How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[Humanity]

'Religion' has ALWAYS 'borrowed' from others...
Which, in my mind, is why religion, as a 'story' is such utter BS!
Horus and the story of Jesus, for example...
Yes, I know that there are many counter claims and disputes over the actual story of Horus but that is also true of Jesus...

Oh please. There is a HUGE difference between borrowing concepts and myths from one religion to another (though I remain entirely unconvinced in the Hor/JC connection) and the Vatican building a church on the Giza plateau and then taking both religious and political control of the Great Pyramids because it really belongs to them.

If you can't see that....

Sorry, if you cannot see that, or accept that 'stories' are borrowed, copied, regurgitated throughout MOST religions then there is little point discussing religion with you...

Maybe it is better we stick to finding a middle ground for Israel/Palestine conflict were we seem to have slightly more common ground"

 

[P F Tinmore]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?

Because it is based on false premise.

 

[Humanity]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?

Rather than biting a'friendly' hand.. Maybe look at history and review what the world thought of the last demolition of Gaza?

Maybe you will find an answer?

 

[Humanity]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?

Because it is based on false premise.

What exactly is based upon "false premise"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?

Because it is based on false premise.

What exactly is based upon "false premise"?

The narrative that there are two people fighting over the same piece of land.

 

[Shusha]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?

Because it is based on false premise.

Do tell.

 

[Shusha]

Except that, Israel WILL receive worldwide condemnation...

Why, though? Why is Israel receiving worldwide condemnation for defending herself? What should she be doing differently, in terms of military action?

Rather than biting a'friendly' hand.. Maybe look at history and review what the world thought of the last demolition of Gaza?

Maybe you will find an answer?

How is asking questions about your opinion 'biting a friendly hand'?

I'm asking what military actions you find acceptable. You can apply it to any place where the conditions are similar.

I'm asking you to outline what forms of warfare are permissible in response to attacks. It's a broad question. It's not specific to Israel.

If your goal is to have fewer civilians die then just explain how you think that can be accomplished while still accomplishing the military goal.

 

[Kondor3]

Because Israel is not having any trouble self-governing.

And no, we are not tossing Palestinian rights to territory or return. We are just acknowledging Israel's identical rights.

You have still posted ZERO PROOF that the first temple existed.

Doesn't matter.

Get your asses out of what very little is left of the West Bank and Gaza... there's no future for you there... you're not wanted... and you're going to go, in the end.

The only remaining question is HOW you're going to go... but go you shall.

 

[Shusha]

Humanity

Let me put this another way. In what ways would an international force act differently than Israel in a military action against the belligerents in Gaza? If there is a fundamentally different way of achieving the military goal, you should be able to outline it.

Otherwise, it reads awfully much to me, that rather than changing the actual modes of warfare, you are trying to change the perception by introducing an international force. And that is problematic.

 

[louie888]

Humanity

Let me put this another way. In what ways would an international force act differently than Israel in a military action against the belligerents in Gaza?...

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

 

[Shusha]

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

Humanity and I are having a reasonable and intelligent conversation about challenging ideas, without resorting to name calling (Dumb one? Really?).

Feel free to join in if you are capable of holding a discussion at that level. The point on the table at the moment assumes a State of Gaza and a State of Israel with an international border between them. It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc. It assumes Gaza then uses these opportunities to import weapons with which to attack Israel and Israel's civilian population and that it, in fact, does so. It assumes a response to that belligerency is appropriate.

The question is whether the response should come from Israel or from an international force. And why.

If you have an intelligent response to that scenario, please provide.

If you don't agree with the premise, then state your case. Go through the premise and identify where you part from it. If you part from it in the first sentence, and claim that Israel has no right to exist as a state, say so.

 

[louie888]

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

Humanity and I are having a reasonable and intelligent conversation about challenging ideas, without resorting to name calling (Dumb one? Really?).

Feel free to join in if you are capable of holding a discussion at that level. The point on the table at the moment assumes a State of Gaza and a State of Israel with an international border between them. It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc. It assumes Gaza then uses these opportunities to import weapons with which to attack Israel and Israel's civilian population and that it, in fact, does so. It assumes a response to that belligerency is appropriate.

The question is whether the response should come from Israel or from an international force. And why.

If you have an intelligent response to that scenario, please provide.

If you don't agree with the premise, then state your case. Go through the premise and identify where you part from it. If you part from it in the first sentence, and claim that Israel has no right to exist as a state, say so.

I have the right to call out your dumb shit every time you post it. This is the internet; get used to it, dumb one.

 

[Shusha]

I have the right to call out your dumb shit every time you post it. This is the internet; get used to it, dumb one.

 

[rylah]

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

Humanity and I are having a reasonable and intelligent conversation about challenging ideas, without resorting to name calling (Dumb one? Really?).

