georgenorman
Member
- Country
England
Can anyone provide a translation? I presume you must be an escapee from the 'other place'.
-
Existing user of old message board?
Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.
Israel v Hamas
- Topic starter Forest Hillbilly
- Start date
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
-
England
Hamas are literally bombing their own people and blaming it on Israel and the BBC lap it all up.
We won the cup!
Member
- Country
-
England
You still hung over on a few shandys from saturday george? Stick to lemonade is my advice!
We won the cup!
Member
- Country
-
England
You can"t really believe that rubbish can you? I suppose you dont believe israel bomb hospitals either? If they have nothing to hide, why not let independent journalists in ? They sure arent worried about their safety! Did you believe that the killing of 15 medics in ambulances with red flashing lights , the burying their bodies, with the ambulances, was just a mistake by one general i the field? After deny dey deny any knowledge? I would trust the Israelis as much as i trust hamas , am i allowed to say this i wonder for fear of upsetting anyone?
We won the cup!
Member
- Country
-
England
Probably more likely Manchester!
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
-
England
Hamas has a documented history of using civilian infrastructure like the hospitals and schools. Israel trys to minimise civilian casualties by giving warnings before strikes. Hamas often exploits this to stage propaganda.
There was hospital explosion not long ago and it was blamed on Israel and then the BBC and other lefty outlets lapped it up
but then evidence and intelligence confirmed it was a Palestinian rocket.
Israel seeks to protect its own people and pursue peace against the terrorists Hamas all the while Hamas feeds propaganda and violence against its own people.
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
You said you "would have gone after Hamas". How exactly?
Interesting that you pin the blame on "Binny" and Israel yet nothing about the Nazis of Hamas.
We won the cup!
Member
- Country
-
England
That hospital explosion was initially blamed on Israel but then was on hamas the next day or three, but israel have bombed hospitals ever since, not worrying who they are killing long as they might get a hamas operative, try clearing a whole hospital full of bed ridde patients ion a 10 minute warning, they are either really thick in the idf or dont mind killing kids!
We won the cup!
Member
- Country
-
England
Im just balancing the argument as theres so many pro zionists here and its a chat group, not a echo chamber! Im sure israel have the best technology there is, better to bide time and pick off an enemy with a drone or sniper than just murder any civilian and kid that gets in the way! This is a one sided war as it stands, just continuing to keep binny out of jail, and that starvation thing,,,cant remember where i saw that before!
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
Opposing views are very much welcome. Re "Zionists" I take it you don't think there should be a Jewish state?
No country would respond by picking off any of the thousands of Hamas operatives with drones and snipers in response to Israel's equivalent of 9/11. Even if they did, Hamas deliberately hide amongst the population so it's almost impossible to avoid civilian deaths.
Maybe Hamas shouldn't have started the war by killing Israeli civilians and kids on 10/7 – but no blame for them! They have now ruined any chance of a two-state solution. But they never wanted it anyway.
We won the cup!
Member
- Country
-
England
What do you thikof the west bank settlers who keep stealing land from the palestinians? And the idf firing on a load of diplomats yesterday as they strayed off route? I think the skeletol kids i Gaza has opeed up a few peoples eyes in the world as this week seemed to be a turning point o people speaking up, even our own sir Kier who has a jewish wife and kids, thats saying something, and even president Trumpis losig patience with binny!
Spindle
Member
- Country
-
England
Tbh you just don't seem to understand what they are facing.
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
-
England
The idf has consistently stated that it targets Hamas infrastructure which Hamas deliberately embeds in civilian areas like hospitals and schools.
Hamas uses human shields to maximize civilian casualties to push their propaganda.
The blame for civilian loss is with Hamas and not the idf. They operate under international law and take steps to avoid civilian casualties when possible.
Spindle
Member
- Country
-
England
Except it isn't, remotely. Why don't you calm down instead of getting wrapped up in the dramatics of the claims from "Hamas Healthcare".
Its clear that you know literally nothing about air ordnance that's for sure
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
Everything is Israel's fault, isn't it? You do know that the Palestinians were offered 92% of the West Bank in the last peace deal and they said NO! Why? Because like you, they don't want a Jewish state to sit alongside a Palestinian one.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
I think this is an interesting point you make. If I remember correctly you are referring to the Camp David talks back during the Clinton era. I remember that the reasons given for rejection were water and military related but I wasn't sure as it's so long ago, so I asked Grok and here's what Musk's baby comes up with:
The claim that Palestinians were offered 92% of the West Bank in a peace deal typically refers to the 2000 Camp David Summit, where Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, facilitated by U.S. President Bill Clinton, proposed a framework for a Palestinian state. The exact percentage of the West Bank offered is debated, with figures ranging from 87% to 96% depending on the source, and the proposal included Gaza and parts of East Jerusalem. The Palestinian leadership, led by Yasser Arafat, rejected the offer, and no final agreement was reached. Below, I outline the key reasons for the rejection, addressing your points about water control and the lack of a military, along with other factors, based on available information.
