This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those details you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north.
On November 17 2012 08:57 Shelke14 wrote: I'm not trying to make people "take the bait" as if I am luring you guys into some false pretense. I am just trying to get away from calling each other names and posting baseless information that derails the thread from the initial reason for it being started.
The posts by house and seven are good examples because they are discussing their view points and uses sources as evidence, all while not using personalized attacks against the other side. These type of threads can easily be turned into hate mongering, which doesn't help anything other than furthering the hate.
Oh lol, I know you are not luring me in. I just typed that in as a introduction to what I had to say.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Out of recent events, I can only come to the conclusion that israeli leaders are full blown psychopaths.
Then again, my conclusions are based on not knowing what's going on in this inside, but the prime minister's speech at the UN and the lobbyist dude who suggested covert missions againt iranian submarines....just n.c.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those details you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north.
All from wikipedia.
They expanded their territory through war ---> They couldn't have fought for defensive purposes.
Allies declared war on Germany first in WW2, didn't give German back all their land, which leads us to think they didn't only attack for defensive purpose.
On November 17 2012 07:48 Grimmyman123 wrote: Who cares if he is jewish or not in the video.
If he is wrong, then refute his argument and provide proof of your argument.
From the research I have read and looked at, his presentation is largely accurate.
otherwise, it turns into the yes he is, no he isnt, back and forth banter which is already starting.
This thread really should be shut down. It's basically a Muslim/jewish/christian/religion vs the world thread.
What's the bullshit at the end that there has never been an autonomous Arab state in the region? Someone needs to teach him that the states (i.e. political entity, polity) of antiquity have absolutely no equivalence with modern nation states. Hey, the last autonomous non-arab state to have ruled Palestine/Judea prior to Israel, that was wholly confined to Palestine/Judea (these are HIS conditions/definitions) was the Christian-ruled Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Hey-ho let's give it back to the Franks.
Somehow thousands of years of Muslim-Arab control counts for squat? HOW CONVENIENT! I guess we can give Constantinople back to the Greeks, Strasbourg back to the Germans, Belarus back to the Lithuanians. Maybe we could restore Grenada back to the Moors while we're at it, I mean they had a kingdom there once upon a time.
Oh let's not forget, all that part of the USA that was annexed from Mexico. They were there first, HUH!
Cut the bs. Jews, Muslims, Christians have lived together in the Levant for centuries.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
There were a ton of massacres? Interesting. Please go on...
Deir Yassin is the most known because Israel fucked up terribly; they targetted civilians and it was really horrible. It's not an excuse but how can you cite Deir Yassin and not the literally thousands of terrorist attacks going the other way. I'm not saying they balance out but all of your posts are so one-sided it's like you blatantly ignore the other side.
Do you accept that both sides share the blame? That both sides have committed terrible acts? I just don't see that coming from your posts so please correct me if i'm wrong.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
I am not providing an opinion on the article because I have not read. But i would be incredibly sceptical of anything Illan Pappe writes; he has an extremist point of view and has been discredited many times by relying on unreliable sources. The refugees was a mix of Israeli army expelling them, leaving on their own behalf because there was a fucking war going on and there is also evidence of Arab leaders telling there community to leave and come back when Israel loses the war.
I think the focus needs to be on addressing the issue for the future rather than debating about who was responsible when the evidence is clearly inconclusive.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
There were a ton of massacres? Interesting. Please go on...
Deir Yassin is the most known because Israel fucked up terribly; they targetted civilians and it was really horrible. It's not an excuse but how can you cite Deir Yassin and not the literally thousands of terrorist attacks going the other way. I'm not saying they balance out but all of your posts are so one-sided it's like you blatantly ignore the other side.
Do you accept that both sides share the blame? That both sides have committed terrible acts? I just don't see that coming from your posts so please correct me if i'm wrong.
Israel came into existence because of their terrorist operations if you actually checked up on your history, which makes this situation a double irony the other being the comparison to Nazi Germany.
CNN interviews a guy from the Gaza strip and an Israeli living right on the other side of the border. Half-way through the interview the Palestinean guy gets cut off by an explosion.
Although this relates to the Iraq war, I still think it is good for all human being at all times at all sides of the conflict. Empathy is a good thing! I highly recommend watching this video.
On November 17 2012 09:46 ZeaL. wrote: CNN interviews a guy from the Gaza strip and an Israeli living right on the other side of the border. Half-way through the interview the Palestinean guy gets cut off by an explosion.
