CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Israel Vs Palestine: who is the terrorist
From what I can gather Isreal has murdered more Palestinians than the other way around, and keep taking more land from Palestinians with military power
From what I can gather Isreal has murdered more Palestinians than the other way around, and keep taking more land from Palestinians with military power
Israel!!! By UN law Israel is not even classed as a country its classed as an occupation... they invaded Palestine in 1948 since then they have tortured and killed thousands of Palestinians and they're voices are yet to be heard.. they have kicked them out of they're houses and destroyed families. If an Israeli little boy spat on a Palestinian women in front of the police they would stand there and watch but if the Palestinian women shouted at the little boy she would be put in prison.. and you all say the Palestinians terrorists?
This horrible war between Israel and Palestine has been going on for decades - Since I can remember the death rates of Palestinians vs Isrealites has been on average 3 Palestinian deaths for any 1 dead Israeli
yet I hear the word "Terrorist" applied to the palestinies more often than the Isreali people
It seems to me to be some sort of trueism in the media that when people are murdered with missiles; that gets descibed as defenisive messures, while when people get murdered by suicide bombers it is described as offensive messures and terrorism.
I for one think missiles are just as terrefying and I do think that quantity of murder victims in war should account for how we describe the messures of both sides.
first of all its funny how you distort the truth and make israel look bad. there's a reason terrorist is thrown more at the palestinains then the isralies. let me tell you why.
one most plaestinians or muslim, they believe that all of arbia is scared and there for, jews who are infidels, must leave arbia, well they did not so they must kill them or end up sinning against allah. two, palestinians don't see israel as a sovereign nation, but people living on palestinian land, who must be eradicated. three, many muslims hold to the beliefs that peace can be achieved only through the destruction of israel.
and four, palestine is a terrorist hub, these are some of the terrorist groups in palestine, hamas, plo, hizbollah, al jihad, al fatah, egyptian islamic jihad, islamic front jihad, the muslim brotherhood, ANO, PFLP, DFLP, and some more you can probably find by your self.
now that we see why palestine is so intolerant to israel, we can now answer the other statement of yours. why are suicidal bombers considered terrorism and missiles not? easy, suicidal terrorist try to kill civilians, missiles launched by isreal do not, israel uses precision, unfortunately civilians can die. thats the cost of almost every palestinian housing a terrorist.
why do more palestinains die then israelies? because at a young age about 10, palestinians are trained to use weapons and to make explosives to kill jews with, israel response, they use rubber bullets. but this of course can still be lethal on little kids unfortunately.
so who's the terrorist? its pretty easy to say, so please respond with a sound argument of a time when israel PURPOSELY KILLED A PALESTINIAN CIVILIAN and not some liberal anti israel story you pull out of your's and some ones else's ass.
Your argument "they believe that all of Arabia is scared and there for, Jews who are infidels, must leave Arabia, well they did not so they must kill them or end up sinning against Allah"
My answer: Some Jews also think Israel is sacred and their rightful possession and I am pretty you can find Muslims that believe what you said, but in no way is that tha majority position and I think you go pretty far yourself in distorting the truth about Muslims (not that I want to defend silly religious positions about rightful ownership of land based on vague and ludicrous religious documents)
Besides: you can find all sorts of crazy psychopathic things to believe in in both Judaic and Muslim religious literature and In no way am I naive enough to believe that the majority of either actually believes in all those details just because they come from a certain tradition.
About your arguments 2 and 3 I can only say that; of course you can find people in war-ridden country's that hold those hardliner views, but again that goes for both sides.
About argument nr four: I am not gonna defend the actions of any of those groups you mention, of course allot of them are not even Palestinian but may be allies to some groups in Palestine. I want to stress that I am not taking sides with these groups, or saying that their cause or actions are in all respects justified - What I am saying is when you look at the numbers and you see two obvious things: Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis ( just in hard numbers, If we try to forget for one moment who is a non-human terrorist and deserves to die) and the other obvious thing is: Israel has continued taking more and more land that is defined by the united nations as Palestinian land, while Palestinians have done very little if any such thing.
so maybe, besides what you say the reasons for Palestinians being "so intolerant to Israel", It might be that those two facts have something to do with the "intolerance"
To the suicide bombing vs missile bombing argument I can only say: it seems a very happy accident for Israel that the "precise" missiles they use only hit "terrorists" : good for them - strange though how many of the terrorists/victims are younger than 16 years of age. And this argument that the reason so many kids get killed is because they are highly trained "terrorist" is both ludicrous and disgusting.
Of course allot of kids living in a country with no infrastructure and surrounded by a country that gets more foreign aid from the USA than the U.S gives to the whole rest of the third world (and alot of that is military equipment that then gets used to quaranty those kids inside physical walls); of course they are bound to be aggressive with nothing to do and being cornered like that. And of course some are more aggressive than other, and of course some get hold of guns and use them against missiles and tanks (all of those weapons probably made in America btw)
So again: A kid with a pistol vs. A tank
Is it so obvious who is the terrorist?
I don't think so
I want to again stress that by questioning the situation I am in no way condoning or supporting anyone using any sort of weapon to maim or kill anybody. I am just trying to understand this insane situation and I don't think de-humanizing the situation by calling all people on one side terrorists and all people on the other side freedom fighters makes this situation any saner - on the contrary I think the first sign of insanity is when people start confusing symbols with reality.
OK, let me say back to you what I think you are saying.
You are saying that Israelites have killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelites. You are also saying that Israelites have taken more Palestinian land than Palestinians have taken Israeli land. And finally, you conclude that because of this, Israelis should be branded as terrorists. Is that right? If it is not right, then stop reading because the stuff below is only valid if the stuff above is right.
I don't dispute that atrocities have been committed by both sides. There are radical Israelites just as there are radical Muslims.
The world has rules for military engagement. I know this sounds crazy but it is a fact that we have the Geneva convention and all kinds of treaties describing what you can and cannot do in war. These rules favor the status quo but without these rules Israel could just commit genocide. So the rules do help in protecting the under dog.
If people in Palestine were to stop their war of terror against Israel, then Israel would not be able to claim that they are retaliating for some terrorist act and would not be able to claim that the lands taken are to increase the buffer zone between Israel towns and the rocket launching groups on the Palestinian side of the border.
This would create an uneasy truce but at least innocent people would stop dying and the border should remain stable. This "stalemate" is preferable to what is currently going on. It is for this reason that terrorist acts should never be considered a valid form of resistance and waging war.
Groups in Palestine have not denounced terrorism and their actions are clearly terrorist actions. I'm not saying that Israel does NOT commit acts that can be labeled as terrorist acts. I am saying that it is easier to point to groups in Palestine and label their actions as terrorist actions.
As long as groups in Palestine are openly committing acts of terrorism, Israel will have an excuse to do like wise... covertly. Forcing Israelites to stop committing act of terrorism would not stop the groups in Palestine from committing terrorist acts. But forcing the groups in Palestine to renounce terrorists acts will dampen Israel's ability to commit terrorist acts because Israel would no longer have an excuse to hide behind.
So..., since terrorist acts should never be considered a valid form of resistance and waging war, and since groups in Palestine are openly committing acts of terrorism and since labeling Israel as terrorists achieves nothing, I would label the groups in Palestine as the terrorists.
That is not quite what my position is. From my point of view there are people who commit acts that qualify those people as terrorists, on both sides. So I don't think Israelis as a whole should be branded as Terrorists. Even though this debate is in an either/or fashion - that is only to make a point. Which is:
by all definitions Israelis use to brand Palestinians as terrorists they will have to conclude they themselves are terrorists also if they deem these definitions as universal (and again, these are not my definitions)
In other words: I think it hypocritical of those who take side with Israel how they label all opposition as terrorism, and I do think they use this for PR reasons and to give themselves the right to take unjust action at times.
Branding the enemy as some sort of sub-human monster has been a common theme in the history of war, to justify harsh measures. Terrorism is just the label that is the most fresh in this line of Propaganda tactics, and there for most useful for waging a PR campaign against deemed enemy´s
Concerning the Geneva convention and rules for engagement Israel has no less been reprimanded for unlawful acts than the Palestinians
"war of terror" is a propaganda fraze made by Americans and picked up by numerous country´s to justify their fights with minorities (Russia and Israel among those country's). No Palestinianian says that he is waging a war of terror. In fact I am amazed that people don't see through this thin war mongering tactic fashioned by the USA to justify waging war in Iraq.
"Groups in Palestine have not denounced Terrorism"
This statement is thrown around allot and shows we have learned little since the Inquisitionion. Just think for a moment of a person charged with being a witch and the choice she/he has. Either she/he can denounce her/his affiliation with Satan" but in that statement the person admits to having been under the influence Satan, but if she/doesn't denounce Satan, she/he is deemed to be still under the influence of said evil demon master ( I hope I am not talking to people who actually believeive that the devil exists although judging from some of the reply´s I am afraid that might be. suffice it to say that I am using the history of crazy misjudgmentent of elite powers and their branding of other people by their own sick mind concoctions and not talking about the devil as an actual force or being)
So for Palestiniansans to denounce what Israel deems terrorism, while being under attack with measures 3 times more powerfulull (in death rates) as their own means is quite ludicrous. Israel has the excuse for their harsh measures not mainly because of some Palestinians committing heinous acts, but mainly because of the strong propaganda campaign (ran mostly by Americancan news networks) that helps them exaggerate what they have in front of them.
Now I don't want to put all the responsibility on Israel. It is not their job alone, to stop this war. But in no way is Israel the peace seeking side in this horrible war.
Just to verify. I think there are terrorists in the Israele government, the Palestinian government and the U.S government (and Russia and China for that matter). But don't think the majority of any of those groups are terrorists. and branding a whole nation as terrorist is both naive and irresponsible in my view.
Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean so I'll ask....
Are you saying that if the groups in Palestine started using diplomatic means (instead of military means) that the Israelites would still continue to use military/terrorists actions and that therefore the groups in Palestine are justified in using terror tactics? I mean, if Israel were to continue using any level of force against the groups in Palestine using diplomatic means, then I would apply the label to Israel. But this hasn't happened.
Or are you saying that Israel also uses terror tactics (just not as much as the groups in Palestine or not as openly)? I mean, an argument could be made that the groups in Palestine are NOT committing military actions as defined by the Geneva convention and other treaties. If Israel dips down to their level occasionally and commits terror tactics in retaliation, then that is understandable. In this case the groups in Palestine are more prone to use terror tactics and the label would thus be more appropriately applied to them.
First of all: Isreael has attacked innocent civilians, and even knowingly so.
I think because we all follow western news, we all have in our head a certain steriotype of what a terrorist is - basically a guy with a cloth around his head and a belt full of explosives... and we define that as terrorist, while we dont associate a guy in a Tank as a terrorist as easilly, even though both are attacking civilians. I think this steriotype is hypocritical and that we should rather ratify people as terrorists on the basis of the damage they do to civilians. Now Israel has put much emphasis on the made up fact that by definition everyone they kill must be a terrorist "they look like one" and go very far trying to tie everyone they kill (even when they shoot down school buildings) with terrorists "aiding a terrorist" is thrown around alot.
My point is that in a war situation it is quite presumptious and arogant to claim to say you are able to discern a line in the sand, of who is acting like a terrorist and who is acting like a warrior, especially when the numbers (of casualties) are against you.
The rules of engagement are higly stacked in the favor of the better armed side, the side witch has less arms is has no chance of winning with out taking more drastic means.
And I have one question for you: define "terror tactics" and please explain to me why it is worse to use these so called tactics than other means (such as guided missiles and tanks) when the bottom line is that the guys with the missiles and tanks kill more people?
"The rules of engagement are highly stacked in the favor of the better armed side, the side witch has less arms is has no chance of winning with out taking more drastic means."
Militaristic, yes, you are 100% correct. Politically, I'm not so sure. However, just because you are the under dog does not mean that terror tactics should be condoned. They can use guerrilla warfare, sabotage, etc.
And I have one question for you: define "terror tactics" and please explain to me why it is worse to use these so called tactics than other means (such as guided missiles and tanks) when the bottom line is that the guys with the missiles and tanks kill more people?
I define terrorist tactics as any tactic that creates terror on the civilian population.
It is worse to use terror tactics because it violates the rules of warfare (Geneva convention, and other treaties) that were put in place in order to protect civilian women and children from the horrors of war (something both sides seek).