Reasons for Palestinian Rejection
- Territorial Concerns and Fragmentation:
- The proposed Palestinian state was not contiguous. The offer reportedly divided the West Bank into three or four non-contiguous areas, separated by Israeli settlements, roads, and security zones. This would have limited Palestinian sovereignty and control over borders, particularly along the Jordan Valley, where Israel sought to maintain access.
- The percentage of the West Bank offered (often cited as 92%) was contested. Some sources suggest it was closer to 80% when accounting for Israeli-controlled areas, such as settlements and military zones, which would remain under Israeli sovereignty or control.
- Israel’s proposal included retaining control over key areas, including parts of East Jerusalem, which Palestinians envisioned as their capital. The offer for Jerusalem was limited, with Palestinians gaining control over some Arab neighborhoods but not full sovereignty over East Jerusalem or key religious sites like the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount).
- The proposed Palestinian state was not contiguous. The offer reportedly divided the West Bank into three or four non-contiguous areas, separated by Israeli settlements, roads, and security zones. This would have limited Palestinian sovereignty and control over borders, particularly along the Jordan Valley, where Israel sought to maintain access.
- Water Rights and Control:
- You’re correct that water control was a significant issue. Israel sought to maintain control over key water resources in the West Bank, including aquifers, which are critical for both Palestinian and Israeli populations. The Oslo Accords (1990s) had already given Israel control over 80% of the West Bank’s water reserves, leading to disparities in water access (Israelis used about three times as much water per capita as Palestinians).
- Palestinians argued that the peace deal did not adequately address equitable water distribution or allow the Palestinian Authority to develop an independent water infrastructure. For example, the Palestinian Authority was restricted from transporting water between different parts of the West Bank, and many Palestinian communities relied on purchasing water from Israel’s Mekorot company at high costs.
- The lack of control over water resources was seen as undermining the viability of a sovereign Palestinian state, as water is essential for agriculture, industry, and daily life.
- You’re correct that water control was a significant issue. Israel sought to maintain control over key water resources in the West Bank, including aquifers, which are critical for both Palestinian and Israeli populations. The Oslo Accords (1990s) had already given Israel control over 80% of the West Bank’s water reserves, leading to disparities in water access (Israelis used about three times as much water per capita as Palestinians).
- Demilitarized State and Security Restrictions:
- You’re also correct that the proposal required the Palestinian state to be demilitarized. Israel insisted on this to ensure its security, given the proximity of the West Bank to major Israeli population centers. The deal included permanent Israeli military installations in the West Bank, control over Palestinian airspace, and special security arrangements along the Jordan border, effectively annexing additional land.
- Palestinians viewed these conditions as severely limiting their sovereignty. The proposal allowed Israel to invade in cases of vaguely defined “emergencies,” which raised concerns about ongoing Israeli military dominance. The inability to form a military or enter alliances without Israeli permission was seen as reducing the Palestinian state to a semi-autonomous entity rather than a fully sovereign nation.
- You’re also correct that the proposal required the Palestinian state to be demilitarized. Israel insisted on this to ensure its security, given the proximity of the West Bank to major Israeli population centers. The deal included permanent Israeli military installations in the West Bank, control over Palestinian airspace, and special security arrangements along the Jordan border, effectively annexing additional land.
- Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees:
- A major sticking point was the issue of Palestinian refugees and their right of return, a principle enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The Palestinian leadership demanded recognition of this right, which would allow refugees displaced in 1948 and 1967 to return to their homes in what is now Israel. Israel offered a limited return of refugees to the Palestinian state (not Israel) over an extended period, refusing to acknowledge responsibility for the refugee crisis.
- This was a critical issue for Palestinians, as the refugee question is central to their national identity and narrative. The limited offer was seen as insufficient and a denial of justice.
- A major sticking point was the issue of Palestinian refugees and their right of return, a principle enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The Palestinian leadership demanded recognition of this right, which would allow refugees displaced in 1948 and 1967 to return to their homes in what is now Israel. Israel offered a limited return of refugees to the Palestinian state (not Israel) over an extended period, refusing to acknowledge responsibility for the refugee crisis.
- Jerusalem and Religious Sites:
- The status of Jerusalem was a core issue. The proposal offered Palestinians control over some parts of East Jerusalem but maintained Israeli sovereignty over most of the city, including key religious sites like the Haram al-Sharif. Palestinians insisted on full sovereignty over East Jerusalem as their capital, which was non-negotiable for them.
- The divided sovereignty over religious sites (e.g., Palestinians controlling the Haram al-Sharif and Israel controlling the Western Wall) was complex and failed to satisfy Palestinian demands for control over their holy places.
- The status of Jerusalem was a core issue. The proposal offered Palestinians control over some parts of East Jerusalem but maintained Israeli sovereignty over most of the city, including key religious sites like the Haram al-Sharif. Palestinians insisted on full sovereignty over East Jerusalem as their capital, which was non-negotiable for them.
- Demand to End the Conflict:
- Israel required that the agreement be declared the “end of conflict,” meaning Palestinians could not make further claims after signing. This was problematic for Palestinians, who felt the deal did not adequately address their core demands (e.g., full sovereignty, refugee rights, and water control) and would lock them into an unfavorable status quo.
