Israel under attack

[ellal]

maybe they should have thought of that before they invaded their militarily more powerful neighbour. Perhaps its time for unconditional surrender.

'Invaded' is a subjective term when applied to that region...

What about when the more powerful neighbour invades your land and illegally annexes it?

Linky Linky

'Unconditional Surrender' will never be an option...

How about unconditional withdrawal to the 1967 borders?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Perhaps its time for unconditional surrender.

Because they feel it's better to die on their feet, than live on their knees.

They've been under military occupation and blockade for decades.
Not to mention the ongoing apartheid, with its accompanying discrimination.

 

[fillyboy]

They've been under military occupation and blockade for decades.
Not to mention the ongoing apartheid, with its accompanying discrimination.

Arab countries have been invading Israel for decades. They fight back and we see discrimination against Jews all over world.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Arab countries have been invading Israel for decades.

Only since the annexation of Palestine by Israel.

They fight back and we see discrimination against Jews all over world.

Many different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc suffer discrimination all over the world. It's not only Jews suffering discrimination.
Palestinians are now suffering discrimination and have been for decades, at the hands of the Israelis.
But when they fight back, Israel, USA and UK designate them as terrrorists, to justify their conduct towards them.

 

[fillyboy]

Many different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc suffer discrimination all over the world. It's not only Jews suffering discrimination.
Palestinians are now suffering discrimination and have been for decades, at the hands of the Israelis.
But when they fight back, Israel, USA and UK designate them as terrrorists, to justify their conduct towards them.

They are terrorists.

 

[Roy Bloom]

They are terrorists.

Only as designated by Israel, USA, UK and a handful of other western countries.

'Terrorist' labelling is a political ploy to justify the conduct employed against the adversary.
It's only intention, and purpose is to sway public opinion.

Can you explain why the designation of the Mau mau waas changed from 'terrorist' to 'freedom fighter' by the UK, and reparation of £20M was paid to the survivors?

Can you explain why the USA did not designate the IRA as terrorist?

Can you explain why the French resistance were not designated as terrorists?

The same effect is used to invent terms for the enemy in war.

Demonizing the enemy, demonization of the enemy or dehumanization of the enemy[1] is a propaganda technique which promotes an idea about the enemy being a threatening, evil aggressor with only destructive objectives.[2] Demonization aims to inspire hatred toward an enemy, rendering the enemy more easily hurt while preserving and mobilizing allies and demoralizing the enemy.[3]

Demonizing the enemy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brigadier]

The obvious difference is that Londoners would have numerous routes to escape any bombing. Whereas Gazans have no exit route, and are bombed in the supposedly designated "safe zones", and on the supposedly "safe routes".

In addition Gazans know from their own experience that any voluntary leaving of their homes will invariably be denied a right of return, if there's anything to return to.

The "obvious difference" is that you keep altering your position, as your previous one is dismantled.

You started off with "Hamas have to be embedded; there's no room elsewhere!"
Once it's been shown that Gaza is not the equivalent of a rush-hour train carriage in India, you go off on another tangent.

 

[ellal]

They are terrorists.

Do you agree/disagree that the Irgun/Lohamey Heruth/Stern gang were also terrorists?

 

[fillyboy]

Do you agree/disagree that the Irgun/Lohamey Heruth/Stern gang were also terrorists?

Yes. And....., the UN settled all this in 1947, the arabs were offered a generous amount of land, far more than the 1967 borders would.
The arabs refused it, they want it all and the Jews driven into the sea.

 

[ellal]

Yes. And....., the UN settled all this in 1947, the arabs were offered a generous amount of land, far more than the 1967 borders would.
The arabs refused it, they want it all and the Jews driven into the sea.

Oh dear...

You show your racism yet again!

And ignorance!

You admit that the founders of Israel were terrorists but now condemn Hamas for doing the same to try and keep hold of the land that they are left with

The UN has received more resolutions against Israel than all other nations combined...

Care to then tell us how they 'settled this' in 1947?

 

[Roy Bloom]

The "obvious difference" is that you keep altering your position, as your previous one is dismantled.

You started off with "Hamas have to be embedded; there's no room elsewhere!"
Once it's been shown that Gaza is not the equivalent of a rush-hour train carriage in India, you go off on another tangent.