Feel free to join in if you are capable of holding a discussion at that level. The point on the table at the moment assumes a State of Gaza and a State of Israel with an international border between them. It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc. It assumes Gaza then uses these opportunities to import weapons with which to attack Israel and Israel's civilian population and that it, in fact, does so. It assumes a response to that belligerency is appropriate.

The question is whether the response should come from Israel or from an international force. And why.

If you have an intelligent response to that scenario, please provide.

If you don't agree with the premise, then state your case. Go through the premise and identify where you part from it. If you part from it in the first sentence, and claim that Israel has no right to exist as a state, say so.

For an f-16 to fly from mount. Hermon to Eilat takes between 1.5-3 minutes. It takes roughly 6 hours on the road. How much more crowded can it be?

I mean if it's the blue helmets, they can sit somewhere, as they do, and run away at the first opportunity as they do.
But in Israel there's a strongly felt military presence. I think presence of another army will only alarm the people. NO WAY.

If Palestinians want a foreign army on their territory, in today's conditions is only because they want sabotage the situation and get Israel into war with other countries.

Which countries will place their armies in the territory of Israel?

 

[montelatici]

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

Humanity and I are having a reasonable and intelligent conversation about challenging ideas, without resorting to name calling (Dumb one? Really?).

Feel free to join in if you are capable of holding a discussion at that level. The point on the table at the moment assumes a State of Gaza and a State of Israel with an international border between them. It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc. It assumes Gaza then uses these opportunities to import weapons with which to attack Israel and Israel's civilian population and that it, in fact, does so. It assumes a response to that belligerency is appropriate.

The question is whether the response should come from Israel or from an international force. And why.

If you have an intelligent response to that scenario, please provide.

If you don't agree with the premise, then state your case. Go through the premise and identify where you part from it. If you part from it in the first sentence, and claim that Israel has no right to exist as a state, say so.

For an f-16 to fly from mount. Hermon to Eilat takes between 1.5-3 minutes. It takes roughly 6 hours on the road. How much more crowded can it be?

I mean if it's the blue helmets, they can sit somewhere, as they do, and run away at the first opportunity as they do.
But in Israel there's a strongly felt military presence. I think presence of another army will only alarm the people. NO WAY.

If Palestinians want a foreign army, in today's conditions is only because they want sabotage the situation and get Israel into war with other countries.

Which countries will place their armies in the territory of Israel?

While a two-state solution is not in the cards, if it were, without a deterent, the Palestinians will always be under threat from the Israelis. Just consider if there were off-shore gas deposits within Palestinian territorial waters. How long do you think it would be before the Israelis sink wells to exploit the gas for themselves? Not to mention water that the Israelis would monopolize for themselves and prevent the Palestinians from building infrastructure to exploit water in the West Bank. It would never work.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc.

That would go a long way to promote peace. Hamas has put that on the table in all recent ceasefire agreements to have them rejected by Israel. So it is Israel who wants to keep the hostilities going.

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response. Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

 

[Shusha]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

 

[theliq]

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

Humanity and I are having a reasonable and intelligent conversation about challenging ideas, without resorting to name calling (Dumb one? Really?).

Feel free to join in if you are capable of holding a discussion at that level. The point on the table at the moment assumes a State of Gaza and a State of Israel with an international border between them. It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc. It assumes Gaza then uses these opportunities to import weapons with which to attack Israel and Israel's civilian population and that it, in fact, does so. It assumes a response to that belligerency is appropriate.

The question is whether the response should come from Israel or from an international force. And why.

If you have an intelligent response to that scenario, please provide.

If you don't agree with the premise, then state your case. Go through the premise and identify where you part from it. If you part from it in the first sentence, and claim that Israel has no right to exist as a state, say so.

For an f-16 to fly from mount. Hermon to Eilat takes between 1.5-3 minutes. It takes roughly 6 hours on the road. How much more crowded can it be?

I mean if it's the blue helmets, they can sit somewhere, as they do, and run away at the first opportunity as they do.
But in Israel there's a strongly felt military presence. I think presence of another army will only alarm the people. NO WAY.

If Palestinians want a foreign army on their territory, in today's conditions is only because they want sabotage the situation and get Israel into war with other countries.

Which countries will place their armies in the territory of Israel?

Grow Up for once

 

[Hollie]

It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc.

That would go a long way to promote peace. Hamas has put that on the table in all recent ceasefire agreements to have them rejected by Israel. So it is Israel who wants to keep the hostilities going.

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response. Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Your fawning over the Islamic terrorists you define as your heroes is cute but the Peace Partners nonsense is a farce,

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

 

[Humanity]

It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc.

That would go a long way to promote peace. Hamas has put that on the table in all recent ceasefire agreements to have them rejected by Israel. So it is Israel who wants to keep the hostilities going.

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response. Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Totally agree... It would go a LONG way to promote peace...

However... I would want Hamas 'removed' before that happened!

Whether that was with free, open elections or force I don;t really care!

Attacks on known and recognised terrorist organisations are fair and justified!