Riddle me this...

So long as all they're doing is stopping innocents dying then they're doing the right thing, far more right than the Iraq invasion anyhow

Assuming you weren't occupying what rightfully belongs to them, that you didn't have them walled up in enclaves and shit, and that you didn't describe your way of dealing with the situation as "humanitarian bombing" or similar notions, then yeah - that'd be cool!

Also none of this wanging around your military might to show countries around you you can still get it up. It's called a surgical strike for a reason.

Killy: Define 'what rightfully belongs to them'. Israel fully pulled out of Gaza and Hamas is still attacking them. As for the 'Enclaves'; the wall is on the internationally regarded border of Gaza.


The West Bank is an entirely different issue but seeing as the atmosphere there is relatively peaceful and the people aren't governed by a terrorist organisation, we can regard it seperately.

Funny you should mention Israel! I thought this was a hypothetical scenario.

But alright, to answer your question: Isn't the entire forming of the state of Israel a debatable question in its own? What 'rightfully belongs to them' has become more of a religious argument from both sides. Fact to the matter still remains, the Israelis stepped in with the help of the UN - there was plenty of blood being shed back then, even though the war lasted for a good 6 days.

But I think we're in a position to observe things from a different perspective today. What I see, with my own eyes, in my own opinion is another full-blown war being waged - with one side being underhanded and the other being entirely backed up by the US (well dur..?) on the premise that what they (Israel) is doing, is fair and square.

But let's not forget that's Palestinian soil they occupied some 40 years ago. 'Fair and square' is granted an entirely different meaning if you consider that...

Side-note: Minus the walling in, and I could've just been referring to the current situation in Kosovo.

I'm afraid that more or less every single detail in your comment was incorrect. I will try to correct them here, though by necessity this will be a brief answer without the full historical detail.

The formation of the State of Israel was not debatable at all. It was create by the United Nations with strict borders delineating a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. The other Arab countries were not happy with this and invaded. Israel managed to push them back to what is now known as the Green Line, the UN-delineated ceasefire line of 1949-1967. However, there was no Palestinian state. The West Bank was annexed to Jordan and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.

In 1967, Israel, in self-defence, conquered the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights to push out the Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian armies that had been massing there. Sinai was returned to Egypt after the peace treaty in 1979.

So from 1967, the settlement began. You will not hear any disagreement from me that settlement was a stupid idea and that the treatment of the Palestinians was anything but frightful. But since 1993 and the signing of the Oslo Accords, there has been a process of giving the Palestinian Authority self-rule. Obviously this process has not gone entirely to plan but there are large parts of the West Bank and the entire bloc of Gaza that are controlled by the Palestinian. They are an independent entity who control 100% of their sovereign land. However, they insist on committing terrorist acts (or waging warfare, depending on your perspective) against Israel and her citizens.



Which begs the question. It's easy to criticise, of course. But, going back to my first post, if you were Israel and Hamas militants were firing rockets at you every single day and killing your citizens... What would you do?

I can't agree with what you're saying, because there's a very strong contradiction here;
If it wasn't debatable, how come the surrounding countries were disgruntled over this? Let me remind you that just because it was created by the UN, doesn't necessarily mean that it's undebatable. What grants the UN the right to do this? Because they're 'United'? It's a political charade. Hell, I can give you a perfect parallell (again) - Kosovo being a prime example. The UN had its resolution made clear on this case, but did it follow those directions? No. It stands to show that the UN is a bullshit entity.

It's all politics, and historical references will always shroud the political agenda and truth of past things. The answer to your question is: Israel has every right to defend its people from rocket barrages - no one can argue against this - every sane person with a will to live will find a reason to draw arms and defend him/herself if they're threatened.

But there's a reason behind everything. You can line up the chronology that's driven us to present day and it'll be quite obvious - the Israelis are defending themselves, but you can't possibly say that the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab countries have no say in this, seeing as they (the Palestinians) were pretty much occupied on a religious pretext. The fact that it was endorsed by the UN doesn't make it any more right.

EDIT: Ugh, no idea why this was posted twice. I was logged out and had to log in after posting the comment. My bad.

Okay, let's go back further in history. Before WWI, the entire area was part of the Turkish Empire. It was conquered by the Allies and carved up by England and France. Every. Single. One. Of those countries is an artificial construct. In most cases the reasoning behind the creation of a country was politics; Britain granting leadership to friendly tribes who had helped them in the war or would sell them oil cheaply. As an example, the Hashemite tribe that runs Jordan doesn't actually come from that region. They were originally from Saudi Arabia but when that country was 'given' to the Al Saud tribe, the British compromised and gave Transjordan to the Hashemites, even though they had no connection to the land or its people (the Hashemites are Sunni whereas 88% of the population are Shia).

So... in a region of artificial states, there was one block left undecided; what was then known as British mandate Palestine. There were roughly similar numbers of Jews and Muslims there at the time. Neither group particularly liked the British so there were massive fights between the three groups at various times. The British washed their hands of the situation and handed it to the UN to decide. They chose the most equitable solution: a two state solution, much like is proposed today.

Now, you suggest that the surrounding countries' disapproval somehow means something important. It does not at all. All it shows was their antisemitism and refusal to allow the Zionists any chance at statehood as well as their hypocrisy at not acknowledging that the UN plan was just as artifical as their own states' creation. The Palestinians did not have any more right over the Mediterranean side of Mandate Palestine (ie the region that is now Israel) than the Jewish population had over what is now the West Bank. The Arab countries just wanted it all to themselves - with one exception: It wasn't publically known at the time but relations between Transjordan and the Zionist leaders were quite warm. King Abdullah gave his commitment to Golda Meir in person that he only wanted to conquer the West Bank and Jerusalem and would not push on to fight the Israelis directly.

Given that Transjordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt maintained control over Gaza, you can see that they did not exactly approve of a Palestinian state either.

I'm confused.

So two wrongs made a right? Our making of artificial states when we were backwards imperial empires justifies an international mandate creating a state within one that already existed. Also I don't think any country would be happy to find a new one suddenly on it's doorstep, a new one that the western world is pouring money into.

Please note this post by no means criticizes the continued existence of the state of Israel, what's done is done.

What WoF said, but don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to dodge the issue here. I just think that the more you rewind and look at history, the more complicated it gets.

Okay, I agree with you Killy. It's absurdly complicated and I'm by no means saying that the Israeli side of things is morally crystal clear. In my original post, I was only talking about the current situation and the fact that people seem to be blaming Israel for a clear act of self defence. After that I was just correcting your misconceptions.

This is probably going to be the last comment/correction here. Pre-1948 there was no country called Palestine. There was a region, which was entirely British controlled. Then two states were meant to be created in that area. Also, at the time the USA wasn't pouring money in to Israel. That started in the 60's and 70's I think.

I stand corrected, apologies for being misinformed to the point of ignorance.

Two questions though, if Israel wasn't being funded or sponsored by the UN or the USA then how did it set itself up financially, and does the fact the USA starting pouring money into it in the 60's/70's mean that the situation is another ironic American backlash of the Cold War?

The only true solution is to model your state and ultimate goals on Doctor Doom's Latveria.

Well, it was pretty much a third world country for a while there. In the first few years it only survived on charity from Jews around the world and after that it succeeded from having some incredibly intelligent people in charge.

And, yes, I suppose so.