Confused by Israel Situation

[pkay]

I was talking about us on the forums Muppet

We are debating and speaking on our views and should all acknowledge how shitty it is for all innocent persons and stop scoring it like a game. Read rest of thread for context

[nowaysj]

Caught out again with biased and inflammatory statements, and now the name calling. Classic pkay

[pkay]

nowaysj

[dubfordessert]

whether any particular action in war is unjustified, and whoever "starts" a particular round of hostilities is largely irrelevant not necessarily in itself, but in respect of the more important question of who is the aggressor in a conflict

israel is occupying palestine illegally, it is settling land illegally, it blockades and subjects the people it is occupying to daily humiliation.

israel is the aggressor regardless of whether hamas rockets target civilians or not and regardless of when and how often hamas fires rockets. people always say look at the hamas charter - have a look at the likud charter. they will never recognise a state of palestine, and they will never stop settling the west bank.

[Sexual_Chocolate]

^^ freedom fighter vs terrorist argument that one.

[dubfordessert]

^^ freedom fighter vs terrorist argument that one.

no. like i say, the issue is not whether actions are terrorism, you can perform acts of "terrorism", like hamas are, and not be an aggressor.

in tsarist Russia, when a Tsar was assassinated, was the person who did it a terrorist? yes, by any usual definition of the word. does that mean the Tsarist state was not oppressing those in its territory... no.

it is completely 100% clear who is the aggressor in this conflict.

[dubfordessert]

to claim that hamas rockets justify anything israel is doing is not unlike saying that IRA bombings would - retroactively - justify the UK annexing the republic of ireland, controlling its entire airspace, occupying it militarily and bombing civilians who voted for people it didn't like

in short it is completely untenable and ridiculous

[garethom]

to claim that hamas rockets justify anything israel is doing is not unlike saying that IRA bombings would - retroactively - justify the UK annexing the republic of ireland, controlling its entire airspace, occupying it militarily and bombing civilians who voted for people it didn't like

in short it is completely untenable and ridiculous

Slight difference is that the IRA weren't a political party in charge of an area. If the IRA were in charge of the ROI and did what they did, that very well may have happened.

[dubfordessert]

to claim that hamas rockets justify anything israel is doing is not unlike saying that IRA bombings would - retroactively - justify the UK annexing the republic of ireland, controlling its entire airspace, occupying it militarily and bombing civilians who voted for people it didn't like

in short it is completely untenable and ridiculous

Slight difference is that the IRA weren't a political party in charge of an area. If the IRA were in charge of the ROI and did what they did, that very well may have happened.

hamas are not in power in the west bank and yet israel is still occuppying and settling it.

even when israel deal with fatah, their policy on palestine does not change. they will not recognise the right of the state of palestine to exist, they will not recognise their post-1967 territory is illegal, they will not stick to the oslo accords. in short they do everything that people point to hamas doing and say "they are terrorists, they are genocidal".

the difference is hamas is not occupying israel and has no power beyond the borders it controls

if the united kingdom had a policy of occupying and annexing the republic of ireland you can bet that people in the ROI would be voting for the IRA.

[garethom]

I'm referring purely to what a government were to do IN ONE SITUATION that if an elected party in power in an area were to attack a nation state. I just didn't agree with your IRA example in this situation, that's all.

I'm not picking sides here. I find it hard to justify anything that either side do. Fuck this situation, I'm just gonna pretend it isn't happening.

[dubfordessert]

and before someone misrepresents me... i don't support either hamas or the IRA.

[Sexual_Chocolate]

^^ freedom fighter vs terrorist argument that one.

no. like i say, the issue is not whether actions are terrorism, you can perform acts of "terrorism", like hamas are, and not be an aggressor.

in tsarist Russia, when a Tsar was assassinated, was the person who did it a terrorist? yes, by any usual definition of the word. does that mean the Tsarist state was not oppressing those in its territory... no.

it is completely 100% clear who is the aggressor in this conflict.

yes, to us.

im talking about to the people who actually live there.

[garethom]

and before someone misrepresents me... i don't support either hamas or the IRA.

you obviously hate america and want the terrorists to win

[dubfordessert]

I'm referring purely to what a government were to do IN ONE SITUATION that if an elected party in power in an area were to attack a nation state. I just didn't agree with your IRA example in this situation, that's all.

I'm not picking sides here. I find it hard to justify anything that either side do. Fuck this situation, I'm just gonna pretend it isn't happening.

well, i was going to delete the IRA post tbh but you responded before i could either way, this isn't just about hamas in gaza, it's about the west bank and israeli policy in general. it's not so much elected party in an area attacking a nation state but an elected party in an area attacking a nation state that is occupying that area illegally. that is the point. the operative word in the post was "retroactively" - the occupation precedes the election of terrorists and is unresponsive to the election of non-terrorrists.

[dubfordessert]

^^ freedom fighter vs terrorist argument that one.

no. like i say, the issue is not whether actions are terrorism, you can perform acts of "terrorism", like hamas are, and not be an aggressor.

in tsarist Russia, when a Tsar was assassinated, was the person who did it a terrorist? yes, by any usual definition of the word. does that mean the Tsarist state was not oppressing those in its territory... no.

it is completely 100% clear who is the aggressor in this conflict.

yes, to us.

im talking about to the people who actually live there.

i'm not a moral relativist so i don't think e.g. netanyahu and gilad sharon's views on the issue are equally as valid as anyone else's

[Sexual_Chocolate]

the average Israeli & the average Palestinian

that is the level im talking about

[dubfordessert]

the average Israeli & the average Palestinian

that is the level im talking about

i don't really know what point you're getting at tbh.

[Sexual_Chocolate]

the average Israeli & the average Palestinian

that is the level im talking about

i don't really know what point you're getting at tbh.

im talking about the POV that the average person living in that area has on the situation

(probably shouldve mentioned that in the OP)

i dont think i need to go in any deeper than that tbh.

[dubfordessert]

the average Israeli & the average Palestinian

that is the level im talking about

i don't really know what point you're getting at tbh.

im talking about the POV that the average person living in that area has on the situation

(probably shouldve mentioned that in the OP)

i dont think i need to go in any deeper than that tbh.

and what do the average israeli and average palestinian think and how does that affect my argument that hamas being terrorists doesn't alter the state of power relations in the conflict?

[Sexual_Chocolate]

over-thinking this dfd.