- Israel required that the agreement be declared the “end of conflict,” meaning Palestinians could not make further claims after signing. This was problematic for Palestinians, who felt the deal did not adequately address their core demands (e.g., full sovereignty, refugee rights, and water control) and would lock them into an unfavorable status quo.
- Political and Public Pressure:
- Arafat faced significant domestic pressure. Accepting a deal that compromised on key issues like Jerusalem, refugees, and sovereignty would have been politically disastrous, potentially undermining his leadership and the Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy. Many Palestinians viewed the offer as falling short of international law and UN resolutions (e.g., Resolution 242), which call for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 and a just resolution for refugees.
- Opposition from groups like Hamas, who rejected negotiations with Israel and demanded more comprehensive solutions, further complicated Arafat’s ability to accept the deal.
- Arafat faced significant domestic pressure. Accepting a deal that compromised on key issues like Jerusalem, refugees, and sovereignty would have been politically disastrous, potentially undermining his leadership and the Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy. Many Palestinians viewed the offer as falling short of international law and UN resolutions (e.g., Resolution 242), which call for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 and a just resolution for refugees.
- Israeli Perspective: Israel and its supporters, including some U.S. officials, described the offer as generous, arguing that it provided a viable path to Palestinian statehood (roughly 95% of the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of East Jerusalem). They criticized Arafat for rejecting it without a counteroffer, with some claiming it showed a lack of commitment to peace.
- Palestinian Perspective: Palestinians argued that the offer did not meet their minimum requirements for a viable, sovereign state. The proposed state would lack territorial contiguity, control over water, airspace, and borders, and full sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The restrictions on militarization and the limited resolution of the refugee issue were seen as preserving Israeli dominance rather than establishing equality.
- Debate Over Percentages: The “92%” figure is contested. Some sources claim the actual land offered was less due to Israel’s retention of settlements and security zones. Others argue the offer was closer to 96% with land swaps to compensate for annexed areas. The lack of clarity and maps during negotiations added to the distrust.
- Water Control: Yes, Israel’s control over West Bank water resources was a significant issue. The deal did not grant Palestinians sufficient control over aquifers or the ability to develop independent water infrastructure, perpetuating existing disparities. This was seen as a critical barrier to economic and environmental sustainability for a Palestinian state.
- No Military: Correct, the proposal required a demilitarized Palestinian state with Israeli military installations remaining in the West Bank and control over airspace and borders. This was viewed by Palestinians as undermining their sovereignty and security.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Regardless, I don't think a Palestinian state besides Israel works.
I've said it many times, while I don't think Israel has been honest about this over the years (except its right wing). I think the peace and harmony idealists are very very wrong about its prospects of working.....the Palestinians are far too radicalised and if you give them a state eventually it's just another delay before a war against Israel.....The Arab womb defeats Israel if given the opportunity....just as the foreign womb will, if unchecked, take Europe away from Europeans.
The problem is that this means that you have two competing tribes for the same land and that means one side will be the monster and the other the victim and I think you are seeing the harshness of that reality playing out before your eyes......as you do the lion and its prey.
It doesn't mean we have to celebrate it or support it. It's the consequence of the 1948 decision.....the idealists have massive amounts of blood on their hands as usual.
Sometimes, there is no justice, only justifications with words.....someone's always getting fecked.
I've said it many times, while I don't think Israel has been honest about this over the years (except its right wing). I think the peace and harmony idealists are very very wrong about its prospects of working.....the Palestinians are far too radicalised and if you give them a state eventually it's just another delay before a war against Israel.....The Arab womb defeats Israel if given the opportunity....just as the foreign womb will, if unchecked, take Europe away from Europeans.
The problem is that this means that you have two competing tribes for the same land and that means one side will be the monster and the other the victim and I think you are seeing the harshness of that reality playing out before your eyes......as you do the lion and its prey.
It doesn't mean we have to celebrate it or support it. It's the consequence of the 1948 decision.....the idealists have massive amounts of blood on their hands as usual.
Sometimes, there is no justice, only justifications with words.....someone's always getting fecked.
Last edited:
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
How can there be a two-state solution? The Palestinians had their own de facto state with Gaza. Instead of building a nation of peace and prosperity they sent over rockets and started a bloody war.
- Location
- Surrey
- Country
-
England
This was just a starting point - they didn't even bother to negotiate!
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Of course they are going to do that, the injustice happened to them in 48, a lot of people died and a lot of people were thrown out of homes never to return.....then the Arabs lose war after war.
The only even small chance of placating them is by bribing the leaders, which is what was done with Jordan, Egypt and so on.....but then that's a huge risk because the resentment will never go and any leader making peace gets assassinated on either side....So Israel is always officially the enemy and the leaders try to keep a lid on things because the US pay them.
Too many people have died, too many innocents have died. How I see it, It's Israel or Palestine at this point.
It's the same in Ukraine, there are going to lose that war and Russia know that if they leave them a chance of retaking that land it'll just be another war in a decade or so.
Last edited: