Forums → WEPR → Should Israel Exist

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/25/egypt.gaza.border.crossing/index.html?hpt=T1]

Hey guys, I was just checking CNN when this showed up. I read the article and I immediately became alarmed for not only Israel's safety, but for the Palestinian civilians which have nothing to do with Hamas. If this leads to more rockets being fired into Israel, then they would have no other choice but to launch another invasion, and possibly attack Egypt in order to close the militants off from a weapon supply.

when did anyone ever steal nazi territory?

Israel took land from the English empire who gave it up freely.

It was at this point that Britain felt that Jews felt misplaced in the world, so it gave money to popularize the idea of returning to a long forgotten homeland and THEN carved up a hole for Jewish living.

Er... How much Soviet Armor?

Without Western juice in their economy and military, they were doomed.

Racist and Sexist -- A trademark of the world 200 years ago

It was at this point that Britain felt that Jews felt misplaced in the world, so it gave money to popularize the idea of returning to a long forgotten homeland and THEN carved up a hole for Jewish living.

or the immigration phases that were happening, many of them illegally.

you didn't address the point that the little territory left for Palestinians regardless of if they want more or not is still being encroached upon by Jews with their governments blessing

and your point about what Israel says is moot,i mean look at america, they declared freedom for all people and then became the biggest salve byers in the world

@zakyman i am worried for Palestinians, if Israel invades again it will cause more meaningless violence and indiscriminate killing of
civilians

@master:

watch the documntarys

do not look at this one if you have a weak stomach, alot of the photos could have been staged, but i think the one of the dead child and the dead woman are quite apt


this link is the best one, read what the annalist says half way down, the BBC has no reason to be biased, and nor does the commission that looked into this, it shows that both sides acted horribly, it also threw light onto the fact that Israel repressed any criticism of the war inside their own country, it also shows that the blockade of concrete and building materials is a breach of human rights as it means no one can rebuild after Israeli demolition

you must be very bad at using google

Listen Chicken (or is it read?). Civilians in the GS are killed yes, I know that, and if you read my full post than I said I was worried for the civilians. However, in any war, there will be people who shoot at civilians no matter what they are doing. There are people like that in the IDF, Her Majesty's Armed Forces, and the US Army. You just can't cherry pick facts. The point I am trying to make is that not all soldiers try to kill civilians. Most just do their job and want to get back home like everyone else.

in afghanistan ot iraq there have been cases of soldiers murdering civilians en mass, however these are rare occasions and in neraly all countries see it as in their best interest to examine these crimes and find the truth, however if you read the bb artile these things in the IDF are a lot more common than any other military, and the israeli military and government have both been as uncooperative as possible while investigating these crimes

soory for the DP i dont know whats with your google master as i came up with several thousand pages of results, and when i said bb i meant BBC

this link is the best one, read what the annalist says half way down, the BBC has no reason to be biased, and nor does the commission that looked into this, it shows that both sides acted horribly, it also threw light onto the fact that Israel repressed any criticism of the war inside their own country, it also shows that the blockade of concrete and building materials is a breach of human rights as it means no one can rebuild after Israeli demolitionhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8257301.stm

Goldstone indicated in his Friday essay that had Israel cooperated with him at the time, it could have shown civilians were not deliberately targeted "as a matter of policy".

Israeli military investigations into cases of misconduct later shed light on civilian killings, Goldstone said.

"I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes," Goldstone said.

im not saying that civillians are targeted as a matter of policy, but it is a widespread problem in the IDF, and its also amatter israel seem more eager to cover up than solve, as shown by their refusal to cooperate

the quote does nothing to disprove the report, it doesnt say that their facts were invalid, just that they could not get the israeli side of the story, in most cases i doubt this would have changed the verdict

anyhow at now point have i claimed israel has targeted civilians but they have made no effort to protect them either, which in many ways is also as bad, they have made no effort to not kill civillians just as they have made no effort ot kill them, although its not amtter of policy again it is a widespread problem and many units do seem to target civillians, israel needs to address this problem, but it just doesnt seem to care.....

and it is starting to annoy me that when i make a valid point that no one can make a responds to that it is just ignored, you have not addressed the point about the blockade

you have not addressed the point about the blockade

they have made no effort to protect them either

Example- D-day. it was supposed to show that the defender has the right to take lands from the agressor.

In 1947 Britain gave up on the region and gave the UN the desicion what to do with it.

The former accepted the offer, while the latter started to shoot the jews in the streets.

Most of the jews immigrated into palestine against british interests.

they did this by assuming that the Jews would stay in their given area, and not expand outward into Palestinian land.

Johnny the Camp Councilor (UN): Here, I want to give you this small Dum-Dum lollipop from this big bag of candy because a big meanie was beating you up.
Steve (the Jews): Okay. Thank you so much. It has been very long since I have had a lollipop. (Steve starts eating)
Gary (Arabs): Hey! That's my lollipop! (Starts beating up Steve)
Steve: NO! (Hits Gary smack-dab in the nose, and takes the candy from Gary for attacking him)
Gary: Johnny, Steve stole my candy!

Yes I have! If you would look back a page or two, then you would see I explained that the reason that Israel has a blockade on the GS is because Hamas was smuggling in weapons and materials that could be used to make weapons and bunkers.

D-Day was [I know there were other nations, don't bs here] primarily an AMERICAN Operation, defending FRENCH Lands

the quote does nothing to disprove the report, it doesnt say that their facts were invalid, just that they could not get the israeli side of the story, in most cases i doubt this would have changed the verdict

In his repudiation, Goldstone wrote that the "crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying - its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets." In stark contrast, Goldstone wrote about Israel that during Operation Cast Lead "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

"I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted," wrote Goldstone. How sorely mistaken he was.

and it is starting to annoy me that when i make a valid point that no one can make a responds to that it is just ignored, you have not addressed the point about the blockade