolutely under threat, permanently. It’s why Israel is armed to the teeth, to deter the likes of Iran’s leadership and others like Syria. But even if we, sat here, don’t feel that’s right, Israelis definitely do feel their country’s existence is under threat. 

[Tumblerseven]

9 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Today's highlights over my morning cuppa scanning VT include dismissing the relevance of the killing of children in a conversation about killing innocents and cheerleading actual torture of people. It's quite the thread.

Im happy to talk to you but please explain this comment to me in more detail.

[VILLAMARV]

25 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Im happy to talk to you but please explain this comment to me in more detail.

2 statements - one referring to the conversation I was having with a couple of posters about the UN reports of Israelis targetting and killing innocent children which was left at 'people weren't talking about that they were talking about bombing'. (Which I let hang there because there's little point in repeating the same thing over and over again despite finding it disingenuous as a response)

The other was the statement about torture where 1 poster suggested torture and death would be the least that they deserve. As I said, cheering on the torture of people. Presumably the poster is a bit more old testament than me in their thinking.

Edited October 24, 2023 by VILLAMARV
misspelt Israelis

[OutByEaster?]

@Tumblerseven where do you see a longer term solution to what's happening today?

It's obvious that the actions of Hamas were not helpful, but do you think the current actions of Israel will be helpful to a longer term solution?

It's clearly something you care an enormous amount about and I would imagine have thought about for a long period of time - what would be your hope for the future?

[Tumblerseven]

43 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

2 statements - one referring to the conversation I was having with a couple of posters about the UN reports of Israelies targetting and killing innocent children which was left at 'people weren't talking about that they were talking about bombing'. (Which I let hang there because there's little point in repeating the same thing over and over again despite finding it disingenuous as a response)

The other was the statement about torture where 1 poster suggested torture and death would be the least that they deserve. As I said, cheering on the torture of people. Presumably the poster is a bit more old testament than me in their thinking.

Okay i retract my comment about hypocrisy but do you understand how people can see or perceive your comments on October 7th minimizing and justifying the events??

When terrorists were still killing people you made these statements:

Statement 1: The question of exactly when violence becomes 'justified' in a moral sense is a fine philosophical debate.

Statement 2: But the defining point there is what other actions were left open to the human beings having to live through the torture, the beatings, the denigration, the subhuman treatment?
Statement 3: You qouted MLK: It's impossible for me to condemn the rioting, without also condemning the conditions that lead to the rioting.

 

Statement 1: To make this comment in the middle of the terrorist attack and imply that it would be fine philosophical debate to debate when violence is justified. I think is automatically trying to justify the violence.

example: United States white supremacist shoots up a bar with 50 black people. Person X comes to forum and starts talking about how it would be a fine philosophical debate to debate when violence is justified. I dont think many people would let that slide.

 

Statement 2: Implying there is no other option to the Palestine people but to do these kinds of actions justified by their torture beatings denigration and subhuman treatment.

 

Statement 3: Your defense was i was just quoting MLK. I dont understand if we pretending to not know what implications are or what?

Example: I steal i cookie and you start quoting me Quran about thiefs punishments where its recommended to cut thief hands. Do you understand that the implication is to cut my hands because i stole the cookie? If not explain what the implication would be.

Explanation: Before your MLK quote there was another comment by OutByEaster? he said: Not so much a war, more a prison riot.

So i believe its very clear that you saw what OutByEaster? said and then with MLK quote you tried minimize the events. Phrase Prison riot automatically minimizes the terrorist attack. Prison conditions automatically gives justification to the terrorist attack.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[Keyblade]

Death toll in Gaza approaching 6000. Whatever Hamas did or didn't do, the Palestinian people don't deserve to bear the brunt of this sort of retaliation.

[DJBOB]

I think you can both push for Israel to follow international law, human rights for the Palestinians and establishing Palestine as a recognized state while being horrified by the barbarism of Hamas terrorists.

