Gaza Strip 'invades' Israel.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 29 Mar 24 8.53pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nhp61
The protest marches in support of Palestine started two days after Hamas attacked Israel on 7th October. Israel bombed Gaza in the hours after the attack, but the ground invasion didn't start until 27th October, quite a while before "tens of thousands of civilians" were "massacred" by Israeli forces. Nobody in their right mind supports the actions of Hamas, even if they have sympathy with the cause of the Palestinians. Nor should anyone have any sympathy for the disproportionate response of the Israelis. There are ways for them to achieve their objectives whilst avoiding the huge loss of civilian life, risk of starvation and refusal to cooperate with humanitarian relief. It would take longer and demand some compassion! Which seems completely absent. Only the USA can bring this to an end. It seems that they are at least making some efforts.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| nhp61 Goring-By-Sea born, now in Brackne... 29 Mar 24 9.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Nobody in their right mind supports the actions of Hamas, even if they have sympathy with the cause of the Palestinians. Nor should anyone have any sympathy for the disproportionate response of the Israelis. There are ways for them to achieve their objectives whilst avoiding the huge loss of civilian life, risk of starvation and refusal to cooperate with humanitarian relief. It would take longer and demand some compassion! Which seems completely absent. Only the USA can bring this to an end. It seems that they are at least making some efforts. I agree, to a degree, but Hamas can also bring this to an end, by releasing the Israelis they kidnapped. Anyway, I was trying to clarify on the poster's comment in that the marches in support of Palestine had started before the ground invasion of Gaza had begun. In other words, the protests were not because of tens of thousands of civilians being massacred, as he had declared. A subtle point, I admit, but it still needed to be picked up.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 29 Mar 24 10.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nhp61
The protest marches in support of Palestine started two days after Hamas attacked Israel on 7th October. Israel bombed Gaza in the hours after the attack, but the ground invasion didn't start until 27th October, quite a while before "tens of thousands of civilians" were "massacred" by Israeli forces. This is the problem I have with the marches. The first one must have a large element of pro-Hamas due to how quick the thing was organised; as you say before Israel had really started its main retaliation. Consequently what proportion of the marchers are still of that mindset? (Something that the pro-Israel lobby point out).
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Mar 24 10.29pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nhp61
I agree, to a degree, but Hamas can also bring this to an end, by releasing the Israelis they kidnapped. Anyway, I was trying to clarify on the poster's comment in that the marches in support of Palestine had started before the ground invasion of Gaza had begun. In other words, the protests were not because of tens of thousands of civilians being massacred, as he had declared. A subtle point, I admit, but it still needed to be picked up. Israel have made it quite clear that this does not stop their attacks but at most leads to a pause. If the Israeli government left Gaza with any potential for attacking it....which in reality means a male population then it would be attacked as soon as the means were available....which in reality is time. So Netanyahu has two options, attack/starve Gaza into UN removal, thus ending the Gaza threat, which is what the majority of Israelis want. The other option is accept what most governments outside Israel want and pull out of Gaza and resign because his government would break up....probably leading to his prosecution....I'm not seeing his incentives. I know what I think is more likely. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Mar 2024 12.34am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NJ CLOCKTOWER Tarragona 30 Mar 24 5.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Are those sources objective sources? Or do they back one side or the other? Sure...However Israel have been breaking international law on settlements in the West Bank for decades. People literally being forced out of homes and Palestinians killed. It's been a continuation of 48, any look at the map of what the UN gave an Israel and the attached conditions the UN insisted upon....without any agreement from Arabs shows that Israel have never respected any of those laws. My own personal opinion is that It's a blood feud and that there is zero moralism from either side. That is the nature of war....You kill someone's uncle or child and there's no going back or being reasonable. One side has to win and the other has to lose. What I find distasteful is the claim that anyone is moral or on the right side in this....They are for their side and will accept pretty much anything as long as they win. That's why de-escalation is so so so important early on.
