Israel or Palestine?

Every day I'm seeing disturbing images of kids getting killed in Gaza which makes me wonder where humanity has gone. Then I see a lot of Israeli propaganda about Hamas using civilians as human shields by placing military settlements nearby civilian areas so that it would deter the IDF from bombing these places. But then again Gaza is such a densely populated region that I really wonder if innocents can avoid being the target of these bombings.

I also think it's wrong that Hamas is continually bombarding Israel with bombs but I heard that he is just fighting back? Like Israel broke the international law of occupying land that originally doesn't belong to them and broke a lot of UN sanctions. So then aren't the Palestinians simply fighting back to reclaim their land? Why are they being labelled as terrorists and would peace treaties really end the conflict? Because from what I see more than 12,000 Palestinian homes have been bulldozed over the past decades and they are being oppressed. So I don't see how a ceasefire would end the Israeli occupation.

I am saying this from my limited understanding of the issue at hand. Can anyone clarify?

Honestly, this is not the place for that discussion. You're better off taking the time and doing some thorough research from multiple sources yourself.

You'll only come to one conclusion.

Palestinians retaliates when Israel attacks.
Israel retaliates when Palestine attacks.
Palestinians retaliates when Israel attacks.
Israel retaliates when Palestine attacks.
Palestinians retaliates when Israel attacks.
Israel retaliates when Palestine attacks.
It just goes on.

WWI happened and the Ottomans lost.
Allies broke up the empire, and Britain took the land known as Palestine/Israel.
Jews starting illegally and legally moving to territory known as Palestine.
This caused tension between Arabs and Jews.
Arabs also felt betrayed by the British for misleading them about who gets what land, as they feel they were promised more than they were actually given.
Brits put immigration ban onto Jews to pacify Arabs.
Jews start sneaking in and commit terrorist style acts against Arabs and Brits.
The British said **** it and left everyone as the conflict was heating up.
British mandate ends and Israel declares independence.
The Arab league attacked independent Israel the next day.
The Arabs lost.
Israel expanded it's borders.
Massacres and skirmishes happened.
Conflict basically continues to this day.

I may be somewhat mistaken but this is how I remember learning about it.

This thread is begging for trouble.

oh god if kraychik and shadowmoses were still here

It is worth noting that in regards to the fighting currently going on Egypt has proposed some cease-fire terms, Israel accepted but Hamas rejected the terms. So the conflict is still going on because of Hamas' choice.

The reason why Hamas is considered a terrorist group is because it deliberately targets civilians. Israel does not do so, the Israelis are interested in negotiating some sort of long-term peace, but Hamas won't even recognize Israel's right to exist.

to be fair, i don't think palestinians care whether or not they are being "deliberately targeted or not" when the effect feels like they are

Yeah. I know what you mean. It's easy for us to intellectualize this stuff, but for people who are having their houses bombed and all that because Hamas is putting rockets nearby, it's a whole other story, and the emotions of it will affect their thinking.

So what you're saying is we should all be blaming the British

@BboyStatix:

This video has your answer and it's only a few mins long.

@lostrib: You could blame the Brits for governing the region poorly. You could also blame the Arabs for not wanting to move out of the land and letting the Jews take it. You could also blame the Jews for the fanatical Zionist movement and attacking Arabs.

@Crunchy_Nuts:

"You could also blame the Arabs for not wanting to move out of the land and letting the Jews take it"

Seriously? it was their land, their country, why should they move?

@erazor51: Because the Arab leadership failed to understand what they had agreed to with the British. The British and Arabs had different ideas of where the Arab borders would be after they revolted against the Turks.

It shuld also be noted that the British were signing contradictory agreements with many different people so a large part of the blame lies on them.

What the hell are you talking about? Jews were in the land of Israel (the promised land) long before the Arabs.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFroots.html#1

You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

They were there and they were exiled, a lot also left of their own accord. Regardless of who lived there thousands of years ago the Arabs were the vast majority in the area before the current conflict.

yeh that guy on the phone took it heavily lol

I have nothing against Jews but Israel should never have been created.

Jews should never have been allowed back into Palestine or in independent Jewish state should never have been created?

lmao george galloway

amazing people still take this guy seriously

Pretty much. UK pretty much caused most of the mess in the Middle East when they drew up the maps after WWI and WWII.

But they aren't anymore. I don't understand this argument. No one should move.

Sounds like you have something against Jews.

I only know what I see in the media, so I assume that my version is heavily edited.

That is very convenient to say, especially when it's said absent of context. There's a reason why Arabs are no longer a majority in the region and by extension why there has been a prolonged refugee crisis that's gone on for roughly three generations.

No it's not very convenient. I just don't think no one should move. There are several reasons why they are not the majority, and what does that have to do with that I think that no one should move?

If you truthfully do not see the convenience in your statement then you are simply not being honest with yourself. I find it very difficult to believe that you would take the same stance if the roles were reversed, or that you actually believe your little trope in the first place. It's an incredibly disingenuous statement to make.

Moreover, I don't think there is anyone who is heavily involved/invested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that actually believes that "no one should move" regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, no one supports the status quo. That is the single point that everyone from hard-right Zionists to radical anti-Zionist Palestinian nationalists can agree on - people are going to have to move, the entire conflict stems from the debate over who should move.