The tough part for me is the aftermath of the even the most ideal two-state solution as I, personally, don't think Iran and many of the Arab nations will ever let Israel be.

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Death toll in Gaza approaching 6000. Whatever Hamas did or didn't do, the Palestinian people don't deserve to bear the brunt of this sort of retaliation.

It also carries on the cycle of violence. Every broken family produces another child with enough rage and broken humanity to turn to Hamas for revenge.

At some point one side has to take a loss and decide not to respond, but that’s very easy for me to say far away from the issue in the comfort of my living room. 

[Tumblerseven]

33 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

@Tumblerseven where do you see a longer term solution to what's happening today?

It's obvious that the actions of Hamas were not helpful, but do you think the current actions of Israel will be helpful to a longer term solution?

It's clearly something you care an enormous amount about and I would imagine have thought about for a long period of time - what would be your hope for the future?

I think Israel should give more time to evacuate people from targeted ground assault area. I think Israel has the right to protect people from terrorist attack so they should go into Gaza and kill every single Hamas terrorist.Then leave and fortify the border.

After that fully unblock Gaza give them 1 or 2 years to build infrastructure or make trades to support themselves. After two years cut all the trades or support water food fuel everything. Then after first terrorist attack announce war invade and occupy and annex all Gaza.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[OutByEaster?]

41 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

I think Israel should give more time to evacuate people from targeted ground assault area. I think Israel has the right to protect people from terrorist attack so they should go into Gaza and kill every single Hamas terrorist.Then leave and fortify the border.

After that fully unblock Gaza give them 1 or 2 years to build infrastructure to support themselves. After two years cut all the trades or support water food fuel everything. Then after first terrorist attack announce war invade and occupy and annex all Gaza.

Okay. 

On the first point, I completely agree "Israel should give more time to evacuate people from targeted ground assault areas" from a humanitarian point of view I think that would be helpful to some degree in reducing loss of life - I don't think it would necessarily help in eliminating Hamas fighters as they'd just go South with the general populace, but it would allow Israel the space and time to dismantle the existing structure of tunnels, hideaways and so on in Northern Gaza with a minimum of civilian casualties.

I too think Israel has the right to protect people from terrorist attack - I'm not sure it naturally follows that it's either desirable or perhaps more pertinently practically possible to go into Gaza and kill every single Hamas terrorist. Where you have a terrorist element within a community that supports some of the more palatable aims of that terrorist organisation, it's almost impossible to smoke them out or discern who exactly qualifies as a terrorist.

The people who crossed the border on October 7th are, quite obviously, murderers, terrorists, criminals and whatever other more unpleasant labels you want to throw at them, they deserve that, they should be punished - but, where do you then draw the line; should those who helped fuel and equip them be killed too? Should those who hid them in their houses be killed? Should those that celebrated their inhuman actions be killed? Should those that wave flags and chant support for Hamas in a square be killed? Should their parents be killed? Their children? Their teachers? Those who say they were right and justified, should they die? Those that support Hamas but are ashamed of the way in which the killings were undertaken, do they need to die? Those that vote for Hamas and consider themselves supporters, but oppose terrorist acts? Those who shout for freedom 'from the river to the sea' should they die? It's not always as clear a line as we like.

If I can draw an uncomfortable example from our own past, there's a massive difference between those that planted a bomb in Omagh and the fifty thousand people singing Ooh Ahh Up the Ra at Celtic Park - there's a difference between believing in a political standpoint and carrying out terrorist acts - and I'm not sure at the moment that Israel is prepared or willing to undertake the work required to make that differentiation = I've not seen any calls for the trial of terrorists - and the result of "going into Gaza and killing every single Hamas terrorist" is going to lead to an enormous amount of casualties, an enormous amount of death among people who have never committed a terrorist act.