For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a source of intense turmoil and violence in the Middle East. It is a multifaceted issue rooted in historical, political, and religious disputes, with both Israelis and Palestinians claiming the same land as their rightful home. This overlapping claim to the land has led to a range of human rights abuses and violations of international law by both parties. The Israeli government, citing security concerns and a need for self-defense, has implemented policies that have been widely criticized for their impact on Palestinian civilians. These include the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are considered illegal under international law, as well as the establishment of checkpoints and barriers that restrict the movement of Palestinians. Additionally, the Israeli military has been accused of using excessive force during clashes with Palestinians, resulting in the deaths and injuries of innocent civilians, including children. On the other hand, Palestinian militant groups, such as Hamas, have been responsible for numerous acts of violence targeting Israeli civilians through rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and other forms of terrorism. These actions have been widely condemned by the international community as well. De-escalation is essential to break the cycle of violence and ensure the protection of both Israeli and Palestinian lives. This requires a commitment from both sides to refrain from actions that further exacerbate tensions, such as settlement construction or incitement to violence. Furthermore, it necessitates a willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiation to address the underlying grievances and aspirations of both peoples. The pursuit of peace also demands a recognition of the historical injustices endured by both Israelis and Palestinians. Acknowledging and addressing these grievances can facilitate a healing process that allows for the building of mutual trust and understanding. This can be achieved through efforts to promote justice and accountability for past wrongdoings, including through mechanisms such as truth commissions or international criminal investigations. Additionally, any lasting resolution must be based on respect for international law, including the right to self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. This means that any potential peace agreements need to adhere to principles such as the 1967 borders, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the recognition of Jerusalem as a shared capital for both states. In conclusion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is marked by a complex web of grievances and human rights abuses. Resolving this long-standing conflict requires a commitment to de-escalation, justice, and respect for international law. Only by acknowledging and addressing these issues can a just and lasting peace be achieved for both Israelis and Palestinians.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NJ CLOCKTOWER Tarragona 30 Mar 24 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Over the course of history, several empires governed the area of so called Palestine. Palestine as an independent nation-state – that is, governed by its own elected people, and not as a colony – did not exist before 1948 These include: 1. Ancient Egyptian Empire: During the Bronze Age, parts of Palestine, particularly the coastal region, were under the control of ancient Egyptian pharaohs. 2. Assyrian Empire: The Assyrians, an ancient Mesopotamian empire, conquered and ruled over Palestine from the 8th to 7th centuries BCE. 3. Neo-Babylonian Empire: Following the fall of the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, under King Nebuchadnezzar II, conquered Palestine and incorporated it into their empire in the 6th century BCE. 4. Persian Empire: After the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Persian Achaemenid Empire, led by King Cyrus the Great, took control of Palestine in the 6th century BCE and ruled until their conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. 5. Hellenistic Empire: After the death of Alexander the Great, Palestine came under the rule of his successors, particularly the Seleucid Empire. 6. Roman Empire: In 63 BCE, the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem, and Palestine became a Roman province. The Romans ruled over the region for several centuries, dividing it into various administrative divisions. 7. Byzantine Empire: Following the division of the Roman Empire, Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. 8. Islamic Caliphates: In the 7th century CE, Islamic Caliphates, including the Rashidun Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate, and Abbasid Caliphate, conquered and governed the area of Palestine. 9. Crusader States: During the Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries CE, European Christian Crusader states were established in Palestine, including the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 10. Mamluk Sultanate: After the Crusaders were expelled, the Mamluks, a dynasty of slave-warrior sultans, gained control over Palestine and ruled from the 13th to the 16th centuries. 11. Ottoman Empire: In the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire, a vast Islamic empire, conquered Palestine and incorporated it into their territories. The Ottomans ruled over the region until their defeat in World War I. It is important to note that the borders and political control of the region varied during different periods and were subject to changes and conflicts. Palestine itself has never been governed by its own authority
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 30 Mar 24 9.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NJ CLOCKTOWER
For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a source of intense turmoil and violence in the Middle East. It is a multifaceted issue rooted in historical, political, and religious disputes, with both Israelis and Palestinians claiming the same land as their rightful home. This overlapping claim to the land has led to a range of human rights abuses and violations of international law by both parties. That is without dispute. However, before the Belfour declaration and the swamping of regions of Palestine with Jewish settlers for over two decades prior to 48 that region had been high majority Islamic for hundreds of years. The last time a Jewish majority had held sway there was nearly two thousands years prior. So this tendency to present the claims to the land as some kind of equal legitimacy is somewhat modernistic to my ears. I appreciate that you aren't doing this but I get the impression that someone has to see the world from a prism where pre 48 doesn't exist to view it within these terms. Originally posted by NJ CLOCKTOWER
