NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

 reds8n wrote:
I'll say again :

so where are they going to put them then ? Is there some vast and currently unoccupied area -- with full amenities -- just waiting for a displaced ?????? people ?

There's not like an abandoned city there just waiting for inhabitants.

It''ll be in camps.

 reds8n wrote:
Actually it's "if" they can leave. Otherwise it's all gloves are off, in the area then you're a target.

 reds8n wrote:
, No, refugee camps are set up to receive those who are displaced by conflict, drought or perhaps have fled an area to seek better employment opportunities.

 reds8n wrote:
Concentration, or internment camps if you prefer " The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as suspect."
seems to fit the bill.

 reds8n wrote:
And note that these would be camps ran by the Govt. which has the aforementioned members therein which are calling for the deaths of Palestinian mothers.

Would you walk off quietly with them then ?

 reds8n wrote:
One would suggest that history shows that groups that do so rarely do well.

 reds8n wrote:
Except the for the untold numbers of those who'd be left behind.

I'm sure it'd be dead easy to move the best part of 2 million people around that region.

Piece of cake.

 reds8n wrote:
Not at all.

I do not think it at all plausible or even in the realms of sanity that Israel believes in a 1000 year Reich, Aryan supremacy or that Jewish people are subhuman.

It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

 reds8n wrote:
Well for starters suggesting forcing the best part of 1.8 million people into camps and then .......

 reds8n wrote:

I should add that the above article was written by Moshe Feiglin, a hardline extremist whose views are basically repackaged Meir Kahane slogans. He's pretty much the Israeli equivalent of Ann Coulter, and a big name in the settler community. His views do not even come close to approximating the views of most Israelis.

That's somewhat reassuring.

.. about Israel anyway, is soemwhat horrific with regards to human nature perhaps but that's a whole other thread.

I just worry that -- whilst it's obviously never been flowers and polite applause -- this sort of rhetoric appears to be gaining a lot more traction and even viewed as not being that ridiculous.

Which -- and it's very limited -- isn't the Israel I know/remember.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

Citation needed on that one.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

To play devil's advocate...

So are you saying it's impossible to be against a particular political philosophy without being against a particular set of people? Is the state of Israel synonymous with the entirety of Judaism?

For instance, if one were against the Reconquista movement to reclaim the western US advocated by some in Mexico, would that make one an anti-Mexican? If one is against the establishment of the Islamic State's caliphate, does that make one anti-muslim?

Or is it possible that political movements and states are not necessarily the same thing as the people they originate from?

 reds8n wrote:
that the other, mainly Islamic, nations in that area are not exactly falling over to help their brethren. As per usual.

The often reviled ideology that gave rise to Israel has been an astonishing historical success.

They come from every corner of the country—investment bankers, farmers, computer geeks, jazz drummers, botany professors, car mechanics—leaving their jobs and their families. They put on uniforms that are invariably too tight or too baggy, sign out their gear and guns. Then, scrambling onto military vehicles, 70,000 reservists—women and men—join the young conscripts of what is proportionally the world's largest citizen army. They all know that some of them will return maimed or not at all. And yet, without hesitation or (for the most part) complaint, proudly responding to the call-up, Israelis stand ready to defend their nation. They risk their lives for an idea.

The idea is Zionism. It is the belief that the Jewish people should have their own sovereign state in the Land of Israel. Though founded less than 150 years ago, the Zionist movement sprung from a 4,000-year-long bond between the Jewish people and its historic homeland, an attachment sustained throughout 20 centuries of exile. This is why Zionism achieved its goals and remains relevant and rigorous today. It is why citizens of Israel—the state that Zionism created—willingly take up arms. They believe their idea is worth fighting for.

Yet Zionism, arguably more than any other contemporary ideology, is demonized. "All Zionists are legitimate targets everywhere in the world!" declared a banner recently paraded by anti-Israel protesters in Denmark. "Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances," warned a sign in the window of a Belgian cafe. A Jewish demonstrator in Iceland was accosted and told, "You Zionist pig, I'm going to behead you."