I personally don't favor either country, but I must admit that the manner in which Israel came into existence was unjust; it was wrong and should have been illegal according to international law to form a country for a group of people who had no recent historical ties to the land and whose justification for seizing the land was mere religious folklore.

Maybe we misunderstand each other here. I just don't think anyone should move, away from the region I might add. Why would I think that? I don't understand what is so weird with someone from either role having such a view.

No the mainstream debate is about whether settlers should move and in that case how many. No one in the mainstream debate is really saying that the Palestinians should move or the Jews. It doesn't mean that you support status quo.

Basically Israel was created by the British by stealing land from the palestinians, I'am not against a Jewish state but doing it by stealing somebodies else's land was just asking for trouble.

You cannot blame the Arabs for that. You can however blame them for massacring Jews in the area before any Jews attacked any Arabs.

Isnt that how many countries originated? The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of central and south america all involved displacing one group for another. I'm sure that many other countries throughout Europe and Asia also do not have the original, indigenous populations.

They had recent historical ties. That was definitely not the justification. The "founding of fathers" of Israel were largely secular atheist socialists you know?

Israel was not created by the British. Israel was not created by stealing any land, what land would that be specifically?

lol that's a very narrow definition of mainstream you have there.

And while part of the debate is whether or not Jewish settlers should be moving (either into occupied territory or evicted from it), the debate certainly doesn't end there. One of the largest obstacles to peace is the concept of a right of return. Should Palestinian refugees be allowed to move back to their homes? That's not a fringe question. And the belief that Israel shouldn't exist all together is prominent within the Arab mainstream. And on the other side of the coin there's the elephant that's currently sitting in the room and that is the roughly 1.65 million Arabs that are living in Israel. There existence gives many Israelis...existential unease, for lack of a better term. That's not to say that there residency isn't tolerated by most, but it's complicated.

Ramle, Lydda, Beersheba, need I go on?

Palestine is not the only country in the world that lost land because of war, it happens. I say we all hold hands but whatever

Just bomb the strip back to the stone age, bulldoze it, and build condos.

I generally side with Israel. Yeah, they are kind of dicks, but I would be too if I were in their position. They were run out of their homeland centuries ago, suffered the worst atrocity in human history in the holocaust, and when they did get their homeland back their Arab neighbors invaded them on three separate occasions (48, 67, 73). It sucks what happened and is happening to Palestine, but they are not the first country to lose land, and not the last to suffer civilian casualties in war. In regard to the current conflict in Gaza, I know if Greenland start firing rockets at my home country of Canada, threatening my friends and family, I would have no qualms about bombing the living **** out of them.

A people cannot claim land that their FOREFATHERS lost centuries ago. What's done is done.

Awesome. So Israel just needs to wait another 50 years or so until all the people in Palestine that were alive when it was independent die, then Israel can claim uncontested ownership of it. Cool beans.

Palestine has legitimate claim to the land (they've had claim to the land since the Crusade where the Muslims won it back from the Catholic Church). But both sides are handling it so stupidly that I don't think either deserve it.

Israel is there NOW. Using your logic.....it's theirs. Time to move on from that.

Israel had already been created. What are you talking about? Also, while I could to some extent agree that theft of private property occured there was no theft of territory or land on a political level.

No it's not.

Yes ok. I was talking about moving away from the region. I think I said that. But yeah obviously.

I don't think there is any existential unease over the arabs living in Israel. There is no reaon to and I'm trying to find a poll showing it was only a minority who see arabs as a demogaphic threat.

Palestine, has no air force, navy or military. They are being thrown out of their homes, beaten, tortured and killed. Israel even have the Iron Dome to shoot down the rockets. So far they have lost one compared to 200 in Palestine. Also over a 1000 injured aswell

lol wtf is this even suppose to mean? What "political" claim did Jews have to these Arab communities? Stop bullshitting around the issue it just makes you sound like an idiot. I'm not levying any sort of condemnation against Israel per se but these things did happen.

There is plenty of reason to see Israeli Arabs residing in a Jewish state as a demographic threat. The current minister of foreign affairs has been adamant for over a decade that the continued inclusion of these Arabs in Israel is a non-starter for the peace process. In his opinion they don't belong in Israel. His party, Yisrael Beiteinu, is not a fringe party. Until very recently it was formerly aligned with Likud.

Oh hell nah. I wouldn't hit that shit even if it was wrapped with a 30 gallon hefty trash bag.

That private property being allocated to Jews is theft. But I was not talking about Jews, I was talking about Israel. Those territories coming under Israeli sovereignty is not theft.

No not really. They're not a demographic threat. And I think most Israelis agree with me. But yeah I guess it's not a fringe view but nevertheless a minority view. But they're just a bunch of silly billies.

What political claim did Israel have to these Arab communities? How does the (at times systematic) expulsion of Arabs from Arab communities by the IDF not constitute as theft by Israel? Don't gerg the issue here. It is OK to acknowledge facts.

No no I agree that it is theft. That's why I'm talking about private property. Expelling them and taking their property or just taking their property because they fled or whatever is theft according to me. However as I said, just those territories coming under Israeli sovereignty is not theft.