The Israeli government, citing security concerns and a need for self-defense, has implemented policies that have been widely criticized for their impact on Palestinian civilians. These include the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are considered illegal under international law, as well as the establishment of checkpoints and barriers that restrict the movement of Palestinians. Additionally, the Israeli military has been accused of using excessive force during clashes with Palestinians, resulting in the deaths and injuries of innocent civilians, including children. On the other hand, Palestinian militant groups, such as Hamas, have been responsible for numerous acts of violence targeting Israeli civilians through rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and other forms of terrorism. These actions have been widely condemned by the international community as well. Israel have effectively been carrying out a policy of slowly taking land and thus reducing the Palestinian population outside of actual wars. The British/Americans did the same to the native Indians. The restrictions of which you speak are designed to convince Palestinians that they will never own Palestine again and to, by the process of time and the influence of money, adapt the rest of the world to a greater Israel. It's the most intelligent way to achieve their aims in modern times. How ethnical and/or acceptable it is...that is subjective and for the individual to decide. Personally I fully agree with you that the taking of life should be condemned. Anyone with empathy who actually looks into the video and images of what takes place in that area of the world would break down....the destruction of innocence regardless of which side it is only perpetuates the cycle. Originally posted by NJ CLOCKTOWER
De-escalation is essential to break the cycle of violence and ensure the protection of both Israeli and Palestinian lives. This requires a commitment from both sides to refrain from actions that further exacerbate tensions, such as settlement construction or incitement to violence. Furthermore, it necessitates a willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiation to address the underlying grievances and aspirations of both peoples. The pursuit of peace also demands a recognition of the historical injustices endured by both Israelis and Palestinians. Acknowledging and addressing these grievances can facilitate a healing process that allows for the building of mutual trust and understanding. This can be achieved through efforts to promote justice and accountability for past wrongdoings, including through mechanisms such as truth commissions or international criminal investigations. Additionally, any lasting resolution must be based on respect for international law, including the right to self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. This means that any potential peace agreements need to adhere to principles such as the 1967 borders, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the recognition of Jerusalem as a shared capital for both states. In conclusion, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is marked by a complex web of grievances and human rights abuses. Resolving this long-standing conflict requires a commitment to de-escalation, justice, and respect for international law. Only by acknowledging and addressing these issues can a just and lasting peace be achieved for both Israelis and Palestinians. Here you seem to be pushing the two state solution as a viable route. Personally, as I've said many times, in the real world that died with Rabin decades ago. I respect this argument but I view it as impractical and unworkable. It's a very liberal view of the world imprinted onto a very non liberal place. That perhaps is the problem....Israel came about because of the empathy of liberals enforcing their view of the world onto a land that mostly rejects it. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Mar 2024 10.45am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NJ CLOCKTOWER Tarragona 30 Mar 24 9.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Here you seem to be pushing the two state solution as a viable route. Personally, as I've said many times, in the real world that died with Rabin decades ago. I respect this argument but I view it as impractical and unworkable. It's a very liberal view of the world imprinted onto a very non liberal place. That perhaps is the problem....Israel came about because of the empathy of liberals enforcing their view of the world onto a land that mostly rejects it.
The statement reflects a perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and draws parallels with historical instances of territorial acquisition and displacement. It's a complex issue with various interpretations and perspectives. While some may see it as a strategic approach, others view it as unjust and unethical. Ultimately, opinions on the matter vary widely, and achieving peace in the region remains a significant challenge. My intention isn't to advocate for any specific solution but to acknowledge the complexity of the situation. The viability of the two-state solution is indeed debated, and it's clear that achieving a resolution to the conflict remains challenging. Multiple perspectives and approaches are considered by different stakeholders, and finding a sustainable path forward is crucial for the region's stability and peace. The Qur'an specifies that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that God Himself gave that Land to them as heritage and ordered them to live therein. It also announces that – before the end of time – the Jewish people will come from many different countries to retake possession of that heritage of theirs. Whoever denies this actually denies the Qur'an itself.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NJ CLOCKTOWER Tarragona 30 Mar 24 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NJ CLOCKTOWER