Everyone knows that war is hell. Here we are in the 21st century and we still haven't eradicated war from this planet. So, if war is hell and we haven't been able to eliminate war, then the next best logical option is to try and contain it. All sides agree on this and drafted treaties in order to achieve this goal.
Terrorism is also worse in that it dehumanizes the population that condones and sustains terror tactics.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you do not have any children. If you did, then you wouldn't want them to blow themselves up for ANY cause. Terrorism can only be sustained if the civilian population can be brain washed into offering up their sons and daughters as sacrificial lambs. I can't think of a single cause that would make me want to martyr my children.
"However, just because you are the under dog does not mean that terror tactics should be condoned. They can use guerrilla warfare, sabotage, etc."
My problem with this is that it seems that the difference of what is guerilla warfare, sabotage and terrorism is, is usually defined very loosely and overlaps, and often what would be described as guerilla warfare gets called terrorism by the stronger armed side for propagand purposes.
"next best thing is to contain it"
yes that is true, but I do think that creating labels and words (and generally using beurocracy) does little and can even make matters worse when words such as terrorism get used as propaganda to cloud the issue and I do think the U.S and Israel (and Russia and China) have done their share of that.
"Terrorism is also worse in that it dehumanizes the population that condones and sustains terror tactics."
This sentence bugs me, I have to admit. It is so easy to get lost in words and defenitions. Once again I have to stress that looking at the numbers of civilian kills, Israel has no moral high ground to be defining what terrorism is and saying that if a Palestinian supports some warrior on the palestine side, he is therfore condoning and sustaining a terrorist, let alone have a right to the claim that Israel has no obligation to deal with Palestinians untill they denounce terrorism (in the old inqusition style "renounce the devil") Israel has in no way earned that right.
About children being used as martyrs - There is not a huge age difference there compaired to 18 year olds being put in the Israeli military.
Also. when you live in a world war II style getto, sourounded by walls, with little or no hope, people get desperate and do strange things. This we know of from other wars and similar situations as well, and this is in no way bound exclusively to Palestinians. But ofcourse this is terrible and graphic - but in my view no excuse for further taking of land by Israel.
In Palestine you have a large group of people (living in close proximity to each other) who are willing to martyr, not only themselves, but their children, for a lost cause. These people support each other in this endeavor. They are, basically, suicidal.
A lost cause because in all the decades of committing terrorist acts, they have not come close to regaining their lands back. In fact, they have lost even more land.
The lives of American Indians started to slowly improve once they gave up the fight. Now they own casinos and they seem to be doing alright.
The lives of Palestinians will not improve until they denounce terrorism.
I think your argument about American Indians is in very poor taste: am I to conclude that it was all allright to massacre (by various means for a long time) 80% of a race as long as you give a few of the rest of that race rights to own Casinos 100 years later?
We have dozens of Amercian made movies that glorify the deed of taking a stand and fighting till the last man - that sentiment is net exclusivelly Palestinian
The live of the Indians did not improve for the majority that got massacred and their land stolen from them.
I never said that it was "alright to massacre (by various means for a long time) 80% of a race as long as you give a few of the rest of that race rights to own Casinos 100 years later." Asshole! Don't fucking misrepresent my words, shit head.
What I'm saying is that it happened. Now what? Do you send in your children to continue fighting or do you just fucking come to terms with reality and call it quits?
Maybe your debate shouldn't be "Israel Vs Palestine: who is the terrorist" but rather "Israel Vs Palestine: who is the biggest idiot?" And I would still pick the groups in Palestine for not even trying to give their children a chance. The groups in Palestine for losing more people than Israel and still believing they can win. I mean, how stupid do you have to be? How many Palestinians die for every dead Israelite; 2; more? It's not a one for one, so how retarded is that?
I said that I thought it was in poor taste to use the history of native americans and how they where treated and dealt with their treatment, to justify Israels actions - and the "am I to conclude...etc etc" line was meant to be cynical, and I never assumed that was what you where thinking or saying - I was simply pointing out that it would be easy for somone to misconstrue your words in that way.
"I would still pick the groups in Palestine for not even trying to give their children a chance" (as the biggest idiot that is)
It is hard for me to see what chance kids inside confined walls (built by Israelis) and ruined infra-structure (ruined by American backed sanctions and attacks by Israel) - Like I think I said somwhere here before - when people have no hope, they turn to drastic measures.
I have seen various study´s usually with numbers going over a few years at a time and the death rate us usually around 3 palestinians for every one israeli, killed. It has been this way for I would guess at least 20 years.
And I think your idiotic Inquisition argument is stupid. During the inquisition, Jews were gathered up and forced to accept Christianity as the one true religion. In this particular case, the Palestinian groups have lost (period). The Palestinian groups are NOT being gathered up and forced to accept Israel as the winner because the reality is that Israel is the winner. How do you force people to accept reality? They are in denial. They refuse to see the reality of their situation. Once they come to terms with reality, their lives will improve. How hard is that to understand?
Maybe your debate shouldn't be "Israel Vs Palestine: who is the terrorist" but rather it should be "Israel Vs Palestine: which one is delusional?"
My "idiotic" Inquisition argument had nothing to do with denial on the hand of Palestinians about having lost the war on the ground - it had to do with shining a light on the methods Israelis use to try to win Palestine in the overt Media war that goes on alongside the war on the ground - and I was trying to point out that Palestinians are in some respect treated like said "witches" where treated in witch trials. that is: deny you are terrorists and we wont deal with you "bacause you are terrorists" or "reounce terrorism on your side while our side gets to behave three times as badly and not be called terrorists". And this cant by any logic make any sense what so ever.
My problem with this is that it seems that the difference of what is guerrilla warfare, sabotage and terrorism is, is usually defined very loosely and overlaps, and often what would be described as guerrilla warfare gets called terrorism by the stronger armed side for propaganda purposes.
The words have definite meaning. If the stronger armed side misrepresents the facts for propaganda purposes, then it is up to us to call them on it. But my statement stands given the true meaning of the word and not the made up meaning. Just because you are the under dog does not mean that terror tactics should be condoned. Or are you saying that terrorism is a valid form of warfare?
Etimology history show clearly that words evolve and their meaning canges through time - the dictionary is not a central power that rules ower the meaning of words. Global dynamic usage of words defines their meaning that can change over time.