In certain academic and media circles, Zionism is synonymous with colonialism and imperialism. Critics on the radical right and left have likened it to racism or, worse, Nazism. And that is in the West. In the Middle East, Zionism is the ultimate abomination—the product of a Holocaust that many in the region deny ever happened while maintaining nevertheless that the Zionists deserved it.

What is it about Zionism that elicits such loathing? After all, the longing of a dispersed people for a state of their own cannot possibly be so repugnant, especially after that people endured centuries of massacres and expulsions, culminating in history's largest mass murder. Perhaps revulsion toward Zionism stems from its unusual blend of national identity, religion and loyalty to a land. Japan offers the closest parallel, but despite its rapacious past, Japanese nationalism doesn't evoke the abhorrence aroused by Zionism.

Clearly anti-Semitism, of both the European and Muslim varieties, plays a role. Cabals, money grubbing, plots to take over the world and murder babies—all the libels historically leveled at Jews are regularly hurled at Zionists. And like the anti-Semitic capitalists who saw all Jews as communists and the communists who painted capitalism as inherently Jewish, the opponents of Zionism portray it as the abominable Other.

But not all of Zionism's critics are bigoted, and not a few of them are Jewish. For a growing number of progressive Jews, Zionism is too militantly nationalist, while for many ultra-Orthodox Jews, the movement is insufficiently pious—even heretical. How can an idea so universally reviled retain its legitimacy, much less lay claim to success?

The answer is simple: Zionism worked. The chances were infinitesimal that a scattered national group could be assembled from some 70 countries into a sliver-sized territory shorn of resources and rich in adversaries and somehow survive, much less prosper. The odds that those immigrants would forge a national identity capable of producing a vibrant literature, pace-setting arts and six of the world's leading universities approximated zero.

Elsewhere in the world, indigenous languages are dying out, forests are being decimated, and the populations of industrialized nations are plummeting. Yet Zionism revived the Hebrew language, which is now more widely spoken than Danish and Finnish and will soon surpass Swedish. Zionist organizations planted hundreds of forests, enabling the land of Israel to enter the 21st century with more trees than it had at the end of the 19th. And the family values that Zionism fostered have produced the fastest natural growth rate in the modernized world and history's largest Jewish community. The average secular couple in Israel has at least three children, each a reaffirmation of confidence in Zionism's future.

Indeed, by just about any international criteria, Israel is not only successful but flourishing. The population is annually rated among the happiest, healthiest and most educated in the world. Life expectancy in Israel, reflecting its superb universal health-care system, significantly exceeds America's and that of most European countries. Unemployment is low, the economy robust. A global leader in innovation, Israel is home to R&D centers of some 300 high-tech companies, including Apple, Intel and Motorola. The beaches are teeming, the rock music is awesome, and the food is off the Zagat charts.

The democratic ideals integral to Zionist thought have withstood pressures that have precipitated coups and revolutions in numerous other nations. Today, Israel is one of the few states—along with Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.—that has never known a second of nondemocratic governance.

These accomplishments would be sufficiently astonishing if attained in North America or Northern Europe. But Zionism has prospered in the supremely inhospitable—indeed, lethal—environment of the Middle East. Two hours' drive east of the bustling nightclubs of Tel Aviv—less than the distance between New York and Philadelphia—is Jordan, home to more than a half million refugees from Syria's civil war. Traveling north from Tel Aviv for four hours would bring that driver to war-ravaged Damascus or, heading east, to the carnage in western Iraq. Turning south, in the time it takes to reach San Francisco from Los Angeles, the traveler would find himself in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

In a region reeling with ethnic strife and religious bloodshed, Zionism has engendered a multiethnic, multiracial and religiously diverse society. Arabs serve in the Israel Defense Forces, in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. While Christian communities of the Middle East are steadily eradicated, Israel's continues to grow. Israeli Arab Christians are, in fact, on average better educated and more affluent than Israeli Jews.

In view of these monumental achievements, one might think that Zionism would be admired rather than deplored. But Zionism stands accused of thwarting the national aspirations of Palestine's indigenous inhabitants, of oppressing and dispossessing them.

