Hamas attack on Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.
So a week into the horror and its all about how evil they (ho ever you see as they) are.

Its all whataboutery, over dead people, look our atrocity is greater than yours.

After the Holocaust, the world wanted to make amends to the Jews by giving them a homeland and decided that the Palestinians would pay the price. It was a dreadful mistake and it isn't going to improve. We are still feeling the effects of the Plantation of Ulster 300 years later.
 
cremeegg said:
After the Holocaust, the world wanted to make amends to the Jews by giving them a homeland
Click to expand...

This is utterly incorrect and is typical of the propaganda that sustains Islamic terrorist groups and their antisemitic supporters. The genesis of the state of Israel lies in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 by the League of Nations and the establishment of a group of states, kingdoms, homelands, etc. in its territories. One of these was for a national home for the Jewish people, who along with Christian and pagan tribes were indigenous to the area long before the Arabs arrived in the 7th century. After WW2 the UN, which had taken over the League of Nation’s activities in this area, recommended inter alia the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
It had nothing to do with the program to wipe out European Jewry in WW2. It is highly offensive to suggest that Israel was set up as some sort of consolation prize for Jews who were the victims of one of the most barbaric episodes of man’s inhumanity to man.
cremeegg said:
and decided that the Palestinians would pay the price.
Click to expand...
No. There was no Palestinian state in the Ottoman empire. The UN did recommend an independent Arab state be established along with the Jewish state, but this was frustrated by the Kingdom of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.


cremeegg said:
We are still feeling the effects of the Plantation of Ulster 300 years later.
Click to expand...
Oh, for God’s sake!
 
There's reports of Hamas hitting evacuation convoys in false flag attacks:

There is a distinct possibility that Hamas may have just hit an evacuation route from northern Gaza with a VBIED, framing it as an Israeli air strike.
Of note:30 FPS video and not incoming projectile seen
Explosion appears to be from a gas cylinder

https://twitter.com/x/status/1713201470445609322
 
The state of Israel was founded in 1948.

This was followed by the expulsion of large numbers of inhabitants of the area. Some were killed, some were driven off, some fled, some were ordered out by the Arab leadership, they left their homes through fear of Israel, the people of Gaza are descended from them.
 
Yep, just like many in this country support driving people out of Northern Ireland.
The people of Gaza should be living peacefully in Jordan but the Hashemites didn't let them in.

The Zionist movement started in the mid 19th Century. It, and the influx of money in brought into the region, has been the main driver of population growth in what is now Israel since then. The population of the region in 1882 was around 300,000 people. By 1914 that has doubled and by 1936 is has doubled again. The percentage of the population that was Jewish was, respectively, 8, 8.1 and 28.1 in those years.
Therefore it is inaccurate to suggest that there was a massive and deep rooted Arab/ Muslim population in the region from antiquity which was dispossessed by the Jews.
What is true to say is that between the start of 1947 and end of 1948 over a million Arabs were dispossessed and kicked out of their homes. The causes of those population movements are more complex than the narrative that the big bad Jews kicked out all the peaceful Arab women and Children but it's save to say that neither side behaved well.
 
While I might put more emphasis on some points, (settler activity in the West Bank in recent decades, conditions in Gaza), and less on others ( the Zionists brought an influx of money) and I certainly have no idea what on a 'deep-rooted population' means.

This is a reasonable summary of the history.

To me it suggests your opening post in the thread was very one sided.
 
It speaks to the argument that the Jews are interlopers who are dispossessing the indigenous population. That's simple false. It's also false to suggest that the Jews are more entitled to be there. The issue should be framed in the present and not rooted in history or religion as claims of righteousness based on such claims give licence to commit the most appalling acts of cruelty and barbarity.
 
Purple said:
The issue should be framed in the present and not rooted in history or religion as claims of righteousness based on such claims give licence to commit the most appalling acts of cruelty and barbarity.
Click to expand...
I would largely agree.

The present seems to me to consist of
  1. Israels illegal occupation of the West Bank, and the violent expansion of the settlements
  2. The horrendous conditions endured by the people living in Gaza, and the lack of any path or even hope for change.

The one historical event that must be included, because it bears directly on the present is

Purple said:
between the start of 1947 and end of 1948 over a million Arabs were dispossessed and kicked out of their homes.
Click to expand...

