Palestenian-Israeli Conflict

Being in a country that has experienced terrorist attacks I don't think is quite the same thing as living in an area that actually sees sustained violence. Under that logic someone who say had lived in Bath and had no real experience with terrorism beyond what they saw on the news should be able to claim that they understand well what it is like to live somewhere that sees sustained attacks. No-one I have ever met from an area majoritively unaffected by terrorism has ever made such claims...

People who have directly experienced violence such as Bil Gee I would agree have a better understanding of what it is like to be in a terrorist attack but I don't agree that makes them understand what it is like to live somewhere were terrorist events are frequent occurences.
 
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/jihad.htm

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?search=1&volume_id=391&issue_id=2877&article_id=23409

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=19225

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000664.php

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403975116/qid=1150055784/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-8058469-3541640?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029331552/qid=1150055905/sr=1-26/ref=sr_1_26/002-8058469-3541640?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0943875897/qid=1150056352/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8058469-3541640?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Ignorance and arrogance are indeed a problem. Fortunately, I can not truely be said to suffer from ignorance in this particular matter. This is a small sample of reference material those of you who aren't aware of the threat may want to examine. I further suggest actually reading a copy of the Koran. But you should also be aware that if you're in possession of a translated copy (non-arabic) you are to be killed by true Muslims under a Fatwah issued by Rashid Rida.
 
Can you tell me what you are talking about exactly when you say that "History says it won't?"
 
So you look past what I say and interpert it the way you think I meant it instead of the way I said it. I am an engineer and very much a detail person. I will make corrections to any story when people only present one side to it if there are inaccuracies or the statistics are deceiving. It isn't just this case, I have done the same nit pick with statistics in other forums on this board. I don't need to try and make the statistics more friendly to Israel. There were obvious errors in it that led to conclusions that should not be made. It really doesn't take a whole lot to notice the difference between people using bullets and bombs versus rubber bullets and tear gas. Yes, I noticed it. Do you really think it isn't that big of a difference between tear gas and a bomb filled with nails?



Perhaps when you post something, you should choose better examples? Regardless of which side did it, tear gas is not designed to blind people. Like rubber bullets, tear gas is designed to be safe and non violent tools to minimize injuries. If they had wanted to be deadly, they would have used a fragmentation grenade or a white phosphourous grenade. But they didn't, did they? When throwing a grenade, you throw it into an area. You don't try to be precise with it. If you wanted to be precise, you would shoot your rifle. Yet you can't even admit that the tragic accident might not have been intentional.



I take it that you have never fired a weapon like the ak-47. Like many automatic weapons, spray and pray is their methodology. They aren't sniper rifles. You point them in a direction and fire. It really isn't that hard.

Guns on children is certainly prevelant enough that photographers and film crews have caught them quite often.

The bolded part that I quoted is the first thing you said that is fairly reasonable. Yet, I have to ask, if you truly see no difference between the two, why is it that you only take the Palestinian side? Have you posted one single thing that was pro Israel since your opening guess that it was Israel that was the real perpertrator of 9/11? I don't think so. Therefore, I would conclude that you don't really feel that the two are equal. And to be honest, I don't feel that they are exactly equal either. To me, it really is worse to go after a civilian target and try to kill as many as possible than it is to go after a military target and not care that civilians are in the way. I don't see it as a huge difference, but a difference nonetheless.



Then please point me to the post where you said it over and over again before I called you on it. I didn't see it and would like to correct my perception.

I will say again, I believe the Israeli's share blame for what is going on. Both sides have guilt. But there is a difference between what is going on. One side is intentionally targeting civilians. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.



All you and Bil Gee have done is say that the Palestinians are not to blame. What post have you given that said the Palestinians were to blame? But you want me to blame Israel. Perhaps you should try blaming the Palestinians for once? And as I said above, try giving an example that isn't designed to by symphateic but fails a rational test.



But you don't think you have constant justification of Palestinian actions?



I disagree completely. I don't think that the anti-Jewish sentiment is going to go away in this lifetime or even the next. Do you think that if America did not support Israel that it would still exist? I don't. Ahmedinejad and many other muslims believe it is a war against Jews that started with Muhammed and thus they must continue. Fortunately, that isn't what most Muslims think.

