TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israeli troops open fire on women outside mosque
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by tazzjayz I swear to god some days I wish I was an israeli citizen so I could join the army. And those women were shielding terrorists no reason not to shoot at them.

very bad.

-1

why is any discussion on israel always assumed to be so black and white?

if israel was a racist, apartheid state then the 18% of its population who are arab would not choose to live there.

if israel was really committing such atrocious war crimes as it's accused of then why no convictions to date? either there's a giant anti-arab conspiracy, or they're operating within the bounds of international law.

and why does no-one remember that israeli history goes back past 1948?

the palestinians are not really such an abused, disenfranchised people as you'd think from what they say.

after israel's sovereign land was invaded by rome and its population forcibly ejected, the palestinians annexed the land. after almost two millennia of failing to build it into a functioning state, they began to sell it back to jewish settlers.

the international community made the decision to grant the territory back to the nation that had owned it previously, in response to the continued threats posed to their existence throughout the diaspora.

since then, despite frequent aggression from its neighbours israel has managed to build itself into a functioning democratic state with a potentially self-sufficient economy, fairly liberal environment, relative safety for much of its population, and one of the world's most potent armies.

meanwhile palestine's leaders neglect the welfare of their own people, enriching themselves through corruption and spending the remainder of their spare time whining about israel.

don't think for a minute that palestinian terrorism stems from oppression. it comes from the rabid arab nationalistim of its leaders and authority figures. the palestinian way is to utilize the weak and defenceless as pawns, in the same way hezbollah did.

hyperbole? not likely. read through the manifestos of hamas, islamic jihad, hezbollah or any other so-called "resistance organization."

israel reacts to aggression in a decisive way. it often over-reacts - maybe that's to be expected from a small nation surrounded by hostiles and a few scant decades from ethnic cleansing. maybe it's unjustifiable, more likely it's in some grey area between the two.

what is certain is that israel's leaders prioritize prosperity and welfare above violence. the two are not always inseparable, in fact the latter is sometimes the only way to achieve the former.

if there were no militants firing qassams into sderot, no suicide bombers infiltrating the west bank, and israel was allowed to get on with its statehood unmolested, it would do so.

but since palestine and lebanon don't seem to be capable of stopping the militants peacefully - or particularly interested in trying to do so - they can expect that a well-armed sovereign nation will defend itself by attempting to remove the militants for them if those militants persist in attacking it.

why are the gaza and west bank withdrawals conveniently swept under the carpet in a discussion on "illegal expansion" ?

anti-israeli militant activity was not affected by the withdrawals - does that indicate that palestine sincerely wants peaceful co-existence, and an end to the violence?

or is it maybe just possible that palestine, the nation that eleceted a party whose charter contains a clause clearly delineating its founding principle as the destruction of israel, just hates its neighbour, and that as long as that hate is there, and is expressed through militant action, its people may continue to suffer, so maybe the prerogative is with palestine, not israel?

... and if hardline islamists treat their own women as objects to be used to protect the righteous jihadis from IDF bullets, then how does it become israel's war crime if they become collateral damage in a war that the jihad mentality is responsible for?

Shaolin.. you have done well in making these fools continue looking like fools.

Keep up the good work

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Shaolin.. you have done well in making these fools continue looking like fools. Keep up the good work

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yeah, supporting an aparteit state that engages in ethnic cleansling and illegal expansion is ethical and moral . Israel is a state created illegitamtely just like the US and Australia, by killing off and displacing the native population and settling non-indigenous people there.

So 100 years into the future when (and if) Israel has been a country for 100 years, will it be okay for the Jews to live there then? Because European-based white folk have still been displacing natives up through the 1930s in the US and you don't seem to be punishing yourself for moving into their land.

carreux wins the debate, hands down.

You guys always stray off topic, with this zionist nonsense and you always take one situation and blame Israel's existance on every bad thing that happens in the region..

Bad things happene because of Israel's existance, true.

If Israel didnt exist, then all there'd be is a typical poor and redundant Muslim half state.

