Merged threads discussing Israel

[DodgyAgent]

"We will stop murdering your people now if you surrender"

Talk us through the dynamics of that soundbite please.

[MicrosoftBob]

"We will stop murdering your people now if you surrender"

Ok that's Hamas message but explain the relevance ???

[NotAllThere]

"We will stop murdering your people now if you surrender"

Ok that's Hamas message but explain the relevance ???

The relevance is that Unix isn't a knee-jerk" follow the trend" lefty, he's a fully-fledged terrorist apologist.

[DodgyAgent]

The relevance is that Unix isn't a knee-jerk" follow the trend" lefty, he's a fully-fledged terrorist apologist.

He is typical of the self loathing coward who seeks to gain moral virtue from supporting anti western establishments in order to be seen to be aligning himself with the underdog.

[Old Greg]

The relevance is that Unix isn't a knee-jerk" follow the trend" lefty, he's a fully-fledged terrorist apologist.

Do you think the Palestinians have a legal and moral right to violently resist occupation?

[NotAllThere]

Do you think the Palestinians have a legal and moral right to violently resist occupation?

Of course - if it were simply a case of an occupying force. But it isn't.

1) Hamas (and other organisations) consider that the entire territory of Israel is occupied Islamic land. With that mindset, there is only one possible solution for them - the annihilation of Israel as a state. Since Israel has a legal and moral right to exist, one of them is going to have their rights violated. Frankly, I'm more on the side of a reasonably free, democratic nation than on a group seeking to build a Sharia state, so I'd prefer (and think it would be better for the world) that Israel's right to exist wins out.

2) Resistance must remain within international law as well. Terrorist acts are immoral. Missile/rocket attacks under international law, must be targeted at military targets. They must not be indiscriminate. There's arguments that Israel violate that law. There's no argument at all that Hamas et al. violate that law - they do. They don't even pretend to target only military targets; they boast about targetting civilians. They only stopped with the suicide bombings because they felt the rockets were more effective at disrupting normal Israeli life.

Launching attacks from civilian areas is also contrary to international law.

Hamas and their apologists (and ignorant fools in the West) love to bleat about international law and UN resolutions when they're in their favour. but have no compunction to violate international law (and UN resolutions) when they feel it's in their interest.

While I recognise that Israel often acts illegally and oppressively against the Palestinians, I do not think that justifies any and all actions that the Palestinians attempt against Israel.

It is rather more complex than "Palestinian good, Israel baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhd". (or vice versa).

[DodgyAgent]

Do you think the Palestinians have a legal and moral right to violently resist occupation?

If only it were as simple as that but it is not. The Palestinians have launched rockets at the israelis and the Israelis wish to put a stop to it. Their reaction may well include invading gaza in order to put an end to the attacks. trying to take an isolated event out of the context of the whole story is rather a stupid way of trying to understand and deal with the problem.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Of course - if it were simply a case of an occupying force. But it isn't.

1) Hamas (and other organisations) consider that the entire territory of Israel is occupied Islamic land. With that mindset, there is only one possible solution for them - the annihilation of Israel as a state. Since Israel has a legal and moral right to exist, one of them is going to have their rights violated. Frankly, I'm more on the side of a reasonably free, democratic nation than on a group seeking to build a Sharia state, so I'd prefer (and think it would be better for the world) that Israel's right to exist wins out.

2) Resistance must remain within international law as well. Terrorist acts are immoral. Missile/rocket attacks under international law, must be targeted at military targets. They must not be indiscriminate. There's arguments that Israel violate that law. There's no argument at all that Hamas et al. violate that law - they do. They don't even pretend to target only military targets; they boast about targetting civilians. They only stopped with the suicide bombings because they felt the rockets were more effective at disrupting normal Israeli life.

Launching attacks from civilian areas is also contrary to international law.

Hamas and their apologists (and ignorant fools in the West) love to bleat about international law and UN resolutions when they're in their favour. but have no compunction to violate international law (and UN resolutions) when they feel it's in their interest.

While I recognise that Israel often acts illegally and oppressively against the Palestinians, I do not think that justifies any and all actions that the Palestinians attempt against Israel.

It is rather more complex than "Palestinian good, Israel baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhd". (or vice versa).

According to international law, holding land acquired in this way is illegal. However, Israel's response is "so invade.... oh yeah, you tried that, and it didn't work, did it?".

So do you need a number 3 then? I.e. if number 2 is to be upheld, then you need 3) give back the land that was illegally taken?

[DodgyAgent]

So do you need a number 3 then? I.e. if number 2 is to be upheld, then you need 3) give back the land that was illegally taken?

what land was illegally taken?

[Old Greg]

If only it were as simple as that but it is not. The Palestinians have launched rockets at the israelis and the Israelis wish to put a stop to it. Their reaction may well include invading gaza in order to put an end to the attacks. trying to take an isolated event out of the context of the whole story is rather a stupid way of trying to understand and deal with the problem.

The situation is complex as there should certainly be limits to the violent response, but it is a simple principled question. Care to answer?