Focussing on the atrocities of one side or the other, elements on both sides are guilty of the most appalling atrocities, (elements on both sides also demonstrate huge humanity), seems to me to be the wrong focus.
 
cremeegg said:
I would largely agree.
Click to expand...
Good
cremeegg said:
The present seems to me to consist of
  1. Israels illegal occupation of the West Bank, and the violent expansion of the settlements
Click to expand...
The settlements are wrong and illegal. The West Bank and Gaza are not occupied.
cremeegg said:
  1. The horrendous conditions endured by the people living in Gaza, and the lack of any path or even hope for change.
Click to expand...
There was a perfectly clear path, more than a clear path, a solution that was in place. The Palestinians are entirely to blame for its failure.
cremeegg said:
The one historical event that must be included, because it bears directly on the present is
Click to expand...
That would show a very one-eyed bias so no, it would be entirely unfair to include that in isolation.

cremeegg said:
Focussing on the atrocities of one side or the other, elements on both sides are guilty of the most appalling atrocities, (elements on both sides also demonstrate huge humanity), seems to me to be the wrong focus.
Click to expand...
It is the wrong focus. The question is how can they get back to the Camp David structures and the answer to that is that it can only happen after Hamas have been utterly destroyed.
 
Last edited:
cremeegg said:
The state of Israel was founded in 1948.
Click to expand...

As was a group of other states in territories that had previously been part of the Ottoman Empire: Syria 1946; Jordan 1946; Saudi 1948; Iraq 1932; and Lebanon 1943. Saying that after the Holocaust, the world wanted to make amends to the Jews by giving them a homeland, apart from being factually incorrect, is more in keeping with the international campaign to delegitimize Israel by falsely asserting that it is somehow an alien entity in the Arab Middle East.


Yes. Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours, and the West Bank, allocated by the UN as the territory of an independent Arab State was annexed by Jordan, while Egypt grabbed the Gaza Strip.
 
Last edited:
The pro-Palestinian people have been busy on Wikipedia.

The UN have a different view;
In 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and troops from Gaza while retaining control over its borders, seashore and airspace. Following Palestinian legislative elections of 2006, the Quartet conditioned assistance to the PA on its commitment to nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. After an armed takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, Israel imposed a blockade. The Annapolis process of 2007-2008 failed to yield a permanent status agreement. Escalating rocket fire and air strikes in late 2008 culminated in Israeli ground operation “Cast Lead” in Gaza.
Source

There aren't good guys and bad guys in this conflict, there's the bad guys and the other bad guys.
 
Wiki agree with that in respect to Gaza. Are you saying they are wrong about the West Bank being under Israeli occupation?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Wiki agree with that in respect to Gaza. Are you saying they are wrong about the West Bank being under Israeli occupation?
Click to expand...
It's under Israeli Military occupation but it is largely run by the Palestinian Authority. Islam is the official religion, the Basic Law, which calls for the respect of all religions, recognises that Sharia should be the source of most laws, Islamic Institutions and Mosques are given Government Funding. It's certainly not independent of Israel and won't be for the foreseeable future.
 
Purple said:
There aren't good guys and bad guys in this conflict, there's the bad guys and the other bad guys.
Click to expand...
And a few million innocent souls caught in the middle of it all...

I know you're not a fan but fair play to Michael D for speaking out against Von Der Leyen and also credit to Leo and Micheal Martin for their public views. We need more EU countries to follow their lead now.
 
I was appalled by Mickie D's grossly hypocritical anti-Israeli comments. His long history of anti-Israeli rhetoric while he kisses the backsides of terrorists, murderers and dictators tells me that his selectivism is based on a bias towards people of that faith and a childish dislike of anyone that America is friends with.

Once again he has shown utter contempt for his office and our constitution by making blatantly political comments. I think my opinions on Sinn Fein are obvious but I'd rather see Gerry Adams President than Mickie D. I think he's a loathsome person.
 
Do you think he was wrong to call out von Der Leyen for speaking on behalf of the EU in her visit and not including any call for Israel's retaliation to conform with international law? I certainly don't think he was. I also think the Taoiseach and Tanaiste were equally right in calling for Israel to conform with international law.
 
Last edited:
I think that if such a rebuke from a country which is neutral in the face of any and all evils was appropriate then it should come from the Taoiseach or Tánaiste. It is completely inappropriate for our President to engage in such a blatantly political act. He has, once again, trampled all over the constitutional function and impartiality of his office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register