You want us to listen to what the Palestinians want? Fine, they have said in polls that they want a two state approach. I say give it to them.
 
There will be a two state solution. Either it will be peacefully negotiated when Hamas recognizes Israel or Israel will set it up themselves.

Its bad when innocent people die, either side. Violence is the worst thing possible. But Israel has the right to defend itself against suicide bombings.
 
I'm getting kind of tired of giving long replies, so I'll try to keep it short.


Please show me this poll. If I can see the details of how it was conducted, then maybe I can tear it apart. When Israel was formed, Palestinians did not want a two state solution. Why would they want it now? Is it because they are tired of conflict, or because their sentiments really have changed, and they really accept the Israel's right to exist?
 
As much as I don't even want to merit DCombatives' post with a response, he said something of value. Listen to DCombatives; he suggests reading a translated copy of the Quran. Do it; maybe you will learn something from it, unlike DCombatives.
Honestly, what kind of stuff are you posting. Most of the sites are staunch anti-Muslim sites with a huge bias.

What a sad attempt at making this an anti-Islam thread.
 
Great.



Has anyone posted statistics of Israeli deaths? Not that I remeber seeing.



What means should they have used? You say it is wrong, but haven't given any other suggestions. Should they have arrested them and put them in jail? I imagine you think that was excessive.

Why use tear gas if they thought it was potentially a gunman? To cloud vision and give them safety? Why not use deadly force? Because they may not be the cold blooded killers you think?



Pretty much, if you think it is incredibly hard to hit a target a few yards away with an ak-47. Many shooting ranges have them and with an adult there to sign for you, you can rent one to fire in the range. What does it have to do with anything? Simple, if you don't understand that one can be reliably used by someone, you won't accept that one can be a valid danger in their hands.



Why do you take the Palestinian cause?

I have to say again, that the one that intentionally targets the civilians is worse in my opinion. I guess that we have to disagree on that point. But that is ok. You can disagree with pretty much every group not affiliated with the Palestinians.



Why should I join you in blaming the Israelis? I already said that everything they do is not right. What else do you want me to do?

I wouldn't mind if you stopped trying to suggest that I have such bias that I am totally blinded and would wholeheartedly support Israel being mass murderers.



I haven't justified bad actions. But I refuse to condemn something just because someone wants me to. I will not condemn a soldier for hurting someone accidentally when it was obvious that it was not their intent.



I have gotten my insights from reading a whole lot more than you have. Yes, a lot of it is from Muslims where they have been quoted in interviews. You might try interviews with the mothers of suicide bombers who have said they wish all their children could die killing Jews. You do realize that in history, the Muslims attacked Jews first because they would not join the Muslims? You do realize that there are passages in the Koran that say they are to kill Jews, don't you? While most don't interpert it to mean that they should be killing Jews today (similiar to Christians and Jews with similiar passages about others) and believe that they should live lives of peace, some do look it that way.

Ahmedinejad is playing dangerous games. He wants to rally all Muslim support, and if he had a chance, I do believe he would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

Are you arab or Muslim? How old are you?


I believe it was Medi that posted it several pages back. Why do they want it? I have no idea.
 
yea a lot of those sites would be akin to me posting for instance,

jew watch, http://www.jewwatch.com/

as an unbiased source of information about jewish groups.
 
I have to get to work, so sorry if I don't reply to some points.

I hope you can get past the idea of Muslims having a "kill all Jews" mentality inherent in their religion. The conflict is because of the formation of Israel, not because of some Muslim vendetta against Jews.
 
You mean you let something like a job get in the way of this discussion?



You posted several links of which only one is from the Israeli govt. That site lists 1114 Israeli's died from Palestinian attacks. You list it as 999.

The statistics don't count other things like how many Palestinians were killed by Palestinians. Each time a suicide bomber kills Israelis, they die too. Included in your links are when Palestinian children were killed by Palestinian fired rockets. But the impression is given that the number is based off how many the Israelis killed.

But over all, yes, more Palestinians have died or been injured than Israelis.



Sure, a professional soldier is a much better shot. Can you admit that a 10 year old kid carrying a weapon is a real and valid threat and that you have no clue how many of the kids killed had a weapon?