So the talking point about the intend of Palestine rockets making them worse than Israeli strikes is not only repeated ad nauseam in this thread and the video demonstrates in it's own twisted irony why it's not a very good point. Good to hear he was alright though.
On November 17 2012 09:46 ZeaL. wrote: CNN interviews a guy from the Gaza strip and an Israeli living right on the other side of the border. Half-way through the interview the Palestinean guy gets cut off by an explosion.
So the talking point about the intend of Palestine rockets making them worse than Israeli strikes is not only repeated ad nauseam in this thread and the video demonstrates in it's own twisted irony why it's not a very good point. Good to hear he was alright though.
They ARE worse than IDF strikes. Hamas rockets are specifically targeting civilians to instill fear / gain political leverage (terrorism). Every state has the right and the obligation to its citizens to respond to attacks on them. The fact that Hamas intentionally locates its rocket launch sites and all other armaments and terrorists in civilian areas means any response will create collateral damage in dead civilians. Hamas, in using civilians as human shields, is legally and morally responsible for those deaths, not the IDF. (so long as the IDF is targeting terrorist/military targets and actively minimizes collateral damage)
polls of gaza/west bank; ~50% support indoctrinating their children with anti-semitism >60% support attacks on Israeli civilians Of those supporting a 2 state solution, ~60% support it only as a step towards a 1-state final solution.
As long as this holds true, I don't see anyone for the Israelis to make peace with.
Bah, both sides commit atrocities. However Israel is a modern state, with some of the highest tech, and is democratically elected by (hopefully) educated electorate so they're held to a higher standard. Plus, people like to side with the underdog.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
There were a ton of massacres? Interesting. Please go on...
Deir Yassin is the most known because Israel fucked up terribly; they targetted civilians and it was really horrible. It's not an excuse but how can you cite Deir Yassin and not the literally thousands of terrorist attacks going the other way. I'm not saying they balance out but all of your posts are so one-sided it's like you blatantly ignore the other side.
Do you accept that both sides share the blame? That both sides have committed terrible acts? I just don't see that coming from your posts so please correct me if i'm wrong.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
I am not providing an opinion on the article because I have not read. But i would be incredibly sceptical of anything Illan Pappe writes; he has an extremist point of view and has been discredited many times by relying on unreliable sources. The refugees was a mix of Israeli army expelling them, leaving on their own behalf because there was a fucking war going on and there is also evidence of Arab leaders telling there community to leave and come back when Israel loses the war.
I think the focus needs to be on addressing the issue for the future rather than debating about who was responsible when the evidence is clearly inconclusive.
You are skeptical of Illan Pappe but not of the blatant Islamaphobe. You do know that man actually supports Michele Bachman? Possibly one of the stupidest and most Islamaphobic congressmen/women the US ever had. You asked for sources and I provided it if you really want to understand the conflict don't look at the main stream media look at the research. And Pappe has had some criticism most of it because of his criticism of Israel and his fight for academic freedom. He has been one of the leading scholars on the subject and stands up for the truth and has suffered greatly for it. I don't agree with everything he says but he is certainly a better source than that joke of a video.
ive never protested in my life. but to see the western world backing israel in this regard, i cannot stand for that. i would most definitely goto demonstrate if worst comes to worst.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
There were a ton of massacres? Interesting. Please go on...
Deir Yassin is the most known because Israel fucked up terribly; they targetted civilians and it was really horrible. It's not an excuse but how can you cite Deir Yassin and not the literally thousands of terrorist attacks going the other way. I'm not saying they balance out but all of your posts are so one-sided it's like you blatantly ignore the other side.
Do you accept that both sides share the blame? That both sides have committed terrible acts? I just don't see that coming from your posts so please correct me if i'm wrong.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
I am not providing an opinion on the article because I have not read. But i would be incredibly sceptical of anything Illan Pappe writes; he has an extremist point of view and has been discredited many times by relying on unreliable sources. The refugees was a mix of Israeli army expelling them, leaving on their own behalf because there was a fucking war going on and there is also evidence of Arab leaders telling there community to leave and come back when Israel loses the war.
I think the focus needs to be on addressing the issue for the future rather than debating about who was responsible when the evidence is clearly inconclusive.
