ISREAL GUILTY OF GAZA WAR CRIMES?

[Sirrus_Asura]

When you say typical jewish spin you mean when they put you on that chair and they spin you around slowly because you are now a man?

Lol'ed. Hard.

Filthy Filthy Jews.

[ZarakiKujata]

Now I know the NYTimes is hardly a good source on Israel/Palestine but its gotten better in recent years and I'm looking at a story on the cover of the copy I just got from my dining hall and it says both sides were found guilty of war crimes. Certainly Israel's shit is on a larger scale but the blame has never been all theirs.

And Firas gtfo with your Jihad, I thought you were a peaceful Muslim and Islam was peace?

[Mizango]

This is God's will.

[ZarakiKujata]

Insha'Allah

fixed for accuracy.

[Mizango]

fixed for accuracy.

Bravo.

[tyven]

jews are tight. no master chief meme for me

[thestalkmore]

Edit: Wtf just happened

[Faris]

And Firas gtfo with your Jihad, I thought you were a peaceful Muslim and Islam was peace?

moron you think jihad is what you hear on your news? "man in market goes BOOM!"

jihad is the struggle fool, how much drilling do i have to do in your brains to get you to understand the definition?

struggle to free palestine. jihad for palestine, jihad to drive the zionist out of our land.

[alt]

My major in college was political science/international relations and this area of the world was my main focus. The politics of this region is extremely interesting to me.

Current conflicts in the region have to be viewed from not only a modern but also a historical perspective.

Firas states:
"struggle to free palestine. jihad for palestine, jihad to drive the zionist out of our land. "

Which is true, many do want to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem and reclaim "their" land.

However from a Jewish perspective the creation of a Jewish/Zionist state following WWII was from their perspective a homecoming. Just as the Palestinians/Muslims feel dispossessed of their land now, the Jews were driven from Jerusalem multiple times as far back as Biblical times by Egypt, Persia, Rome, etc. And the creation of Israel was seen as them taking back what was once and rightly theirs.

Anyhow, in terms of the OP. Yeah Israel is probably guilty of war crimes in some form, as are most countries when really get down to it. The fact of the matter is Israel is probably the only staunch supporter of the West (and especially the U.S.) in the region. Not only are they supported by the West, but their military is superior to any other in the region (remember the 6 day war). Because they are so pro-West, its highly unlikely anything will happen other than finger shaking and saying "no no bad".

[Kuya]

There are a whole slew of consequences to a "i lived here 1,000 years ago so the land is mine now" argument, and even if that were the case, there were already Jews living in relative peace with the local Arab population, so if some Jews wanted to live a simple life in their ancestral homeland, it was possible. However, the key word here is simple, and certain zionists did not just want a simple life, they wanted the establishment of a de facto Jewish state, so from the very beginning peace was taken out of the equation (who would be naive enough to think that the local Arab population would just accept the establishment of a political entity they never needed on their lands?), and in fact, not many of the local Jews or the Jews in Europe even agreed with the zionist project until the Holocaust. Which brings into question how a tragedy was used to justify colonization.

[ZarakiKujata]

moron you think jihad is what you hear on your news? "man in market goes BOOM!"

jihad is the struggle fool, how much drilling do i have to do in your brains to get you to understand the definition?

struggle to free palestine. jihad for palestine, jihad to drive the zionist out of our land.

How does your struggle not involve violence? How are you going to drive out teh zionists without it? Man in a market going boom is not part of the struggle? I mean I get jihad is a very broad and vague term but the definition you give involves just as much violence. So my question stands: Islam = peace? Also, by advocating such behavior you're not coming across better than said zionists....

[alt]

There are a whole slew of consequences to a "i lived here 1,000 years ago so the land is mine now" argument, and even if that were the case, there were already Jews living in relative peace with the local Arab population, so if some Jews wanted to live a simple life in their ancestral homeland, it was possible. However, the key word here is simple, and certain zionists did not just want a simple life, they wanted the establishment of a de facto Jewish state, so from the very beginning peace was taken out of the equation (who would be naive enough to think that the local Arab population would just accept the establishment of a political entity they never needed on their lands?), and in fact, not many of the local Jews or the Jews in Europe even agreed with the zionist project until the Holocaust. Which brings into question how a tragedy was used to justify colonization.