"If the stronger armed side misrepresents the facts for propaganda purposes, then it is up to us to call them on it."
That is what I am trying to do
"But my statement stands given the true meaning of the word and not the made up meaning".
I hope we can agree that the general meaning of "terrorism" is attacking civilians - well my point is that looking at the numbers, Isreal has attacked and killed more civilians then Palestinians.
If you think the "true meaning" is something else, then enlighten me.
"Just because you are the under dog does not mean that terror tactics should be condoned. Or are you saying that terrorism is a valid form of warfare?"
No I am not validating or condoning anything, I dont even think that things descbirbed as "general warfere" in such cases as the USA attacking Iraq is a valid form of warfare, but that is another debate.
Etimology history show clearly that words evolve and their meaning canges through time - the dictionary is not a central power that rules ower the meaning of words. Global dynamic usage of words defines their meaning that can change over time.
OK, so let me say back to you what I understood. Liberals can't win an argument using logic so they change the meaning of the words. And like Alice in Wonderland, they change the meaning of words so that they mean exactly what they want it to mean. Give me a freaking break. Terrorism has a definite meaning at this particular point in time. Look it up. It hasn't changed.... even by your "Global dynamic usage of words defines their meaning that can change over time" bullshit.
when I say global, I mean global as in "global effect" not as in "the globe": that is everybody has an input to some degree about how words evolve - albeit the evolve very slowly (usually) and give the illusion of keeping a definite meaning - but It is quite common for dictionary´s from different decades to have different definitions for the same words.
I would assume the word Terrorism changed its meaning/impact to some degree after 911 for example.
I just want to stress that me "the liberal" (as you assume) havent tried to chance the meaning of any word. I have been pointing out how Israelis and American media want the meaning of "terrorism" to be descriptive of a Palestinian when he kills one innocent person and not be descriptive of an Isreali when he kills 3 innocent persons.
yes that is true, but I do think that creating labels and words (and generally using bureaucracy) does little and can even make matters worse when words such as terrorism get used as propaganda to cloud the issue and I do think the U.S and Israel (and Russia and China) have done their share of that.
Then why create a debate where people are asked to apply a label (terrorist) to one side or the other? What is the point of stating that Israel is the terrorist when by your own admission doing so does little and may even make things worse?
"Then why create a debate where people are asked to apply a label (terrorist) to one side or the other? What is the point of stating that Israel is the terrorist when by your own admission doing so does little and may even make things worse?"
Just to point out that by their own defenition of terrorism they also qualify for that title. And the debate headline is just the starting point and it is bound to be simplified. - The point of the debate is not the headline, the point is the arguments made by those who take part
This sentence bugs me, I have to admit. It is so easy to get lost in words and definitions.
How can you get lost in words and definitions? Using words and their given definitions is the method used to communicate ideas?
Once again I have to stress that looking at the numbers of civilian kills
Are you saying that just because Israel kills more people than the Palestinian groups that Israel is the terrorist? The definition of terrorist does not include a body count. You use the word "civilian," but by definition, terrorists are not a military organization. They don't wear uniforms. They are civilians.
Israel has no moral high ground to be defining what terrorism is
Israel is not the one who defines terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the dictionary.
and saying that if a Palestinian supports some warrior on the Palestine side, he is therefore condoning and sustaining a terrorist,
Again, by definition, if you support a terrorist, you are condoning and sustaining terrorism.
let alone have a right to the claim that Israel has no obligation to deal with Palestinians until they denounce terrorism (in the old inquisition style "renounce the devil") Israel has in no way earned that right.
Israel is a sovereign state and as such it has a right to chose who to deal and not deal with. How does any country earn the right to decide if they should deal with terrorists?
"Are you saying that just because Israel kills more people than the Palestinian groups that Israel is the terrorist?"
I am saying that by any defenition I have heard to define terrorism - most often "those who harm innocent civilians to further their cause" Israel fits the bill even more so than Palestinians because of official numbers of casualites.
"Israel is not the one who defines terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the dictionary."
Yes terrorism is defined in the dictionary, but it is used in all sorts of ways and to justify all sorts of things, and I am trying to point out how the usage can start to become hypocritical when we start looking beyond the words and look at actual harm made in real time on this earth.
"Again, by definition, if you support a terrorist, you are condoning and sustaining terrorism."
Again, you are missing my point, witch is not that it has to be either/or Isreal Palestine who are terrorist and then the other side is not - but rather that there are terrorists on both sides, and as the numbers show there are more acts of murder against innocent civilians committed by one side, and therefore that side does not have the moral authority to force the other side to denounce terrorism or say that they wont come to the bargining table until they do so - infact that claim is totally ludicrious given the circumstances - Both sides will have to denounce terroism - And by claiming that the other side are terrorists when the numbers are against you is hypocritical.
"...How does any country earn the right to decide if they should deal with terrorists?"
Well if they are terrorists themselves (by their own definition) they have already started "dealing" with terrorists.
I dont know if any of this is getting through, But to explain a little bit more: In any war these days (with modern media ) there are really two wars going on - the on on the ground, and the one on TV. My argument is that the War on TV is fought with words, that is spin, propaganda and airtime.
When most of the airtime goes into talking about how one side is terrorism (even though they do less harm in numbers of maimed or killed individuals) then that is what is called "spin" - and in my opinion a very hypocritical spin at that - and I cant understand why people dont see through this - but that only goes to show how well propaganda works and how valuable media and words are in defining the outcome of a war.
You know...., you're right. We should stop using the word terrorist because both sides have killed civilians and both sides are spinning it, so what's the point. I thus propose we call those Palestinian groups sore losers ;)
well if someone was attacking your town with greater armory than you have (because one of the biggest arms trader in the world was giving them wepons) and then people where moving ,inch by inch, into your house, claiming that they owned it, while building a wall around 12% of your house where you and your family could be quarantined - and at the same time these people where villifying you if you fought back with 1/3 the power they where fighting you. At the same time you would have no hope because the beneficiary of those people would always give them more wepons and economic hand outs then your (crazy religious nut neighbor) beneficiaries where able to : then you would be a sore looser too.