In terms of leaving and fortifying the border, I personally think that adding to the border will only strengthen the de-humanising of people, will only strengthen the us-and-them of it - but I very much understand I don't live on either side of that wall and i get why you'd propose it.

The next bit I really like "Fully unblock Gaza and give them 1 or 2 years to build infrastructure to support themselves" it'd be beset with practical troubles - how to allow Gaza to freely trade with nations that would include Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, North Africa and so on would require a massive amount of supervision, presumably under the oversight of the UN, in order to ensure it's not merely seen as a window to re-arm and re-bolster those with violent intention for any future conflict. It'd need to come with some guarantees of security and peace for the people of Gaza - something to discourage them from replacing Hamas with anything similar - spoiling the ground for Hamas 2 by offering the population there a more hopeful, safer future - with that in place and the right controls on trade, then, whilst it would be very difficult, it could lead to a more positive future. The logistical and political difficulties in creating that initial trust and then monitoring relations between Gaza and the rest of the world closely enough that it stays in place would be enormous though.

"After two years, cut all the trades or support water food fuel everything" this bit I don't get - I mean I can see why you'd like to be in a position to end the dependency of Gaza on Israel - and naturally, you'd hope that would happen as Gaza finds its feet and its independence, the responsibilities places upon Israel as an occupier (the UN word) would no longer apply - but I'd ask, why would you not want to trade with a neighbouring partner that you've helped to develop to a point where it's capable of doing so. It would seem like cutting off your nose to spite your face - it might be that i misunderstand you and that you mean just cut off the current relationship of dependency where you are required to supply fuel and water on a basis that isn't free trade.

Then the last bit, the bit that's really difficult "Then after first terrorist attack announce war invade and occupy and annex all Gaza". For me, that would be the exact opposite of what you should do - every time there's a terrorist attack, and there would be (not at the level of October 7th obviously) or every time there was an incident where either side caused harm to the other should absolutely not result in reciprocal action - you can't beat an ideal to death, only fuel its flame - if what you're proposing is a free Gaza, then you'd have to support its freedom by treating crimes as crimes rather than an act of war. You would need to nurture the trust of the Palestinian people, foster their sense of stability and safety, remove the threat to the average working man in Gaza. Turning the other cheek and placing the process of reconciliation above that of revenge.

That sounds ridiculously fanciful I know, and it is, we're a million, million miles from there - but in order to see any sort of solution to what's happening here and to avoid this thread and the events of the last month happening again it ten years and again in twenty years and again in thirty years, someone in Israel and someone in Palestine are going to have to start dreaming some pretty big dreams - because at the moment, the only real alternative to that for Israel is completely removing the future of a region that contains more than two million people.

[Chindie]

Israel calling for the resignation of the UN Secretary General after he acknowledged Palestinians have been on the end of decades of abuse.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Chindie

[Mr_Dogg]

53 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Death toll in Gaza approaching 6000. Whatever Hamas did or didn't do, the Palestinian people don't deserve to bear the brunt of this sort of retaliation.

Israel like a 10:1 ratio so a bit to go yet.

[chrisp65]

It’s a sort of progress that we’re now talking about making Palestine an actual functioning recognised independent trading state, free of the restrictions of occupation and Hamas. There is light at the end of a gruesome tunnel if that can be considered an outcome. Perhaps also a grim irony.

I’m not sure 1 to 2 years would have been sufficient time to get the infrastructure in place before 7th October. Now, with swathes of the land flattened and thousands dead including 2,000 children I think the logistics and the healing time needed would just render that impossible. 

But it would be a bloody good start if the world could invest in Palestine and give them a genuine chance, not just a trap set up to let them fail.

Israel would be sure to actually cooperate and trade with a Palestinian state, even if just for the security rewards of not pushing them in to the arms of Iran again.

Whether the actual location of the Israel Palestine border (who gets what land) could be agreed in that sort of timescale, not a clue, there’s been a lot of land grabbing over the decades.