You know the funny thing is i work with this 55 year old Jew from Israel and he tells me he is never going back to Israel. Obviously he cites the dangers of living there as being a big reason but he also says that the government is growing more and more conservative and it scares him. He says that the Jewish religion is very extreme when you get to the fundamentals of it. He gave me an example of a saying in Jewish scripture that states that if you are Jewish but not in Jewish land and you see someone in a river drowning, you do not need to help him unless he is Jewish. If you are Jewish on Jewish land and you see someone by the river and he is not Jewish, you can push him in.
I quoted you because i spoke to him about these things yesterday and he also explained to me that after Israel became a sovereign state, all the Palestinian countries attacked it, he said that they also told Palestinians living in Israel that if they just moved over, and let them finish off the Jews, then not only would the Palestinians receive their land back once the job was over but they would also have their neighbor's lands. That's how they got so many Palestinians to leave Israel, because they didn't expect little Israel to win and survive. So when the Palestinians tried to go back, a lot of them were pretty much told to go fuck themselves, and i cant really say i blame them.
edit: HOWEVER, that being said, i don't agree with the increasing conservatism of Israel, especially if that goes hand in hand with an increase towards religious fundamentalism. That's never good, not with Islam, not with Christianity, and not with Judaism.
I feel like that tends to happen whenever there is conflict though. Its like both sides go to the extreme the longer theyre at a disagreement. We've seen it here in the states also, the rise of the tea party, the wanting of integration of religion with government, idk, it makes me uncomfortable as fuck.
Allies declared war on Germany first in WW2, didn't give German back all their land, which leads us to think they didn't only attack for defensive purpose.
do not mean to derail this thread or lessen the impact of the loss of life in any war situation but you are wrong, like 100%.
On November 17 2012 09:46 ZeaL. wrote: CNN interviews a guy from the Gaza strip and an Israeli living right on the other side of the border. Half-way through the interview the Palestinean guy gets cut off by an explosion.
So the talking point about the intend of Palestine rockets making them worse than Israeli strikes is not only repeated ad nauseam in this thread and the video demonstrates in it's own twisted irony why it's not a very good point. Good to hear he was alright though.
They ARE worse than IDF strikes. Hamas rockets are specifically targeting civilians to instill fear / gain political leverage (terrorism). Every state has the right and the obligation to its citizens to respond to attacks on them. The fact that Hamas intentionally locates its rocket launch sites and all other armaments and terrorists in civilian areas means any response will create collateral damage in dead civilians. Hamas, in using civilians as human shields, is legally and morally responsible for those deaths, not the IDF. (so long as the IDF is targeting terrorist/military targets and actively minimizes collateral damage)
polls of gaza/west bank; ~50% support indoctrinating their children with anti-semitism >60% support attacks on Israeli civilians Of those supporting a 2 state solution, ~60% support it only as a step towards a 1-state final solution.
As long as this holds true, I don't see anyone for the Israelis to make peace with.
Let's do a little thought experiment.
There's a woman named Jane. Jane's husband, who we will call George, is a bad man. He's a cheater and an abuser of his wife. He's also a man of habit- every Friday, George goes to the movies.
Now, Jane's had enough. So one Friday night, when she knows George will be outside in line for the movie, Jane gets into her SUV and drives full speed into the line, deliberately attempting to kill George and George alone. But, naturally, some of the other people in the line die as well. Unfortunate. Do we call that collateral damage? No. It's not collateral damage. What it is is the conscious action, the DECISION, to embark on a course of action that will inevitably result in the deaths of innocent bystanders.
If there was a naval war occurring somewhere and one side sinks the warship of another only the find out the warship was carrying a thousand civilians, that's collateral damage. That is accidental. In the case of Jane, she knowingly chose an option that would result in the target being destroyed but, in the process, would assuredly kill innocent civilians.
When Israel shoots a rocket to kill a Hamas leader they don't intend to kill Palestinian civilians. Be real here, guys. They don't "want" to do it. But, nonetheless, and just like Jane, the IDF chooses a path of action that will knowingly and deliberately cause the deaths of civilians.
Now, is Jane morally wrong for choosing that path? (naturally she shouldn't have killed her husband, but let's assume she had zero other options and no external forces apply). Is there a perceptible moral difference between intending to kill civilians and choosing a path that will inevitably result in the deaths of those same people, except with the latter you don't "really" mean it? Sure. There is some discernible moral difference there, but in the end it doesn't matter because George and all the other people in the line are still dead.
Now I don't take a side in this debate but the morality of action in question here is certainly intriguing
EPT
.