I would go so far as to say that both have a disregard for the lives of the other. I don't really see that both are the same in their tactics. According to the news, most of Israel's attacks have been retaliations. Also, Israel goes after military targets, but I will admit that they aren't overly concerned with civilian casualties.



An airstrike against a lone gunman in a crowded area is wrong. Dropping a bomb on the person's house is perfectly fine if they know the person should be home alone, but not if the family is there.

Is every Israeli soldier like this? No. Does every Palestinian gunman target civilians? No. But if you compare the numbers, it doesn't look good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2005 is a nice site. It lists who has been killed by which site and whether they were armed or not. The majority of the Israelis that have been killed or injured have not been armed. The majority of the Palestinians have been armed.



I posted the link about Muslims under Muhammed attacking Jews because they wouldn't join him way earlier in the thread. Look it up.

As I said in the last post, I think it is the minority of Muslims that are misinterperting passages. So you think that I am wrong for saying that? I would have thought that you would agree that it is a minority and that they are misinterperting a passage to justify violence.



I have repeatedly said that it is a small minority. Yet you act like I am saying every Muslim is that way. I haven't said that. I do firmly believe that there is a religious component and a cultural side to this war but that the majority on both sides would happily live in peace.

While you would like to see Israel go away, it isn't going to happen. How about some ideas on how this can be resolved without bloodshed or the elimination of the Jewish state?
 
I agree with you on "long replies"... they are difficult to respond to coherently and hard to manage.



Frankly, I'm still not that bothered if Palestinians wanted the Partition or not. The Allies in WWI won it from the Ottoman Empire, and frankly unless the general population wanted to remain part of that empire as they had for the last 400 years, they really should take whatever liberty they could get (they didn't want to remain part of it, hence the uprising).

At the time of the Partition the Arabs still got over three quarters of the Palestinian Mandate plus the West Bank, Gaza, and a large portion of the modern area of Israel, and the offer of Jerusalem as an international area.

There can be little doubt, in fact, that the opposition to the Partition on the Arab side at the time was not motivated by any notions of unfair division of the area but instead by the belief that even the indigenous Jews had little right to the land there whatsoever.

Moving forward to the present day, it's fairly apparent that the Palestinians as a people don't really want to fight anymore. Their "benefactors" (i.e. Israel's neighbours Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and so on) have failed repeatedly in their military ambitions to take back the Israeli land by force. Now the Palestinians themselves are reduced to being very much the losing side in a brutal war of attrition.

The latest offer on the table from Israel (post Gaza-withdrawl) is a partial withdrawl from the West Bank and a formal declaration of the State of Palestine. However the Israelis may have to move forward with that declaration and withdrawl unilaterally (again), as their only possible negotiating partner still doesn't recognise their right to exist.

While it's very likely ultimately 'fair' that there should be a total withdrawl from the West Bank, I'm not surprised that Israelis are finding it a bit rich that more or less the official Arab line is basically "We want you to say sorry that you owned us twice in a war that we started and give us back the land we had to start with". Crying foul over being oppressed militarily would carry a lot more weight if you hadn't tried to take the "might is right" road of wiping Israel off the map entirely.
 
And how about some ideas on how Palestine won't get shafted in the deal, because frankly, you don't seem to care about the Palestinian condition, based upon your support for Israel's actions now. Who wants bloodshed as part of the solution?
 
To sum up your post...

"The Ottomans lost WW1, so the people living in the former Ottoman empire are lucky that they got what they got."

"I need to read a bit more on the initial partition."

"Haha. Israel won those wars. I'll disregard the fact that Israel won because of Western support."

"It's the Arabs' fault, so they should take what they get. Israel has a right to do whatever it wants."

Childish statements will get childish replies.
 
The Arabs started the wars. Israel didn't start them.

Israel got the arms from Western support but they won the wars on their own. No foreign troops helped them out. And won decesively. Israel has a right to defend itself from invasions.

As for the Israeli beach attack on innocent civilians, it wasn't
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/13/mideast.probe/index.html
Palestinian explosives killed innocent Palestinians.
 
You dont consider the Western supplied arms to be the determining factor? Because I sure as hell do.
 
as for the beach, they made up for not being responsible for that by killing a couple of kids a few days later. Brilliant.
 
Back
Top