That's 100% correct. Now you're getting it. At some point you have to realize that you are fighting a loosing battle and just cut your loses. What's so hard to understand about that? ;)
so in the same sense Americans should just stop speaking English and start speaking Spanish because it is getting predominant and you are fighting a loosing battle trying to keep on to your English tongue
You are assuming that Americans have already lost the immigration battle. I don't think we're there just yet. But when or if it happens, I'm prepared; I'm fluent in both languages ;)
My point is that in a war situation it is quite presumptuous and arrogant to claim to say you are able to discern a line in the sand, of who is acting like a terrorist and who is acting like a warrior
That is my point as well. The difference is that you seem to want to draw that line in the sand. Your debate is, "Israel Vs Palestine: who is the terrorist" and you then draw the line and say, Israel. I interpreted the debate as which one is the biggest terrorist and I say, "the groups in Palestine."
Well I said somwhere else here that the reason I put this debate up like this is not because I personaly deem Israel the terrorist but because if we want to keep using the defenition of terrorists like it has been used by Americans and Israel (and Russia and china for that matter) then we will have to conclude that those nations are terorrists also, just by looking at the facts of death rates on both sides.
My personal opinion is that there are a minority of what could be called terrorists in all these nations (and palestine as well). And I think that branding a whole nation as terorrists is both naive and irresponsible.
That is,I do think that Israel has in no way the moral highground in this matter.
Also it seems strange to me that terrorists are mainly defined by how primitive their wepons are - I cant remember hearing any high tech army or battalion described as terrorists, even when they do just as terrible things to civilians as those in rags who mostly get labled terrorists.
Also it seems strange to me that terrorists are mainly defined by how primitive their weapons are - I cant remember hearing any high tech army or battalion described as terrorists, even when they do just as terrible things to civilians as those in rags who mostly get labeled terrorists.
Given enough time, terrorist will obtain weapons of mass destruction.
The term terrorist seems to be applied to a group of people that keep on fighting even after it is clear that they can't win. BTW, when I say "they can't win" I mean that if the rules of engagement were removed, they would be annihilated. The only thing keeping them alive is the restraints that are placed on the stronger combatant. The restraints should NOT be removed from the stronger combatant, but the weaker combatant has got to come to terms with the situation and learn to deal with it in a constructive manner, instead of living in denial.
BTW, I hope you noticed that I tried to avoid labeling every Palestinian a terrorist. I specifically stated, certain "groups in Palestine," NOT the entire population.
yes I noticed - my line about irresponsability and naiveness of labeling a whole nation "terrorists" was not aimed at you. sorry about not being clear about that.
I have a hard time understanding your main paragraph (third) about "terrorist" being applied to people who cant win. I dont think it was your intent to say it but it seems to me that your are saying "might is right" - that the side with the stronger armor have the right to "retaliate" with three times the fire power of the weaker side and yet the weaker side gets to be the "terrorist" because of their unconventional (and graphic) tactics.
It is undoubtably more graphic to see a person walk into a bar stapped with explosives and take lets say 5 persons with him, compaired to seeing a tank shoot at a building that collapses with 5 people inside - but the damage is the same.
I think terrorism is usually defined by how graphic the murders can be made to look in newspapers and on tv stations - and I think that it is quite misleading to think assume that
I'm not saying that might makes right. I'm saying that convincing people to fight for a lost cause, to sacrifice their children for a lost cause is despicable; it's a waste of life; it makes me sick.
We are looking at the same glass and one of us is saying the glass is half full and the other one is saying that it is half empty.
"I'm not saying that might makes right. I'm saying that convincing people to fight for a lost cause, to sacrifice their children for a lost cause is despicable; it's a waste of life; it makes me sick."
I agree, but you have to take into account the situation those people are in. Also I think talking about people "sacrificing their children" is a sound byte and a spin - I am not gonna say that it doesnt happen (wierd things happen in war) but the kids who sacrefice themselves are usually kids with no hope (and therefore easilly brainwashed) that then get convinced to do so by what can only be called thugs and gangsters (and I just want to stress that the USA has enough of those type of people also, just not in as drastic situations, and therefore not with those results as often) You dont see kids going to their parents saying "mommy I am going to commit suicide" and the mom saying " way to go son".
Saying that the "palestinians sacrefice their children" is just another way to try to dehuminize those people in the media war.
first of all you seem to use the death rates alot. so what if more Palestinians died then Israelis, that means the Israelis are fighting a good war. more Japanese civilians died then American civilians. does that make America bad and japan good? no, Palestine has lost more life due to out dated warfare and its use of the population as a army.
as for the children, you are right. it is despicable and ludicrous that Palestine would do that. but its true. the "public help" agencies in Palestine are no more then terrorist recruitment camps. one good example is Hamas.
again you say Israel has done as much terrorism as Palestine, but you have no proof to back it up.
as for the land issue, you may be surprised that after the war of Israeli Independence, Palestine does not and continues to not have a set in stone national border.
again i also say that Israel took the land fairly in war and there fore, if Israel wants more land, it can take more land. its ethnics in how it does it may be questionable and maybe even wrong, but it is never the less Israeli land.
and it is not hypocritical of us to say that almost all apposition against Israel is terrorism when it is TRUE.
Its NOT Israeli land it was the land I Palestine which belongs to the people of Palestine its not so difficult to understand. Palestine was a country and Israel have taken it from them much like what Britain tried to do to Ireland
Im am also very interested to hear some justification for the constant occupation of more and more land with military power by Israel. How can that be morally right?
again your belief is ignorant. the land israel occupies is the west bank and the gaza strip. this land was took by israel in the six day war that palestine and its allies STARTED. instead of annexing the land, israel did not want to deal with the larger arabian population or the poverty they were in, so israel founded a military administration over the occupied land to distribute food and resources to the palestinans.
why are troops still there today? same reason we still have mps in some axis countries, insurgence. if you read my other statement you can see all the terrorist groups in palestine, also again i stress, palestinans mostly hate israel for personal and religious reasons. for israel to be safe israel must have troops in occupied land that i again remind you COULD OF BEEN ISRAELI LAND, but they choose to instead give palestine some freedom, as we can see today in the negations that israel and palestine have.
israel wants to pull out of the west bank and gaza strip but it cant because it has a very intolerant violent neighbor.
I agrre with you. The Palestinians dont want Peace they want the Jew out and Israel to no longer exist. They had their chance. They pushed back harder with terror attacks when offered their land back.