The statement reflects a perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and draws parallels with historical instances of territorial acquisition and displacement. It's a complex issue with various interpretations and perspectives. While some may see it as a strategic approach, others view it as unjust and unethical. Ultimately, opinions on the matter vary widely, and achieving peace in the region remains a significant challenge. My intention isn't to advocate for any specific solution but to acknowledge the complexity of the situation. The viability of the two-state solution is indeed debated, and it's clear that achieving a resolution to the conflict remains challenging. Multiple perspectives and approaches are considered by different stakeholders, and finding a sustainable path forward is crucial for the region's stability and peace. And if you believe any of that religious nonsense apologies to any religious people on here The Qur'an specifies that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that God Himself gave that Land to them as heritage and ordered them to live therein. It also announces that – before the end of time – the Jewish people will come from many different countries to retake possession of that heritage of theirs. Whoever denies this actually denies the Qur'an itself.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 30 Mar 24 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NJ CLOCKTOWER
The statement reflects a perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and draws parallels with historical instances of territorial acquisition and displacement. It's a complex issue with various interpretations and perspectives. While some may see it as a strategic approach, others view it as unjust and unethical. Ultimately, opinions on the matter vary widely, and achieving peace in the region remains a significant challenge. My intention isn't to advocate for any specific solution but to acknowledge the complexity of the situation. The viability of the two-state solution is indeed debated, and it's clear that achieving a resolution to the conflict remains challenging. Multiple perspectives and approaches are considered by different stakeholders, and finding a sustainable path forward is crucial for the region's stability and peace. The Qur'an specifies that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that God Himself gave that Land to them as heritage and ordered them to live therein. It also announces that – before the end of time – the Jewish people will come from many different countries to retake possession of that heritage of theirs. Whoever denies this actually denies the Qur'an itself. Well, I respect the intent but as I've said the two state solution is gone. It would need Egypt and the Arab world to agree to a status quo....which is about as likely as Palace winning the Champions league the season after next....nice but next to impossible. As for the Qur'an I'm not sure why its view matters. It also has a passage urging Muslims to kill Jews if I remember correctly. I'd suggest that caring what religious books say is precisely behind a lot of these problems in the first place.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NJ CLOCKTOWER Tarragona 30 Mar 24 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well, I respect the intent but as I've said the two state solution is gone. It would need Egypt and the Arab world to agree to a status quo....which is about as likely as Palace winning the Champions league the season after next....nice but next to impossible. As for the Qur'an I'm not sure why its view matters. It also has a passage urging Muslims to kill Jews if I remember correctly. I'd suggest that caring what religious books say is precisely behind a lot of these problems in the first place. Yep!the Quran quote was just to state religious history, which has indeed been the cause of a lot of the problems. Not being religious myself, I usually try to give it a wide However ,it it seems to annoy a lot of Muslims for some reason.I if your religious everything Is gospel so from that paragraph in the Quran Israel is for the Jews. Also the land of Palestine has never been self-governed before 1948.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NJ CLOCKTOWER Tarragona 30 Mar 24 12.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well, I respect the intent but as I've said the two state solution is gone. It would need Egypt and the Arab world to agree to a status quo....which is about as likely as Palace winning the Champions league the season after next....nice but next to impossible. As for the Qur'an I'm not sure why its view matters. It also has a passage urging Muslims to kill Jews if I remember correctly. I'd suggest that caring what religious books say is precisely behind a lot of these problems in the first place. Avoiding religious quotes and texts it's better to understand the history of the region These include: 1. Ancient Egyptian Empire: During the Bronze Age, parts of Palestine, particularly the coastal region, were under the control of ancient Egyptian pharaohs. 2. Assyrian Empire: The Assyrians, an ancient Mesopotamian empire, conquered and ruled over Palestine from the 8th to 7th centuries BCE. 3. Neo-Babylonian Empire: Following the fall of the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, under King Nebuchadnezzar II, conquered Palestine and incorporated it into their empire in the 6th century BCE. 4. Persian Empire: After the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Persian Achaemenid Empire, led by King Cyrus the Great, took control of Palestine in the 6th century BCE and ruled until their conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE. 5. Hellenistic Empire: After the death of Alexander the Great, Palestine came under the rule of his successors, particularly the Seleucid Empire. 6. Roman Empire: In 63 BCE, the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem, and Palestine became a Roman province. The Romans ruled over the region for several centuries, dividing it into various administrative divisions. 7. Byzantine Empire: Following the division of the Roman Empire, Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire in the 4th century CE. 8. Islamic Caliphates: In the 7th century CE, Islamic Caliphates, including the Rashidun Caliphate, Umayyad Caliphate, and Abbasid Caliphate, conquered and governed the area of Palestine. 9. Crusader States: During the Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries CE, European Christian Crusader states were established in Palestine, including the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 10. Mamluk Sultanate: After the Crusaders were expelled, the Mamluks, a dynasty of slave-warrior sultans, gained control over Palestine and ruled from the 13th to the 16th centuries. 11. Ottoman Empire: In the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire, a vast Islamic empire, conquered Palestine and incorporated it into their territories. The Ottomans ruled over the region until their defeat in World War I. It is important to note that the borders and political control of the region varied during different periods and were subject to changes and conflicts. Palestine itself has never been governed by its own authority
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.