Israel is there though, and despite all the violence there is a prosperous state there, US involvement of course, but Israel is there and Israel is there to stay.

people acting deliberately as human shields are combatants as far as i am concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson So 100 years into the future when (and if) Israel has been a country for 100 years, will it be okay for the Jews to live there then? Because European-based white folk have still been displacing natives up through the 1930s in the US and you don't seem to be punishing yourself for moving into their land.

I didn't "move" here, I was born here. First of all, my "ancestors" had nothing to do with the attrocities you speak of; my parents, who got where they are now because of hard work and sacrifice, came to this country as students, not with cannons and bayonetes. Maybe if they (native Americans) weren't all DEAD (for the most part), we would have a serious issue to address. Bah, I've already addressed this argument before, here you go:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=371202

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I didn't "move" here, I was born here. First of all, my "ancestors" had nothing to do with the attrocities you speak of; my parents, who got where they are now because of hard work and sacrifice, came to this country as students, not with cannons and bayonetes. Maybe if they (native Americans) weren't all DEAD (for the most part), we would have a serious issue to address. Bah, I've already addressed this argument before, here you go: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=371202

So what about the Israelis who were born in Israel after the late 40s? Do they have the right to live there?

I read the other thread. It looked like a bunch of (paraphrasing here) "Israelis occupied the inhabitants and killed them off" typing. Isn't that what Muslims are doing to everyone else in that araa, North/Central Africa, and moving East of the Middle East?

[EDIT] Okay, I read page two of your posts. I agree with you, except if the Palestinians want reparations or equal treatment, they're going to have to use legal means and not weapons. Israel is only going to see them as barbarians and repress them more otherwise. Just imagine if the Native Americans started blowing themselves up and rocketing American cities. They'd ALL be locked up for good forever.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson So what about the Israelis who were born in Israel after the late 40s? Do they have the right to live there?

Not at he expense of the displaced indigenous population that are still living in refuge camps. They're not "entitled" to the land in any way shape or form. Otherwise I fail to see the problem. But I (in a sense) already addressed that and didn't exactly imply anything as harsh as you're suggesting:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, if the vast majority of them weren't wiped off the face of the earth, then they might have been able to demand some type of reparations . Let's assume that they were'nt eliminated and this scenario could actually be reality. In that case, the only reason why current Americans/Australians are here (i.e. in America/Australia), is because they inherited the land their forefathers illegitimately conquered and occupied. The implication of that is the following generations have atleast some level of responsibility to ensure the displaced people no longer have to continue to suffer from the injustices and their consequences imposed on them centuries ago. The fact of the matter is that current generations continue to reap the benefits of past injustices. Now since the current generation isn't responsible for something they didn't participare in doesn't change the fact that they continue to reap it's benefits. The reason for this is the fact that the indigenous population are still displaced and experiencing negative consequences the direct resulted from it. Now they can't undo they past, but they can make reperations for it. So they DO have a collective moral responsibilty to accommodate the indigenous population and make sure that they don't continue to feel the after effects of the past. And that doesn't mean they have to pack up their shit and leave, cuz that would be a somewhat similar situation to cause of the problem in the first place. If you ever considered the moral implications such a scenario and the consequent course of action to take, perhaps you would have arrived to a some similar conclusion.

In this case it's quite different as I already pointed out (i.e. this isn't centuries ago where not much can be done to address the plight of the displaced people who're still alive and suffering, and haven't seen justice). So they have a much greater burden of responsibility. Who ever said it's fun or easy?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson I read the other thread. It looked like a bunch of (paraphrasing here) "Israelis occupied the inhabitants and killed them off" typing.

That's a very misrepresentative oversimplification of what I said. Actually no, it's distorting what I said. I quoted the most relevant part of my post and it isn't hard to conclude what that implies.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Isn't that what Muslims are doing to everyone else in that araa, North/Central Africa, and moving East of the Middle East?

No, they're not. North/Central Africa and South East asia is already heavily populated by Muslims in the first place. And they certainly aren't militarily occupying, displacing people, and annexing land.

And even if that were the case (which it's not), that doesn't justify anything, and is irrelevant to the Israel/Palestine issue. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Does that clarify things for you?

EDIT: I'm studying for a test rightnow so I won't be responding anytime soon and am forced to keep it short. Hope you don't mind.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.