Indeed. The British guy in that video reminds me of about 60% of the people in a political I did in Uni and also reminds me of why I dropped it. It's actually a half decent discussion, but I hate people who can't at least see two sides of a coin. It's the same worldview I had when I was about 12.

Maybe the Arabs can poach a few victories!

Yep he's a typical nobhead from uni that has tunnel vision.

Enough with the egg and soldiers routine already.

I think everyone involved just needs to get laid.

It's more of a backlash from the view we're initially presented with that Israel is the innocent victim suffering against malicious terrorists to the one with the larger military force continuing to take land. But then the pendulum swings too far the other way and suddenly they're thirsty for the blood of babies against the completely innocent palestinians.

I disagree. I think the best point of the story is that the president gave 99.1% of the land to the Israelis.

More excuses for the Isrealis? I think so. It doesn't give them the right to kill innoccent civilians. Israel doesn't give a **** about Palestinians either.

Gaza is crowded full of residential areas. They couldn't place it away even if they wanted to, nor do they have many spots to place them.

You know uh, I couldn't even assume what their intentions are. I don't know how you can devise plans out of the blue. Please substantiate with some sort of evidence, otherwise there is no point going on with assumptions.

Oh, no, another diaspora wont happen. Israel is most definitely here to stay (although you have to give them credit for finding one of the very few areas in the region without oil!). The solution broadly agreeable is 2 states based on the 1967 borders. Just that Israel haven't helped at all with the settlers in the west bank.

What I meant was in a hypothetical situation where the expanded territories are given back, the Palestinians are provided with a state of their own with Hamas still continuing their "social services", the mullahs in Iran are still in power, their personal agents in Lebanon, Hezbollah, still thereabouts and the frauds from the muslim brotherhood in Egypt - somehow, I don't think the region will be incident free. They may hate each other and that's fine as long as they mind their own business. Add in a possibly nuclear Iran and the Saudis might find common cause with Israel after all! Interesting times...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but if it's land under Palestinian and Hamas authority then it's far more than 1% and more like 30%!

It's not more excuses for the Isrealis, I've more or less made it clear that I don't much care for either side in the conflict. The only sad thing is that innocents as always take the brunt of the pain and suffering.

When you want a firework display at home, you normally do it in your garden and away from small children and flammables. It you don't have a big enough garden then you go and do it somewhere else more suitable, BUT you don't set the display up in your own house!

There was no reason for Hamas to attack Isreal from their own territory, they could've done it from other regions and other locations, Isreal is used to being attacked from outside territories. Hamas knew exactly what they were doing when they started their attacks.

If I was going to prepare an academic paper then I would substantiate my assumptions without a shadow of a doubt, in fact nearly anything can be substantiated in some way or another, it just takes time to fish the stuff out. But this is a banter forum based around a decent level of debate there's usually no real need. But what I will say, that if you read between the lines, it's fairly obvious that Hamas are acting under the blessing and support of Iran who are pushing for a much wider conflict in the region, this is my opinion only of course but I know this is easy to substantiate. Hamas cannot compete with Isreal, they need a wider support base and Iran is that support base.

Glad to see that someone seems to share my view and is looking at the conflict in a much broader sense.

It was sarcasm. Anyway, the 30% Israel pretty much have a lot of control over.

That's what the current concern is about, civilians. Not Hamas.

You could easily say that Hamas were being careless, not devising plans in regards to their location.

Israelis knew what they were doing too.

Israelis are used to bombing Gaza without any consideration of civilians. They could of been a little more thoughtful, direct civilians to a safe place and then did their business. Using bombing is not the only option. What they are doing is pretty careless too.

All I was pointing out is there was no indication of intentions regarding locations. It really has nothing to do with what's practically going on. I'm trying to keep on what's actually happening.

Of course they're always going to be conflicted. The colonising has been progressively going on since the beginning of time.

We've been arguing on many different points from the beginning, for ages. If that doesn't count as a "broader sense" enough then I don't know what does.

Why would a fish be involved, and what would his religion have to do with ... oh wait, I thought that said Christian sturgeon! :laughing:

I didn't make the thread. A moderator took a post I made in some thread and made it a thread. I had no idea, lol.




Christian Sturgeon? Whats that got to do with fish?

Nearly every single conflict in that region, has given very little regard to civilians, so what's happening now is nothing out of the ordinary.

When you want to keep military casualties to a minimum them bombing is ideal. I'm certainly not condoning it just stating the military perspective on these issues.

I don't think that you been debating this from the broader perspective, but more from an "inside looking out" perspective as opposed to my "outside looking in" stance.