A. I'm not altering my position, I'm adding increasing arguments as to why Hamas can't do anything but fight from within civilian populations.
The argument about Hamas being embedded in civilian populations is merely added to justifuy the destruction of whole regions of people's homes and the killing of civilians.
B. My argument is still: Hamas can't do anyhting else but fight from within civilian populations, because there is no room anywhere else.
Where would you suggest they fight from, the beaches, or the fields under the border wall, which is monitored with automatic-operated machine guns?
C. Gaza is one of the most populated areas on earth, and they have no exit route open to them. They can't fight any other way, than from within civilian populations.
Or perhaps Hamas should evacuate the cities the hospitals and the refugee camp, so that civilians are not caught up in the fighting?
That won't work, the civilians sometimes refuse to or are unable to leave.
Or perhaps they coul;d pop down to the local park and set up camp there. Oh there aren't any parks.
D. An Indian rail carriage is not a measure of population density.
E. If you think that you have dismantled my argument by comparing the population density of Gaza with London, I see that as reinforcing my argument, not dismantling it.
I want you to dismantle that motorcar, Brigadier, so you place another car by the side of it, and declare, "job done".

What would you say to the British army, if some chief told them to only fight from open areas, where they can be seen and bombed without consequences. "Don't hide behind that wall, soldier, stand up and fight so you can be seen (and killed)".


Or perhaps UK, et al should stop using submarines for covert atatcks? Or stop using spies embedded within civilians areas dressed up as civilians.

You do talk some stupid nonsense sometimes.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Yes. And....., the UN settled all this in 1947, the arabs were offered a generous amount of land, far more than the 1967 borders would.
The arabs refused it, they want it all and the Jews driven into the sea.

It was grossly unfair to the Palestinians. There were about three times more Palestinians to Jews, but the Jews were given over 50% of the land.

 

[fillyboy]

What would you say to the British army, if some chief told them to only fight from open areas, where they can be seen and bombed without consequences. "Don't hide behind that wall, soldier, stand up and fight so you can be seen (and killed)".


Or perhaps UK, et al should stop using submarines for covert atatcks? Or stop using spies embedded within civilians areas dressed up as civilians.

You do talk some stupid nonsense sometimes.

Do Hamas have a uniform?

 

[fillyboy]

It was grossly unfair to the Palestinians. There were about three times more Palestinians to Jews, but the Jews were given over 50% of the land.

It was a lot more land than the 1967 borders that people are demanding.

 

[Brigadier]

A. I'm not altering my position, I'm adding increasing arguments as to why Hamas can't do anything but fight from within civilian populations.
The argument about Hamas being embedded in civilian populations is merely added to justifuy the destruction of whole regions of people's homes and the killing of civilians.
B. My argument is still: Hamas can't do anyhting else but fight from within civilian populations, because there is no room anywhere else.
Where would you suggest they fight from, the beaches, or the fields under the border wall, which is monitored with automatic-operated machine guns?
C. Gaza is one of the most populated areas on earth, and they have no exit route open to them. They can't fight any other way, than from within civilian populations.
Or perhaps Hamas should evacuate the cities the hospitals and the refugee camp, so that civilians are not caught up in the fighting?
That won't work, the civilians sometimes refuse to or are unable to leave.
Or perhaps they coul;d pop down to the local park and set up camp there. Oh there aren't any parks.
D. An Indian rail carriage is not a measure of population density.
E. If you think that you have dismantled my argument by comparing the population density of Gaza with London, I see that as reinforcing my argument, not dismantling it.
I want you to dismantle that motorcar, Brigadier, so you place another car by the side of it, and declare, "job done".

What would you say to the British army, if some chief told them to only fight from open areas, where they can be seen and bombed without consequences. "Don't hide behind that wall, soldier, stand up and fight so you can be seen (and killed)".


Or perhaps UK, et al should stop using submarines for covert atatcks? Or stop using spies embedded within civilians areas dressed up as civilians.

You do talk some stupid nonsense sometimes.

You're now dismantling your own arguments, and all within a single post

"There's no room!"

"There's room, but it would be tactically stupid to use it!"

I understand - militarily - why Hamas would want to embed within the Palestinian people, but to dress it up as physically unavoidable is (yet more) bullshoite on your part.