Israel / Gaza / Lebanon / Iran War Thread

[Tony]

51 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

when your debating results to name calling, then you know the argument is lost ...

 

Now I really am confused because you haven't put forward anything to argue with and I am being impeccably polite!

 

Come on BD explain "stolen" please, I'm asking to discuss your argument, not you. Play the ball.

[banjodeano]

Just now, Tony said:

 

Now I really am confused because you haven't put forward anything to argue with and I am being impeccably polite!

 

Come on BD explain "stolen" please, I'm asking to discuss your argument, not you. Play the ball.

erm....i just did on a previous post?

[Tony]

10 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

The land was shared out by the British after the war in 1948, they gave away land that was not theirs to give, if you look at a map from 1948 onwards you can see how Israel has been taking land from the Arabs for decades..

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/11/how-israel-keeps-stealing-palestinian-land

 

 

Sorry, I missed this reply thanks to the cockamamy forum software. Thanks for the response.

 

This is where your history is wrong. The Al Jazeera history in your link is also factually wrong both in word and by omission. You can check this very easily with alternative sources.

 

Your first point:

Britain didn't own the land to give it away to anyone. Up to WW1 there was the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. They were on the losing side in WW1 so afterwards various parts of it were put under various administrations by the League of Nations - a precursor to the United Nations. Britain managed some and France did. You will find both the "British Mandate" and "French Mandate" on your maps. It stretched from the Med' to the Red Sea and Iran. 

 

Your second point:

In 1948 the United Nations set up the modern post-war nations and borders not the British. The UN created modern Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, etc. Gaza is/ was Egypt,  West Bank is/was Jordan.  Golan Heights is/was Syria. There is no nation of "Palestine" and there never has been. Jews accepted the '48 settlement, Arabs rejected the settlement and went to war with Israel. Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights were legitimately annexed through war when Arab nations went to war against Israel and lost.

 

 

 

None of this historic grievance really matters any more though so don't worry about taking the trouble to write a slice and dice rebuttal, Let's get to the heart of the matter:

 

 Jordan and Egypt have washed their hands of the violent "Palestinians", preferring to have cordial relations with Israel these days and no body credible thinks that having Hamas / Hezbollah or even the PA running the show in their current incarnations is a good thing.  It is geopolitically impractical to wipe Israel from the map and kick Jews out because somebody's great grandad was once a tenant farmer on the banks of the Dead Sea.

 

So it needs a solution fit for the 21st century that doesn't involve antisemitism being given its head. Have you come across one?

 

I'll say that I don't think a two state solution would work now. There are too many terrorists still alive who would make it fail through financial greed, despotism and violence. Maybe three states could work by dividing the antisemites into smaller gangs, but certainly not one state. What are your thoughts?

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Tony said:

 

Now I really am confused because you haven't put forward anything to argue with and I am being impeccably polite!

 

Come on BD explain "stolen" please, I'm asking to discuss your argument, not you. Play the ball.

 

The thing is 'stolen' is the wrong word, it's not disputed either; the state of Israel is being expanded, so the word is stealing.

An agreement was reached on the borders of Israel, but then Israel broke that agreement.

So Israel is the aggressor for breaking the various agreements.

[banjodeano]

51 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

 

Sorry, I missed this reply thanks to the cockamamy forum software. Thanks for the response.

 

This is where your history is wrong. The Al Jazeera history in your link is also factually wrong both in word and by omission. You can check this very easily with alternative sources.

 

Your first point:

Britain didn't own the land to give it away to anyone. Up to WW1 there was the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. They were on the losing side in WW1 so afterwards various parts of it were put under various administrations by the League of Nations - a precursor to the United Nations. Britain managed some and France did. You will find both the "British Mandate" and "French Mandate" on your maps. It stretched from the Med' to the Red Sea and Iran. 

 

Your second point:

In 1948 the United Nations set up the modern post-war nations and borders not the British. The UN created modern Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, etc. Gaza is/ was Egypt,  West Bank is/was Jordan.  Golan Heights is/was Syria. There is no nation of "Palestine" and there never has been. Jews accepted the '48 settlement, Arabs rejected the settlement and went to war with Israel. Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights were legitimately annexed through war when Arab nations went to war against Israel and lost.

 

 

 

None of this historic grievance really matters any more though so don't worry about taking the trouble to write a slice and dice rebuttal, Let's get to the heart of the matter:

 

 Jordan and Egypt have washed their hands of the violent "Palestinians", preferring to have cordial relations with Israel these days and no body credible thinks that having Hamas / Hezbollah or even the PA running the show in their current incarnations is a good thing.  It is geopolitically impractical to wipe Israel from the map and kick Jews out because somebody's great grandad was once a tenant farmer on the banks of the Dead Sea.

 

So it needs a solution fit for the 21st century that doesn't involve antisemitism being given its head. Have you come across one?

 

I'll say that I don't think a two state solution would work now. There are too many terrorists still alive who would make it fail through financial greed, despotism and violence. Maybe three states could work by dividing the antisemites into smaller gangs, but certainly not one state. What are your thoughts?

To be honest, i really cant be bothered to spend time getting into an indepth debate on the matter, multiple sources go into detail equivalent to what The Al Jazeera link states, so you must think they are all factually wrong, so i will not bother posting any more link.. but Tony on Sheffield Forum knows the truth and all the other links are wrong

[cressida]

UK forces were involved in supporting Israel in the conflict in the Middle East after Iran launched a missile attack on the country.

Defence Secretary John Healey, who is Cyprus to visit personnel based on the island, said British forces had "played their part in attempts to prevent further escalation”, without giving more details.

The BBC understands UK fighter jets were involved, as they were in April when Iran last attacked Israel with missiles.

[cressida]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2krlgekpxo

 

link to the above.

[geared]

Everyone is quite afraid that this will descend into full blown warfare, dragging multiple countries in.  Stuff on the scale of the 1948 war or the Six-day war.

 

Civilian deaths will be off the chart if multiple countries get involved.

[Colin Foster]

7 minutes ago, cressida said:

UK forces were involved in supporting Israel in the conflict in the Middle East after Iran launched a missile attack on the country.

Defence Secretary John Healey, who is Cyprus to visit personnel based on the island, said British forces had "played their part in attempts to prevent further escalation”, without giving more details.

The BBC understands UK fighter jets were involved, as they were in April when Iran last attacked Israel with missiles.

Just cannot stay out of things can we?

[Tony]

55 minutes ago, El Cid said:

 

The thing is 'stolen' is the wrong word, it's not disputed either; the state of Israel is being expanded, so the word is stealing.

An agreement was reached on the borders of Israel, but then Israel broke that agreement.

So Israel is the aggressor for breaking the various agreements.

 

Perhaps you didn't read the above? Annexation through war is legitimate, especially when you weren't the instigator.

 

There are certainly other questions on expansion but then you also need to ask what should be handed back to who? No credible arguments exist for giving back Golan to Syria or West Bank to Jordan or Gaza to Egypt or letting Hamas slaughter their way to a two part Palestinian despotic nation. 

 

So where does that leave you?