You don't answer the "moral" question. You only state that Israel provided food, therefore their occupation is okay? I think not. Treating people as less than human is immoral.
The question isn't who is the terrorist as they are both guilty of terrorist actions, the question should be who is the greater terrorist, and this has only one honest answer.
Soon after the end of World War II, there were three basic para-military Zionist organizations in Palestine, working against the Arab people, with the specific purpose of driving it out of Palestine. These were the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang. Before the British Mandate, the Jewish settlers had formed a group of mounted armed watchmen called "Hashomar" and with the advent of the British Mandate, it became the Haganah (Defense). With a membership of 60,000 Zionist Jews, the Haganah had a field army of 16,000 trained men and a unit called the Palmach, which was a full-time force, numbering about 6000. The Irgun Zvai Leumi included between 3000 and 5000 armed terrorists, and grew out of the Haganah and its Palmach branch in 1933. The Irgun was not ready to obey the Jewish Agency which sought to dilute the terror of the Haganah in order not to lose its respectability. In 1939, one of Irgun's commanding officers, Abraham Stern, left the parent organization and formed the Stern Gang, numbering some 200 to 300 dangerous fanatics.
August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.
November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants
November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.
July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved
October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.
June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.
September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs.
December 11, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.
December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.
December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.
December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.
1947 -- 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel's borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble. Many more horrid examples.
On April 9, 1948, a combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.
200 unarmed Arab civilians were killed. Arab men and women were paraded in chains. 20 Arab hostages were shot in a quarry.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Israel has been kicked off "their" land for the past 2 000 years. They may be taking it back, or they may be encroaching on land that is not theirs. To us, terrorism is wrong, but to the terrorists it is right.
"Israel has been kicked off "their" land for the past 2 000 years."
2000 yrs. ago your anscetors undoubtedly lived somewhere else, probably on another continent, now imagine you study your families genealogy, and find out exactly where your ancestors lived, then you travel there with a gun, walk to the person currently libing there aim it in his face, and say " hey buddy, this is my land, I'm home, get the fuck off my land."
It's like the problem in Ireland, did the catholics have the right to displace the protestant majority, i mean they were the descendants of the people that killed them, stole their homes from them, but know they didn't have the right because 700 years had passed.
Time kind of changes the rules, or at elast it should.
Israel has been kicked off "their" land for the past 2 000 years. They may be taking it back, or they may be encroaching on land that is not theirs. To us, terrorism is wrong, but to the terrorists it is right.
Please read the entire argument before you dispute it. My main point (if it was unclear to you) was stated at the beginning of my argument: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Regardless of who's land it was or is, the true "terrorist" in this case is not clear. However, because Israel has been subject to much oppression in the past, it is unlikely that they are considered the terrorists, even though they very well could be.
It is a matter of perception, not definition. Israel's land was taken in the past, now they are taking land from Palestine (who took Israeli territory in the past) and the machine keeps going. Perception dictates who the "terrorist" truly is; notice the quotaition marks around "their land".
"Please read the entire argument before you dispute it"
I did.
"My main point (if it was unclear to you) was stated at the beginning of my argument: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.""
I agree with your main point, thats why it isn't the one i contested. You should realise when you the make a statement like;
"Israel has been kicked off their land for the past 2 000 years.. They may be taking it back, or they may be encroaching on land that is not theirs. To us, terrorism is wrong, but to the terrorists it is right."
that your expressing the view that Isreal may or maynot have the right to continue stealing land that is not legally theirs.
"Regardless of who's land it was or is, the true "terrorist" in this case is not clear."
They are both true terrorists, but one of them is in breach of international law for stealing land, creating a racist apartheid regime, and generally behaving like a rogue state, but we're not allowed to say that cause they haven't been labelled part of the axis of evil by the US. Instead they do as they please because they only kill, and dispossess arabs.
"However, because Israel has been subject to much oppression in the past, it is unlikely that they are considered the terrorists, even though they very well could be."
Just because Isreal were treated badly in WW2 by the Germans does not give them the right to destroy the Palestians(not that you said that). Isreal have played the holocaust card ad nauseum, and it has long since worn thin.
"Israel's land was taken in the past, now they are taking land from Palestine (who took Israeli territory in the past) and the machine keeps going."
NO, thats just wrong, the land was never exclusively that of the Isrealites, they controlled some it, I'm not entirely sure if it was ever actually taken from them, but the machine doesn't keep going, if the machine kept going then international law really wouldn't mean much. The most pwoerful countries can still do horrible things without any reprecussions (i.e. Iraq war), but even they can't literally take over other countries anymore, not that they'd want to, colonising land has gone out of fashion, you don't need to control a country militarily these days as long as you control them economically, globalisation at it's finest.
"marks around "their land"."
I saw them, and i understood what you were saying originally, my point is simple, the land that is legally their's is "their" land, the land they occupy is not "their" land, no debate, no discussion, it's been adjudicated upon. Isreal exists, but it needs to return to it's pre-1967 borders.
Arab nations dispute Israeli government; Egyptian president Nasser called for it's destruction in the early 1960's. Israel defends it's country from Arabian terrorists.
One of them is in breach of international law for stealing land, creating a racist apartheid regime, and generally behaving like a rogue state, but we're not allowed to say that cause they haven't been labelled part of the axis of evil by the US.
Israel does not kill civilians, as the PLO did during the Munich summer Olympics in 1972 or invade countries that are not posing immediate threats to National security (as Lebanese, Palestinean and Egyptian forces have). Even though Israel may be taking land from other nations, they are not murdering or torturing civilians. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion - sounds like Palestine.
Therefore, the true "terrorists" are the Arabs. Arabians kill cvilians, Israel simply extends it's boundaries and defends itself.
Thats not true, the peaceful settlement to the Palestian question is a resolution voted on every year in the UN, every year the results is the same, the wolrd on one side, Isreal and the US on the other.
"Egyptian president Nasser called for it's destruction in the early 1960's"
Isreal was a twelve year old colony then, what is your point? If Russia decided they were going to establish a colony in your backyard I'm sure your government would object.
"Israel defends it's country from Arabian terrorists."
You seem completely (maybe willfully) oblivious to the reality of the situation, you speak of Isreal like it has defined borders, it does not, it is expanding it's territory illegally by forced evictions, killing, establishing of selltlements etc.