BBC News - Israel to build 3,000 settler homes after UN vote

Thoughts?

Essentially, the end goal for each side is to drive/wipe the other out. Peace will never happen.

The only reason Israel doesn't go all out is because of backlash from neutrals and allies. Palestinians don't simply because they can't.

Religion, race, birthright, revenge and grief is more than enough justification for either side to only accept "peace" and ceasefires as stepping stones to their next move.

Continually it's an issue that needs to be addressed. This concerns present reports and news about the civilians.

Israel civilians are not subject to this presently.

It's always been that way. It's a "No regards for anybody else but themselves win" move. That's the reason no one should condone or consider bombing whether it's a military strategy or not. Especially since our present day usually concerns civilian safety worldwide.

It does come from both ends. While Hamas tend to be careless with their strategy, it's why Palestinians are pretty much in a worse position than the Israelis.

General statements about a subject don't really tell you much. Usually a debate refines certain points. But ok, that's cool.

At least the idea now is to set up negotiations. Abass has been pushing it for some time, except Hamas are getting in the way. Now he's trying to reconcile with them, which may be positive thing from this outcome.

Generally most countries want to establish two states. One for Palestine and Israel. This was a harsh reminder that it's not going to be the case, being a "punishment" from Israel. Now the idea is completely dented and Israel have just isolated themselves from support. This might help both sides into a peace treaty. So "destroying each other" isn't really case. The president and Hamas have different plans, so the only way this can happen is to consolidate with each other. The president of Israel and the military are opposed to negotiations right now.

At least Palestinians are supported by the U.S. and UN with this decision.

Well, it's pretty ludicrous to ask somebody to put their friends in harm's way when they could just as easily not do so, even if it puts someone else's friends at risk instead. Which isn't an argument for bombing civilians so much as an argument against war in general. But still, getting mad at the military for considering their lives and the lives of their own soldiers before the lives of "the enemy" is a bit unreasonable. Get mad at the politicians who would rather go to war on a whim when it's politically expedient.

That's a good point. Usually politicians are responsible anyway for military commands.

I think in this case though, Israeli citizens aren't really at risk as much. Hamas' bases considering their locations (the present bombing from the city and condensed environment) places Palestinians at a much higher risk, and I really do think it's a big concern. Considering the usual strategy of Hamas is bombing, I don't really see how casualties would be much different with deployed raids. They'd be dispersed enough to make it inaccurate.

The History of the Middle East Conflict in 11 Minutes - YouTube

Hey guys,

I just got this letter from some of them there ay-rabs. They say thanks, it's really heart warming you care enough to put riled up posts on the webs. Even if you do nothing which could actually help them out, it's vitally important - they say - that you continue with the pointless, moralistic posturing. These here ay-rabs recognize it's the 21st century & we support people by liking the relevant posts on facebook.

^Makes statement on internet about how internet statements are pointless. Meta-irony in full effect.

^^^ but it's consistent with my stance on the ****hole

^Meta-irony continues unabated.

^^^ will it ever end?

^^^ it best continue then

The israelis will never leave, the palestinians will never accept them being there.

The only way they'll reconcile their differences is by having to team up against alien invaders. As in space aliens.

Hopefully the discovery of said aliens would put to death any of the stupid religious theories that half these wars are predicated on.

Religion is just one of the many excuses/reasons for war, remove it and something else replaces it.

Land, resources, political idealism, power, race, profit, politics....

True, but you wouldn't have any of these "Die for Allah!" types

The hell you wouldn't. If they didn't just incorporate the aliens into their pre-existing religion and claim that it had always allowed for them, they'd just make up some new cult claiming that the aliens were here to bring the Apocalypse to humanity or were here to bring the message of God to humanity. It'll never end.

Why does it need to be addressed? It's a conflict and there are usually always more civilian casualties than military, especially when conflicts take place in built up regions. This region is well known for civilians being actively involved in the conflict and taking part in it, they don't usually like to try and stay safe at home.

When military casualties start mounting up, the war starts to become less popular back home (Vietnam and Afghanistan-Russia were perfect examples of this) so the Isrealis are following on from the tried and tested system of minimising their own casualties, which therefore means bombing. If Hamas could do this as effectively then they would as well.


They want to establish two states as they know the two sides could never live together in peace and on equal terms. We're lucky that the eyes of the world are yet again involved and any middle-eastern conflict is high profile. Because if it wasn't, I'm certain those with the biggest weapons would be waging a true campaign of ethnic cleansing.

You appear to be a real problem solver.

True dat.