The entire viewpoint of Israelis on the Middle East conflict- In five minutes.

reply to post by Philstine

So why does your army continue to use white phosphorus in civilian areas which is internationally banned and a war crime?
is your army exempt from international law?
or is it that ignorance of international laws & your neighbors is a requirement in israel?

Do you really think Israel was targeting civilians with the white phosphorus? What makes you think that?

Used once in a war? Against neighborhoods who should not have had any civilians in them? For the purpose of concealing the movement of our forces? From artillery positions, that can't even see their target? Which is completely legal by the way?

And this your only argument against Israel? The white phosphorus?

israel is the most aggressive country against its neighbors in history.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that it's a product of Israeli cruelty or something?

You're just showing your too much a fanatic to have an opinion worth anything.

Can you not even consider there's two sides to this thing? How can you even consider yourself to be an humanitarian, you're just gulping up what they're selling you.

reply to post by bigyin

Well first off I hear a lot of influential people saying Israel is an aparthied state. So that makes me wonder and I want to find out.

You need to find things out for yourself, you can't borrow someone else's opinions, not theirs and not mine. Influential doesn't mean right.

Israel is normal, sometimes there's violence on racial background, sometimes there's racial discrimination, but that's definitely not the norm.

Even in the news report you've shown- First it's a contract given to a contractor that makes projects that are only for religious families, it's discriminatory, not apartheid, even I couldn't buy an apartment there, and second the ruling includes statements that will prevent this kind of discrimination from happening again in the future.

Our courts aren't crazy, our government doesn't have laws discriminating any minority, if anything our laws empower them..

reply to post by Eliad


Your arguments were logical fallacy's that is why I didn't have much trouble tackling them . But now you have brought up some points that do require some thought. I think that in between Truman looking for the Jewish vote when he was facing an up hill battle in the polls and the lingering guilt ,I have already mentioned not much thought went into the consequences of the creation of the state of Israel . In fact my favourite Statesmen George Marshall opposed the creation of the state of Israel . I have yet to track down a biography of Marshall that outlines his exact reasoning .
So the threat of terrorism and the country neighbours and you say the place is safe ?
Sadly Jewish Nazis are not unheard of .

Moving along . As my support for a Kurdish state I would be inclined to say No . I don't follow your argument so the Palestinians should be spread amongst other states but not the Jews ?
Our government ?
I don't know what country you live in or what your on about here .

reply to post by xpert11


I agree to the fact that the Jewish state could, and should have been established on better terms, the British had this habit of treating their colonies as they pleased- Carving up borders, transferring people, and doing basically whatever they wanted. One good example is how they took a Saudi Sheik, a Bedouin, and made him the king of Jordan, out of no where.. This is, by the way, the ruling royal family until this day.

There could have been many ways of making this work without pissing everybody off. The Brits just kind of went about it half assed.. On the one hand they promised to get the Jews a land, on the other hand they didn't really care.

So yes, it wasn't thought out very well, but the reasons behind giving the Jews a land, where ever it might have been, and which ever way- are solid.
Truman had his reasons, Britain had their reasons, but at the end of the day it wasn't guilt that drove the U.N to vote for the establishment of a Jewish nation, it was pity, maybe, it was an understanding that the Jews have a right to claim some kind of land, as they're persecuted everywhere they go, or maybe it was just every nation in the world wanting to get rid of its Jewry, which also shows the Jews needed a place of their own..

But guilt? Why should anyone be guilty?
I guess we can discuss this all day long, in the end we'll never know for sure what drove the majority of the world to vote for a Jewish state, but surely it had more to it than guilt.

In terms of guilt I am referring it into a historical context . Nobody should feel guilty about something that happened before there lifetime . Sure the Zionist movement had existed since before the 20th Century if I recall correctly . The levels of support and political circumstances needed to get the go ahead for the creation of the modern day state of Israel to take place only took place in the after mouth of World War Two. A lot of the support came from the guilt factor . A lot of problems in the Middle East region other then that we have already debated stem from France and Britain backstabbing the Arab nationalist movement after World War One .

Cheers xpert11.

only took place in the after mouth of World War Two.

Really? Like what?

There was the Balfour declaration in 1917, then in 1922 the league of nations adopted that decleration-

The Mandatory (…) will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

The only major event that happened during the war was the "white paper" in 39' that limited Jewish entry to Palestine..

And then after the war was the division, as promised in 1922, and the declaration.

What other major things happened after the war?

A lot of the support came from the guilt factor .

I just don't understand how can you know that? What leads you to this conclusion?

reply to post by Eliad


What in the world are you on about ?
After World War One the British didn't have the political will to messing about in Palestine . The League of Nations was an even bigger fail then the United Nations and that is saying something . The other problem with your argument is that if the political will had existed during that time then the state of Israel would have come into being twenty years earlier . The state of Iraq was created after World War One with the naive Faisal installed as king .

You don't suppose that people guilt from the Holocaust lead to some supporting a Jewish homeland who might not have done so otherwise ?
Your starting to send the debate in a circle .

reply to post by xpert11


You keep focusing on what you think, when you should be focusing on whether or not you have anything to back what you think.

Was it guilt, or was it pity? Was it political pressure, or did it suddenly seem like a necessity? Or was it merely the fact that many of the nations who voted for the state of Israel just wanted to get rid of the Jews in their country?

It was probably a combination of all of the above.

If you think it could only have been guilt than I guess there is no point in arguing..

The facts show that the idea of a Jewish state was supported long before WW2-

So what if the League of Nations collapsed? At the time it represented the Nations of the world, and that's also a fact.

Yes, the holocaust and WW2 gave it a boost, and whatever emotions, feelings or conclusions that came with it.. But the facts show it would have happened sooner or later..
While speculation asserts it was all due to the guilt of leaders of nations who weren't even involved..

So which is it? Fact or speculation?
Can't see my point? Then I guess there's no point in arguing we can just agree to disagree.