"Israel does not kill civilians,"
This is the biggest lie ever fabricated by the mighty Isreali propaganda machine, even if you don't accept a single thing i tell you this is one aspect you should research, Isreal kills civilians regularly, in Gaza in 2009 they massacred 1400 people of which 1200 were civilians, and 400 were children.
"as the PLO did during the Munich summer Olympics in 1972"
What do you think you're proving by bringing up this event?
"invade countries that are not posing immediate threats to National security ("
I don't know if there's really a point in continuing this debate.
"Even though Israel may be taking land from other nations, they are not murdering or torturing civilians."
No thats exactly what they are doing, you've simply been fed a whole load of lies, and you seemed to have swallowed them willingly.
"sounds like Palestine."
My God, such ignorance.
"Therefore, the true "terrorists" are the Arabs."
Of course they are.
"Israel simply extends it's boundaries and defends itself."
Can you not see what is wrong with this statement? I mean I'm sure Hitler would have preferred to have accomplished his aims peacefully if he could've, after all he was just expanding his boundaries and defending himself wherever he encountered resistance.
Old debate, but still relevant. Israel, marches in to Palestine, killing hundreds of thousands, turning tens of millions in to refugees, stealing land from them, taking all Palestinians rights from them, beating up children and throwing them in to jail because they were protesting over the arrest of their parents and are now living on the streets, e.t.c. If you ask me Palestine has every right to demand Israel it's land back. or at least to stop building more settlements. Fucking Israel I mean come on. What, are we meant to pity them now because the Palestinians dare retaliate against their oppressors? Hell no. Israel invades Palestine, because apparently it's their 'right'. I mean don''t even bother trying to talk about people's 'rights' Israel, from what I've seen you doing to the Palestine's, you don't know how to spell the word 'right'.
Oh but Germany invades Poland because it used to be theirs, and suddenly they are all terrible people we need to go to war with them and they should all go to hell.
What the Israeli's are doing is WRONG Don't just watch CNN, Fox, and other biased-to-bullshit stations, take a look at what is actually going on there for yourself. Palestinians even need fucking permits to go in to their own vegetable fields, and half the time are denied. Look up on the Orange fields in Jaffa.
There are good people in Israel, many of them. What I was saying was a generalisation. I appreciate the fact that some Palestinians are also bombing civilians in Israel, and should not. But really it's either retaliation, or annihilation for them.
In 1947 Israel was divide into two equal parts by the UN, the Israelis rejoiced the Palestinians started a war. The Palestinians wanted it all or nothing! they should get nothing. life is a give and take the jews give and the palestinians take.
I believe that Great Briton controlled the area before the UN divided it up, before that it was the Ottoman Turks. The war started because Muslims hate Jews and want them eradicated from the earth. sounds like you have a dog in this fight.
This is patently false. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. British Mandate for Palestine made a partition plan defining borders, economic sharing, and protections for religious rights. War broke out before the plan could be implemented because the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence which announced the creation of the State of Israel. The Declaration did not define what the borders of the new state would be. They were not interested in sharing from day one. So five Arab armies crossed the borders of what had formerly been Mandated Palestine. So began the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
That never stopped you Israeli's from pushing the Palestinians back and building a wall around them! I don't remember anything being said in the agreement of 1947 about a wall.
please read my arguments to left that i posted that argue against PungSviti. i also wrote a 10 page essay called "PALESTINIAN DILEMMA" it talks about the intolerant arabians and terrorism that stops palestine form coming to peace with israel and how these issues can be solved, if you would like a link or for me to post the essay just ask me.
hei i was interested about that essay, i would like to know more about it because i think you have some great statements and if could give the link it would be awesome
Knowing what Muslims have done in my native country, of course Palestinians are the terrorist. Throughout history, Muslims have known to be conquerors who have no respect for others unless they submit to Islam. Israel can give 99% of the country to Palestinians and Palestinians will still not be satisfied. In addition, commiting suicide acts and then hiding among the civilians shows how Palestinians hope to win against the Israelis. Israel is 100% right. Palestinian terrorists have their entire hope on the world opinion where suicide attacks are seen as a desparate act . When Israel responds, these terrorists never come out in the open and instead decide to hide among the general Palestinian population hoping that the Israeli retaliation will look as if it is an attack on civilians among whom the terrorists hide. Of all the countries with muslim conflicts, Israel does the best job. Why? Because they show that you do not negotiate with terrorists.
Some might say that this has nothing to do with Islamic faith, but it does. Just look at the most conflicts in the world where muslims are involved. Is it really possible that they are always victims? Petrodollars and even heroin trade can buy you media time. While suicide attacks are considered by the leftists as a desparate act, retaliations are considered to be acts of murder. Perhaps if Israel did not retaliate, that will be the end of the only democratic country in that part of the world....and no, Iraq is not a democracy.
So your point if I understand it correctly, which I am not sure about given that you go all over the place and dont touch on many verifiable facts; but your point seems to be that Palestinians (that now occupy about 1/12 of the country and within confined walls); that theyre whole act (so to speak) is a giant PR stunt to get "the world" to feel sorry for them.
I would argue that only looking at the number of casualties in this war on each side would be enough to give the palestinians more pitty points than Isrelians concerning this particular war (not that I want to downplay the grief suffered by the Israelsis in this war or other. We all know they have been trough alot)
I also dont think a nation that is constantly taking more and more land from another nation and killing more people than get killed on their side - can call that act "retaliation" in all respects (altough there are of course alot of situations where an individual soldier from each side retaliates in that micro situtation - I also feel that people argueing about these things ( I name no names) tend to confuse the macro situation with all sorts of micro story´s from the battlefield).
I want to stress again that I am not defending the Muslim religion and never did I imply that all muslims where victims (but it has to be said that the US along with the former USSR and UN has done alot to fuck with their infrastructure the last 60 or so years) .
It seems to me that the more religious a person is (and that counts for muslims, jews and Christians among others) , the more likely that person is to be violent (and/or stupid) and there are study´s to support that.
Also when it comes to fighting religious wars, christians certainly take the cake, but this is getting a bit of topic. I agree with you though that this has to do with faith in some respect, and the intolerance that it breeds in people of faith. (but not just the muslims as the record shows)
Untill you are a non-muslim living among muslims who are a majority, you will not understand.....it is a whole different game.