Never mind that the Jews were natives of the land—its Arabic place names reveal Hebrew palimpsests—millennia before the Palestinians or the rise of Palestinian nationalism. Never mind that in 1937, 1947, 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians received offers to divide the land and rejected them, usually with violence. And never mind that the majority of Zionism's adherents today still stand ready to share their patrimony in return for recognition of Jewish statehood and peace.

The response to date has been, at best, a refusal to remain at the negotiating table or, at worst, war. But Israelis refuse to relinquish the hope of resuming negotiations with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. To live in peace and security with our Palestinian neighbors remains the Zionist dream.

Still, for all of its triumphs, its resilience and openness to peace, Zionism fell short of some of its original goals. The agrarian, egalitarian society created by Zionist pioneers has been replaced by a dynamic, largely capitalist economy with yawning gaps between rich and poor. Mostly secular at its inception, Zionism has also spawned a rapidly expanding religious sector, some elements of which eschew the Jewish state.

About a fifth of Israel's population is non-Jewish, and though some communities (such as the Druse) are intensely patriotic and often serve in the army, others are much less so, and some even call for Israel's dissolution. And there is the issue of Judea and Samaria—what most of the world calls the West Bank—an area twice used to launch wars of national destruction against Israel but which, since its capture in 1967, has proved painfully divisive.

Many Zionists insist that these territories represent the cradle of Jewish civilization and must, by right, be settled. But others warn that continued rule over the West Bank's Palestinian population erodes Israel's moral foundation and will eventually force it to choose between being Jewish and remaining democratic.

Yet the most searing of Zionism's unfulfilled visions was that of a state in which Jews could be free from the fear of annihilation. The army imagined by Theodor Herzl, Zionism's founding father, marched in parades and saluted flag-waving crowds. The Israel Defense Forces, by contrast, with no time for marching, much less saluting, has remained in active combat mode since its founding in 1948. With the exception of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the ideological forbear of today's Likud Party, none of Zionism's early thinkers anticipated circumstances in which Jews would be permanently at arms. Few envisaged a state that would face multiple existential threats on a daily basis just because it is Jewish.

Confronted with such monumental threats, Israelis might be expected to flee abroad and prospective immigrants discouraged. But Israel has one of the lower emigration rates among developed countries while Jews continue to make aliyah—literally, in Hebrew, "to ascend"—to Israel. Surveys show that Israelis remain stubbornly optimistic about their country's future. And Jews keep on arriving, especially from Europe, where their security is swiftly eroding. Last week, thousands of Parisians went on an anti-Semitic rant, looting Jewish shops and attempting to ransack synagogues.

American Jews face no comparable threat, and yet numbers of them continue to make aliyah. They come not in search of refuge but to take up the Zionist challenge—to be, as the Israeli national anthem pledges, "a free people in our land, the Land of Zion and Jerusalem." American Jews have held every high office, from prime minister to Supreme Court chief justice to head of Israel's equivalent of the Fed, and are disproportionately prominent in Israel's civil society.

Hundreds of young Americans serve as "Lone Soldiers," without families in the country, and volunteer for front-line combat units. One of them, Max Steinberg from Los Angeles, fell in the first days of the current Gaza fighting. His funeral, on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, was attended by 30,000 people, most of them strangers, who came out of respect for this intrepid and selfless Zionist.

I also paid my respects to Max, whose Zionist journey was much like mine. After working on a kibbutz—a communal farm—I made aliyah and trained as a paratrooper. I participated in several wars, and my children have served as well, sometimes in battle. Our family has taken shelter from Iraqi Scuds and Hamas M-75s, and a suicide bomber killed one of our closest relatives.

Despite these trials, my Zionist life has been immensely fulfilling. And the reason wasn't Zionism's successes—not the Nobel Prizes gleaned by Israeli scholars, not the Israeli cures for chronic diseases or the breakthroughs in alternative energy. The reason—paradoxically, perhaps—was Zionism's failures.

Failure is the price of sovereignty. Statehood means making hard and often agonizing choices—whether to attack Hamas in Palestinian neighborhoods, for example, or to suffer rocket strikes on our own territory. It requires reconciling our desire to be enlightened with our longing to remain alive. Most onerously, sovereignty involves assuming responsibility. Zionism, in my definition, means Jewish responsibility. It means taking responsibility for our infrastructure, our defense, our society and the soul of our state. It is easy to claim responsibility for victories; setbacks are far harder to embrace.

But that is precisely the lure of Zionism. Growing up in America, I felt grateful to be born in a time when Jews could assume sovereign responsibilities. Statehood is messy, but I regarded that mess as a blessing denied to my forefathers for 2,000 years. I still feel privileged today, even as Israel grapples with circumstances that are at once perilous, painful and unjust. Fighting terrorists who shoot at us from behind their own children, our children in uniform continue to be killed and wounded while much of the world brands them as war criminals.

Zionism, nevertheless, will prevail. Deriving its energy from a people that refuses to disappear and its ethos from historically tested ideas, the Zionist project will thrive. We will be vilified, we will find ourselves increasingly alone, but we will defend the homes that Zionism inspired us to build.

The Israeli media have just reported the call-up of an additional 16,000 reservists. Even as I write, they too are mobilizing for active duty—aware of the dangers, grateful for the honor and ready to bear responsibility.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You do know that the definition you put forward actually supports my argument, rather than undermines it

And this definition does not correspond to what is being proposed. The camps are set up to accommodate people who want to leave the conflict zone. Also the camps are being described as set up with full amenities, medical supplies, and aid. Hardly what could be described as harm conditions by any reasonable standard.

Could we get a source please, and one showing that this is the sentiments of a sizable and influential/significant group and not some lone voice or fringe element. Unless you want the UK judged on the basis of individuals such as George Galloway, or Nick Griffin

Is this another Israel=Nazi false equivalence?

1.7 million, so that is some significant rounding up. If a neutral third party assisted with the evacuation and running the camps that would help alleviate a lot of the distrust

[qu
Good thing I haven't done that then. Even if I had it is still not as lazy as taking isolated examples (two idiots on Twitter), or taking statements out of context, or grossly distorting facts (like claiming a well set up humane refugee camp is a concentration camp)

[
Firing hundreds of rockets at Israel isn't too far

, but setting up refugee camps to minimize civilian casualties is?

It isn't gaining traction

that would make it a mainstream view. You know this is noise being made by a vocal minority on the fringes, yet instead of giving it such context you're equating this with mainstream sentiment in Israel. You are legitimizing this point of view by giving it credibility that it does not have, and distorting the actual mainstream view which makes any long term solution that much harder to obtain

Is this another Israel=Nazi false equivalence?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.

 dæl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.

Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.

Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.

Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.

 Goliath wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

You're right of course; I shall immediately cease any and all criticism of any of Israel's actions.

Their shelling of civilian buildings is entirely justified, and any insinuation to the contrary would rightfully be branded anti-semitism. Any defense of the palestinian populace is defense of a population entirely composed of terrorists, and is also incredibly anti-semitic. I shall also endeavour to stop paying any attention to statements by organisations such as the UN, or by other countries, that Israel's actions amount to war-crimes, as for me to pay them any heed would also be anti-semitic. Hell, when my friend Matt next acts like a dick when he's drunk, I will make sure I don't try to stop him getting violent in any way, as to do so would obviously be anti-semitic.

Seriously though, it's possible to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic, just like it's possible to criticise hamas witthout being islamophobic, or Barack Obama without being racist. To argue to the contrary is really really silly.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It's as intellectually lazy as throwing out accusations of anti semitism against any/all critiques of Israel or jewish folks.

Really? I would have thought that a critique of black folks would be considered racist.

It's amazing, the mental hula hoops people can jump through to claim that you are not anti-semites. It's not Jew-hating, it's Zionist-hating or Israel-hating. They're all the same thing. Over 90% of Jews are Zionists, and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. End of story.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.

Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.

Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.

 dæl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.

So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...

 Goliath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders and peace treaties with a number of its neighbors.

Well perhaps somebody should remind them where their "well defined borders" actually are and they can withdraw their illegal settlements from the West Bank.

Maybe someone should remind England it should withdraw from its illegal possessions in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well.

It's funny because there's a scottish referendum going on. Also england didn't start making buildins further and further into the scottish border, then say that the ground the buildings are on is England.

Nice attempt though Fraz!

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.

So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...

wut? When did that happen?

 dæl wrote:


Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.

So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...

wut? When did that happen?

The UN released a report last year, I did in fact make a thread about it at the time. Here is an article on it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The right of a state and people to exist is not a political philosophy in the same way that opposing the war on drugs is a political philosophy. We are talking about a view shared by nearly all Jews in the world - that Israel, the Jewish state, which has existed for over half a century, as a right to exist and that the people who live there have a right to security and safety.

Reconquista is an offensive movement to fundamentally change the United States. Establishing an Islamic caliphate would involve redrawing the map of the Middle East.

Israel already exists, has existed for over 60 years, and has well defined borders

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you arguing Israel doesn't exist?

And why doesn't Israel just annex the West Bank and make everyone Israeli citizens?

squidhills wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.

Erm... not to be difficult, but you got peace in Ireland by getting the feth out in 1921.

Or were you referring to Northern Ireland? Because you still don't neccessarily have peace there, either.

whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.

So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...

wut? When did that happen?

The UN released a report last year, I did in fact make a thread about it at the time. Here is an article on it.

So why bring this up now?

We're talking about the conflict occuring in Gaza at the moment.

Besides... why are we taking reports from the HRC when there's obvious ax to grind?

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you arguing Israel doesn't exist?

 dæl wrote:

Because when somebody claims the IDF is the most moral army in the world, it is rather relevant that they torture children.
The "everyone hates Israel" card is rather shaky, do you honestly think that UN, UNICEF and HRC staff all fabricate reports against Israel? Do you imagine this down to systemic antisemitism in those institutions?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel has a right and obligation to protect its citizens. The UN has found, on at least three separate occasions, rockets being stored in its schools. Accusing Israel of war crimes is laughable. I'd like these armchair generals and tactical sages to offer some alternatives to what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth. Show me another military that has shown more restraint given similar daily mortar and rocket fire on its civilians.

Who would you prefer the IDF act like? The Russians? The US military? The Chinese? I'm confused.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you arguing Israel doesn't exist?

Negative, I'm questioning the logic that being anti-zionist is the same as being anti-jewish when being against other such movements isn't synonymous with racism. The distinction then provided being that Israel already exists while the others haven't (and may never) come to fruition, which doesn't make much sense.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you arguing Israel doesn't exist?

And why doesn't Israel just annex the West Bank and make everyone Israeli citizens?

That's the single-state solution. THe problem with that is that then, it's likely that Israel will fail in the "Zionist State"... as the Jewish would likely be outnumbered.

*shrug*

Too bad total war isn't acceptable anymore...

 dæl wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Ireland is a good example though, we got peace there by allowing the population to be prosperous, something Israel should do with Gaza if it actually wants to see an end to hostilities at some point in the future.

Erm... not to be difficult, but you got peace in Ireland by getting the feth out in 1921.

Or were you referring to Northern Ireland? Because you still don't neccessarily have peace there, either.

Was referring to NI post Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to a long standing conflict.

whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
what Israel is currently doing - which is behaving as the most moral army on the face of the earth.

So kidnapping and torturing children is how the "most moral army on the face of the Earth" acts? I would hate to see what everyone else was doing...

wut? When did that happen?

The UN released a report last year, I did in fact make a thread about it at the time. Here is an article on it.

So why bring this up now?

We're talking about the conflict occuring in Gaza at the moment.

Besides... why are we taking reports from the HRC when there's obvious ax to grind?

Because when somebody claims the IDF is the most moral army in the world, it is rather relevant that they torture children.
The "everyone hates Israel" card is rather shaky, do you honestly think that UN, UNICEF and HRC staff all fabricate reports against Israel? Do you imagine this down to systemic antisemitism in those institutions?