UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza

[Vince Noir]

A speach by a UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza





Havnt been on the boards for some time, yet there seems to still be a consistent trend on all the Hamas-Israel posts. Hamas don't want peace, at least not under the current borders and in the current ghettos they live in today. But neither do Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7861076.stm (as Rome kb8 posted) By breaking not only international laws, but their own, in an attempt to restore 'Old Israel' they fundamentally undermine any chance of there being peace. Israel know this, and keep on hiding under the events of the second wolrd war, declaring those who disagree with their zionisic goals as nazis, anti-semites or "goddamniraqiterroists".

Yet they are treating the Palestinains similar to how the Jews were treated by the Nazi; ostracised, demoralised and then ghettoised.

Olmert - If they [the Palestinians] don't change, don't fight terror and don't adhere to any of their obligations, then they will never extract themselves from their unending chaos

So, If Israel are stealing and occupying land illegally, throwing people out of their homes. How is this going to achieve peace. People are obviously going to retaliate. Just as the Jews did in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

Its simple. Give back the stolen land. Agree to a two state solution under the 47 land and Isreal can have their peace.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's not that simple. Hamas doesn't recognise the state of Israel or its right to exist.

[Vince Noir]

It's not that simple. Hamas doesn't recognise the state of Israel or its right to exist.

No, thats what CNN and Fox news say. They have emphaitcally stated that if Israel give them back their land, even at least the 67 land, they would recongnise them.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articl...249568,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3791655.ece

[gojira]

It's not that simple. Hamas doesn't recognise the state of Israel or its right to exist.

Such a . The league of arabs (more than 20 countries) aswell as hamas repeatedly signaled, they accepted Israel within its 1967 borders.

Back to class.

[fieldmarshal]

Such a . The league of arabs (more than 20 countries) aswell as hamas repeatedly signaled, they accepted Israel within its 1967 borders.

Back to class.

I think at this point in time, Hamas promises should be taken with a grain of salt. Hamas brand is built on war with Israel, they will never have peace with Israel as it would make them look bad in most of the Arab world, and the Arabs want peace? the Arab govt that are friends with the west maybe, not the general populace, and imams always call for the destruction of Israel.

[Vince Noir]

I think at this point in time, Hamas promises should be taken with a grain of salt.

No more than any other nation

Hamas brand is built on war with Israel

hamas is not a brand. and they effectivley seized power in a bloody struggle against fatah. They are a product of war, they were not built on it. Again, refer to comparison of living in a ghetto and tell me what would you do...

they will never have peace with Israel as it would make them look bad in most of the Arab world

I considerably doubt that is one of their priorites. Seeing as most of the arab world shun Hamas, particularly governments. They will never have peace with Israel as long as they keep stealing their land. Its really not so hard to understand.

and the Arabs want peace? the Arab govt that are friends with the west maybe, not the general populace, and imams always call for the destruction of Israel

source?

i used 'merely', because that's what the times article states. it does not say Hamas will accept Israel, it says it will accept a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. using your type of basic logic you can derive many things from an article, which is why your type of basic logic is not taken very seriously.

where, where does it say "merely"?

It says:

Hamas will not recognise Israel but will accept a Palestinian state on Palestine territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the Islamic militant group’s exiled leader said today.

And what type of logic is mine. Explain how I am wrong. Please, try.

[fieldmarshal]

No more than any other nations

Hamas has never condemned attacks on civilians, violated every ceasefire, sabotaged the peace process, and they are supposed to be trusted?..

Israel is perhaps as untrustworthy as most nations when it comes to territorial disputes, but at least they can we negotiated with, and they will have a obligation to comply with any treaty or ceasefire, or it would affect them politically.

So tell me what does Hamas gain from peace with Israel?..Hamas is fully funded by arabs nationals, through mosques, and islamic charities all over the muslim world for the sole purpose of war. You think they get funded to provide humanitarian aid to Palestine? No war..no Hamas...its as simple as it gets.

hamas is not a brand. and they effectivley seized power in a bloody struggle against fatah. They are a product of war, they were not built on it. Again, refer to comparison of living in a ghetto and tell me what would you do...

Hamas is a brand, they market themselves as liberators of Palestine throughout the arab world. People living in ghettos all over the world are turning into Terrorists.

I considerably doubt that is one of their priorites. Seeing as most of the arab world shun Hamas, particularly governments. They will never have peace with Israel as long as they keep stealing their land. Its really not so hard to understand.