When non-muslims are killed, it is almost never mentioned.
Christians and Jews are not angels either, but the difference is that christians and jews have joined the 21st century in general, muslims are yet to do it and still live in a 6th century idea of "kill all the infidels". Usual "not all muslims are like that" is not an excuse because that percentage of non-violent muslims is very very very small. The only reason why most of middle east countries are not democratic is exactly because of that: they don't care for rights of others nor those muslims who live there. Those that do care are stoned in the streets. Sounds like a religion of peace only to an idiot.
Again, to conclude, it is a whole different game if you live among them. Look at Egypt, Chechnya, Nigeria, Turkey, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran..or do I need to name any more?...places where muslim majorities treat non-muslim majorities are treated as not even 2nd class citizens, but rather as slaves. Of course, we don't hear much about those innocent civilians because that would make muslims look bad.
If you can find me full proof that mistreatments of non-muslims are not occuring anymore, I would be more than happy to support your claim.
Those people you just named are not Muslim they are imposters covering up their misdeeds by pretending to be Muslim to kill and conquer. The people here in American government and in the UN are all manipulating the media to make things seem worse than what it actually is so they might keep control. It is all politics. The media and America speaks of their faith for freedom, peace and civil repute. That can not be farther from the truth.
yes half the Muslims in the middle east are violent or have violent and anti western or Israeli thoughts. its been like this sense the cold war and it will stay to the Muslims are taught that we are not evil and that the destruction of Israel is not the answer to peace.
"yes half the Muslims in the middle east are violent or have violent and anti western or Israeli thoughts."
So you claim to be able to read thoughts?
Violence is not defined by thoughts, it is defined by actions, and it is just plain silly to assume that half of the Muslim world has partaken in violent acts.
Life won't be better for those who were kicked out of their homes. Your logic is that if we stay silent about genocide and murder everyone will be happy. Disgusting.
Visit Palestine and israel, and you will know which side are the terrorists: Israel. Their army and government are so brutal, that they don't deserve to be called humans. Listen to Lowkey's song 'Free Free Palestine', and listen to Jews and Israelis such as Normal Finkelstein.
please convey my reguards to all those dead palestinians and isralias that are living in hell because of our ineptitude to negotiate peace within our own world. if it were that we were able to be at peace with each other then the world would have no trouble but if we were to sit and listen too the ever grinding troubles of your own mind there would never be peace, yet if we were too provide action on neutrality of mind the world would listen would it not? think about this and then get back too me
first of all ill tell you about all the savage people in palestine and israel they are holy they follow their holy books which is more than we can say for most people they are adament that the other is in the wrong perhaps if we could talk about a way too prevent death insgtead of advocating it in a rou nd about way we could get somewhere
i just don't get how you can think that Israel is in the right by letting 4,019,433 in a country the size of 6,020. they say that the houses are so close together that you can shake hands with the neighbor in the opposite house. plus Palestinians cant build an army because there not rich enough to actually get tanks and armed weapons! its the media that portray the Palestinians as the terrorists because they managed to send a missile into Israel and then the Israelis send over bombs that make craters into the land of the Palestinians. i just don't get how you could say that Israel is right for treating people real LIVING BEINGS lower that they would treat themselves by not letting them out of their land and making them live in poverty. Palestinians are struggling to get water and if they look over the barriers they can see the Israelis using sprinklers and all the water fountains that are there for decoration. and yet you still think that the Israelis are doing the right thing by letting them live in poverty. of course the Palestinians are going to fight back to claim THEIR land because it is THEIR land and the Jews came over and said "A land with no people, for a people with no land" which is total rubbish! imagine there you are sitting in your home with your family and home is a secure place, home is safety and then all of a sudden these people come who barge into your house and shout that this is now not your land and you are forced into a little part of your own country, your not just gonna sit back and say "OK then if that's what you said" your gonna fight back and claim back your land!but obviously that Israelis were right for doing that weren't they(!)
I wish I had some influence on American foreign policy. I do not condone supporting isolation of Palestinians, many of whom were forced out of their homes.
Israelis are perpetuating terrorists; fencing Palestinians in a ghetto with no infrastructure (incongruously imitative of Nazi tactics and) is giving them no hope for the future.
wow if Allah is anything like you said i would rather be an athiest. I think Ignorant is an understament for coolkid, cause everything you say about allah is perverse, staments like that show me how stupid believing in allah makes you look.
The Palestinians want Israel because they hate them. The Israelites believe that God gave them their land, and they will defend it to the death.
The terrorist? The offender. 3,000 years ago, Israel was fighting her neighbors. Now, everybody is ganging up against them. And you know what, they are still standing proud.
Oh so the Palistinians wanting the land has nothing to do with the fact that they sort of owned the land until 65 years ago and are now forced to live in confinement by physcial walls withiin 1/12 of the country (look at a map) ?
If I believe God gave me california, can I take it?
Who everybody is against Isreal? From what I can gather Isreal has very strong support and lobby groups within the US and in Europe they have a strong support (altough not as strong as in the US) at least in the country´s that I know of.
And about standing proud: not much wrong with taking pride in your heritage, (although in my personal opinion it can only lead to xenophobia) but taking pride in yourself and taking land from others are two different things and on the opposite side of the moral scale.
First off no you can't take California. Second Israel built the Palestinians housing complexes for them to live and they are empty, so don't defend them. They live in 1/12 of the country because they are Jew haters and refuse live with Jewish people.
Yes I do believe that the wall around Palestine was built by the Palestinians. They are Jew haters and i think they would go to extreme lengths to keep the Israel's out.
Oh and you, you total bastard! Israel fucking evicted the Palestinians from their homes and moved in to them. half the time they evicted the Palestinians, and left the houses as they were. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE EMPTY!
They live in such a small proportion of, THEIR country because Israel is constantly building more settlements, INVADING THE PALESTINIANS LAND. I would fucking refuse to live with Jewish people or any other people if they came to my country, kicked the majority of the people out, and made life hell for those who were left.
first of all palestine never owned anything ever, there just a groupn of savvage people that lived in Isreal because nnone of there fellow arabic nations want nothing to do with them, because there such a disgusting horrible savage race?