The modern conflict in this region originates much farther back than 1000 years.

And I wasn't supporting one side or the other. Both sides claim Israel as their own. Both sides have occupied and been driven out of what is now Israel over the last couple thousand years. The only difference is the Jews currently hold Israel.

The only point i'm making is that we hear about the plight of the Palestinians/Muslims today mostly because the Jews are currently in control, but that wasn't always the case. The Hebrews were driven out of Egypt during the Exodus and settled in what is modern day Israel (called Israelites after). The Israelites were then in turn driven out of their land and split up by various other cultures throughout history. So both sides of the argument have merit.

And there will always be people on both sides who are willing and happy to live peacefully with the other side. But most political scientists will probably agree there will never be true peace in this region for a long time. Not only is it the holy center for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, but the general region is the birthplace of civilization.

But then again this is all just a general summary. Its never quite that simple. That's my point.


edit*
using the term colonization for this matter is incorrect. but thats an entirely other argument.

[Kuya]

The comment about 1,000 years was a general statement referring to a wide array of justifications. That, for example, Native Americans were in the US before and therefore the land rightfully belongs to them and not the English immigrants (among others) that currently reside in it. That was my point. The justification, even if you did not imply it, can be used by a wide array of people based on historically justified events, however, i can imagine that most Americans would never accept the idea that because the native americans were there before, it can be justified that the native americans take back the land, by force or otherwise, so allowing the zionists to make the argument that because they might have lived there centuries ago they are justified in displacing the people that live there now, has its consequences. I did not mean that this is what you were defending, but i used the chance that you brought it up to say it.

As for colonization, most Arabs view Israel as an extension of European colonization, even if that is nowhere near the intent. Yet, for all practical purposes, the "effects" of Israel amount exactly to that. A focal or staging point for European/American interests. To use a loosely aligned example, in the US the intent does not seem to be to oppress minorities such as blacks and latinos, and by oppress i mean make difficult their social mobility or otherwise make their lives harder, and yet almost every social aspect seems to be stacked against them. The explicit intent does not seem to be oppresion and racism, yet the "effects" and consequences lead to exactly what an oppresive and racist intent would lead to. Similarly, the intent and form may not be colonization, yet the consequences are exactly that.

[hagun]

This a really dumb question considering the years of violence in that region, but why don't those fuckers in the Gaza region just share this precious lump of land? The idea seems absurd but it just might work?

[Elvis]

This a really dumb question considering the years of violence in that region, but why don't those fuckers in the Gaza region just share this precious lump of land? The idea seems absurd but it just might work?

Your folksy argument is quite inane. No offense, but when you have a simplistic perception of what's going on over there, you're only going to have simplistic solutions.

Yes, I believe in peace and 'We Are World' like Michael Jackson. Let's hold hands and sing together and form a family band and frolic in fields of roses and blah blah blah.

[Elvis]

How does your struggle not involve violence? How are you going to drive out teh zionists without it? Man in a market going boom is not part of the struggle? I mean I get jihad is a very broad and vague term but the definition you give involves just as much violence. So my question stands: Islam = peace? Also, by advocating such behavior you're not coming across better than said zionists....

Stop feigning concern. You make comments like the above frequently. Simple formula:

Blah blah blah blah. So Islam ISN'T a religion of peace?

Blah blah blah blah. Is Islam a religion of peace?

Blah blah blah. Islam = peace?

Yea, I'm sure you're sincerely concerned about what Firas has to say. You're simply begging the question.

Of course Islam ISN'T a religion of peace. That's like a slogan. I think Muslims say it because they are feeling like they are all on trial.

None of these religions are a religion of peace. What the hell does that mean? Have you guys read the Bible? Same thing w/ the Torah. I could find some passages from it very easily and then come to some idiotic conclusions and you'd call it out - not out of principle, but because it's not socially acceptable.

Firas is not a representative of all Muslims everywhere.

I think you should hassle Tyr actually. He's much more articulate on forums (no offense Firas).

And the people under occupation have a right to use violence against their occupier.

In fact, that right was recognized by the UN. 153 countries recognized that right - except the United States and Israel. With Honduras abstaining. This was in 1987.

To blur the line between terrorism and national liberation movements is essentially allowing 'the State' - especially powerful States with plenty of resources and political impunity, like the US and Israel - to do WHATEVER they want.

And Israel has done whatever it has wanted to do to the Palestinians. Ditto for the US. I mean, I like the UN in some regards but overall it's a tool for the powerful. Now the US is on the human rights council! What a joke. Kind of like if Saudi Arabia was on the council (but not worse of course).

I don't understand why everything gets framed through religion. If anyone here was living under occupation and dealing with all that entails, would you NEED religion to hate the occupier?

Now, when it goes beyond hating the occupier and hating their religion and their identity, then I can understand some propaganda being involved. And that happens too. The Hamas charter cites 'Jews' I think - all of them. But at the same time, they have indicated their willingness to a 2-State solution along the 67' borders and blah blah.

For example, I can understand on a personal level an Israeli hating the notion that the Palestinians are 'resisting' when, they detonate a bomb inside a bus or cafe or disco - kiling civilians. That isn't resistance. THAT is terrorism.

But quickly, it goes beyond this. It becomes, all Muslims are like this. All Palestinians are like this. And this debate, is full of these arguments.

To alt:

Before the 48' War, the Zionists had already invaded the Palestinian side of the Parition Plan, and they had at this point already ethnically cleansed 300K Palestinians.

This IS colonization. 500 Palestinian villages were erased after the war. There was an entire society there. This isn't the 15th century, or 17th century or 19th century.

This was only 60 years ago. The Zionist movement began before the Holocaust. In the late 1800s. And if you read Herzl's diaries, the intent was always to encroach slowly on the Palestinians - buy up property and throw them out. He even said ridiculous things (that are true) like 'we will provide a river of gold to all those who support us.'

Immediately after the war, Israel refused the right of return.

How this has anything to do w/ Judaism vs. Islam is beyond me. Jews and Muslims lived together for a long time and especially in that land. It wasn't peaches and cream, but it wasn't what it is now.

This is simply radical nationalism. 2 identities in one strip of land.

EDIT:

Apparently, Saudi Arabia IS (or was - apparently, it's on a rotation) on the HRC. Wtf.

[Khajit]

I wish our leaders would stop being pussies, unite and open the door for Jihad.

I swear we'll free palestine in 1 day.

Except it wouldnt work. if you looked at history you'd have noted that israel has been aggressive in dismantling the military capabilities of ANY arab nation should they even get close to being able to defend against an all out assault by Israel since inception.

[hagun]

Your folksy argument is quite inane. No offense, but when you have a simplistic perception of what's going on over their, you're only going to have simplistic solutions.

Yes, I believe in peace and 'We Are World' like Michael Jackson. Let's hold hands and sing together and form a family band and frolic in fields of roses and blah blah blah.

I think therein lies the problem: everyone is looking for a complex solution when the solution seems rather simple. It's not holding hands but it seems that the simple and most effective solution is to break down this invisible wall. See: Berlin Wall. As complicated as that was, a simple wall breaking went along to peace for that region.

I am not sure why it would be so difficult for those two groups to coexist in that region. I am missing something. Enlighten me.

[Khajit]

You're ignoring the fact that Israel is 100% in the wrong here. Islamic hatred of the Jews didn't start until the Zionists came in. The Arab people had lived in Palestine for the last 4000 years minimum. The Zionists stole said land and commit genocide on such a regular basis the military keeps a point system for the murders they commit for the lulz.
I'm going to repeat this. The Jewish and Arab peoples had no hatred of each other until after Zionism rolled in. The middle east used to actually be the safest place to be a Jew for centuries due to a lack of discrimination and general torture.

[Elvis]

I think therein lies the problem: everyone is looking for a complex solution when the solution seems rather simple. It's not holding hands but it seems that the simple and most effective solution is to break down this invisible wall. See: Berlin Wall. As complicated as that was, a simple wall breaking went along to peace for that region.

I am not sure why it would be so difficult for those two groups to coexist in that region. I am missing something. Enlighten me.

i agree with you, in an idealistic sense

but political realities often prevail over idealism/universal morality

i don't know what most Israelis and Palestinians think now (after Gaza) about a two-state solution and blah blah