Shun Hamas?..

Why would they get funded if they are shunned?

You see, the peace process is not something you accomplish over night. It takes years, and both parties must be willing to work for it. And for years Fatah and Israel fought and achieved nothing, right now they are atleast trying to make some progress. This whole peace process has been built on the land for peace process, so Israel hands over land, and they get peace, So far tell me how much land has Israel handed back and how much peace they got?

You cant say you want peace and not work for it, and the least Hamas could do was at least condemn civilian attacks, but they haven't even done that, so how exactly can you negociate with people who consider civilians legitmiate targets?

source?

Its just the impression i got when i lived there.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No, that explicitly say they will not recognise the state of Israel. Until they do Israel cannot really make much progress and no other state would tolerate it either.

[Vince Noir]

I don't understand your arguement. Did you not read the sources? Both old and new. Hamas had agreed, on many occasions, they would accept Israel as a state if Israel gave them back the 47 or at least the 67 land.

Israel, even under their own law, have denied them this.

[Delvecchio1975]

Ferrets is right in that the article clearly states that Hamas will NOT recognize Israel. It merely says it will accept a Palestinian state within the 67 borders (west bank & gaza). Obviously not the same.

EDIT: the 06 article actually DOES say it would recognize Israel within the 1967 borders, but that was then later refuted?

[Vince Noir]

Ferrets is right in that the article clearly states that Hamas will NOT recognize Israel. It merely says it will accept a Palestinian state within the 67 borders (west bank & gaza). Obviously not the same.

Jesus, do you not understand basic logic. "Merely"?! How can use that word in this context?

Because....*drum roll*....Israel illegally took land. So if Israel gave them back the land then Hama say and have said they would accept their right as a state. Hence...

[Delvecchio1975]

Jesus, do you not understand basic logic. "Merely"?! How can use that word in this context?

Because....*drum roll*....Israel illegally took land. So if Israel gave them back the land then Hama say and have said they would accept their right as a state. Hence...

i used 'merely', because that's what the times article states. it does not say Hamas will accept Israel, it says it will accept a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. using your type of basic logic you can derive many things from an article, which is why your type of basic logic is not taken very seriously.

[Delvecchio1975]

where, where does it say merely?

It says:



And what type of logic is mine. Explain how I am wrong. Please, try.

oh, good lord, 'merely' is what i wrote, a product of my mind, okay? i used the word 'merely' because what the article says is less strongly worded than how you put it in the OP.
your type of logic, that you would like me to use as well apparently, is to use a source to support your argument which doesn't really support your argument. "Hamas would recognize Israel, look at this article", when the article says "Hamas would accept a Palestinian state within the borders of 67". Not the same, sorry.

[Vince Noir]

"Hamas would recognize Israel, look at this article", when the article says "Hamas would accept a Palestinian state within the borders of 67". Not the same, sorry.

No, wrong again, sorry:

The statement by Khaled Mashaal in Damascus amounted to a tacit acceptance of Israel’s right to exist alongside a Palestinian state, but without explicit recognition.

A professional journalist for the times even wrote their title the same. Anyway, put aside the semantics, the point of this thread is the youtube video, please watch and feel free to comment.

[Chaigidel]

they got attacked, and took it legally as spoils of war

[Vince Noir]

they got attacked, and took it legally as spoils of war

oh dear.

[Daneboy]

The comparison between Israel and the nazis is getting quite old.

I doubt that the Nazis would have even bothered to avoid civilian casualties. Perhaps it would even have been a goal in itself.

[Vince Noir]

The comparison between Israel and the nazis is getting quite old.

I doubt that the Nazis would have even bothered to avoid civilian casualties. Perhaps it would even have been a goal in itself.

Regardles if the argument is old or not. I found the speach interesting and thought I would share it.

Hmm, maybe I should right to the BBC and tell them the stories of massacres by the Burmese Junta is getting a bit old, with they would stop...

[Daneboy]

Hmm, maybe I should right to the BBC and tell them the stories of massacres by the Burmese Junta is getting a bit old, with they would stop...

Well, yeah.

Perhaps they should´ve covered that a tad more intencive. The number of casulaties in Gaza pale by comparison and the term Nazis might be used more oppropriate on the Junta.

[Valentin the II]

Israel is not even coming close o Nazi Germany.
Any one stating that is a sensationalist fool.