DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

What do you mean – "Israel’s war on Gaza?"

It has been the Arabs war on the Israelites for the last three thousand years!

Oy Vay!

Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)

Pretty sure this has been done already.

The question should read something like: does anyone in Gaza/Israel/America care what the result of this study was and what "should" they wish done about it?

papadawg,
Modern Israel has existed since 1948. 80% of it's population is European, Ashkenazi Jews. The land of Israel from biblical times was God's gift to the descendants of Abraham. If one understands geography and ethnicity, it is obvious these descendants were not Europeans but rather native Palestinians;Arabs if you will. If you analyze your nonsense you would understand you are referring to an Arab war upon themselves. What we are seeing here is in fact a colonial war by Europeans upon the native populace.

A more reasoned response on your part would be to consider the evidence and whether Israels actions in Gaza were justified rather than making unfounded accusations.

Oso,

You are wrong. This war has been going on for over three thousand years. Check your Biblical History – look in the Old Testament. Its the slave owners against the slaves who freed themselves.

Blaming everything on Europeans is nothing but a cop out, a lame excuse. After the Europeans are done away with, then will there be peace on Earth? I think not. I think they (Arabs) will declare that we in the Western world are descendants of Europeans and must be destroyed.

It will never end until one eliminates the other.

The biblical Old Testament history would include a great deal of massacres perpetrated by these same people against the Arabs (and that is their own history being told, since they typically won, which kind of makes you wonder what the Arabian version would look like). I assume that's why you believe it is necessary for both to fight to the death to resolve the issues, but it also doesn't really absolve anybody as the innocent player across that history.

Israelis haven't had a good run in their history as a culture and nation-state, yes, but they also responded with massive force to what amounts to an annoyance to their internal security (ie, the Gaza invasion). Since this parallels our own reactions, I guess it can be expected that many Americans would be supportive of it. I might be if it could be shown to produce "results", guarding and securing vital national interests, in the way that the various actual wars the Israeli state has had to fight in its history against Egypt-Syria-Jordan did produce results (in two cases, the defeated leaders even resorted to clear diplomatic ties with the victorious Israelis). I don't see the Gaza or Lebanon incursions as demonstrative successes for Israel and they came with tremendous costs that far outweighed any success they may have created.

Therefore, even if you agree that this is somehow necessary campaign-wise for Israel, it's hard to justify it as useful policy in these instances because it probably failed miserably to produce results.

There have been crimes on both sides. And both sides should fairly evaluate themselves and should adjust/make reparations as needed.

Okay, here is you history lesson quiz; Who were the original slaves?(hint: Isrealis) Who were the original slave owners?(hint: Egyptians – aka Arabs) What did the Egyptians do when the Isrealis freed themselves?(hint: they have been doing it ever since)

Look at it like a spousal abuse situation – unless one of them gives it up and gets out of dodge, someone will get annihilated.

Arabs have vowed – especially in their bogus religious cult called Islam – to kill every last Isreali and any member of the human race who helps them.

Just you watch what Ack-med-the-nut-job does with the nukes he is making.

What did the Israelis do when they were freed? Hint: they've been doing that every time they've had a country, particularly every time they've had a theocratic country. If it's a spousal abuse situation, Liberty is correct, they're both abusers.

You might want to try reading the Qur'an before you decide what "Arabs have vowed" or even Muslims as a general principle. Your characterization of Islam, from this post and others like it, would be sort of like someone reading only your humble opinions and deciding that was an accurate portrayal of Christendom. I don't think either would be nearly as popular as a global religious institution personally (which I would be fine with…but I doubt most Muslims and Christians would be).

I'm not all that worried about Achmadinejad and Iran. Nation states, even the crazy religious theocracies, tend to be relatively predictable "rational" actors. Shooting a nuke at Tel Aviv would more or less end their reign in Iran really quick. Their actual interest is power (and by extension: money and global influence), not destruction of Israel. Rhetoric over the latter helps ensure the former by providing a bogeyman to blame problems on (just as we use "Islamic radicals" or "China/India"). The less their people are paying attention to how they run actually the country, the easier it will be to stay in charge and run off with all the money.

As far as what Islam stands for, well all I have to say is that actions speak louder than words.

FYI – A quick look at history provides the answer as to what nation states have done in the past when a nutcase takes over . . . You know, like Ghengis Khan, Tojo, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler.

Just watch Ack-med-the-nut-job and I will NEVER say "I told you so."

Also FYI – My opinions, humble or not, are just MY opinions. I am entitled to my opinions and you are entitled to yours.

Have a nice day!

If actions speak louder than words for you, then you may want to look into any of the following predominantly Islamic countries and their relations with Israel and the US:
Turkey
Indonesia
Bosnia
Pakistan
Morocco

and the Islamic minorities in the following countries
Russia
India
US
UK
Philippines

And then get back to me.

Also: what do Tojo and Duce and Hitler have to do with Ayatollah Khoemini and Achmadinejad? All three of them possessed nation states with vastly more international power and influence than Iran and were opposed by, almost nobody, until it was too late.

I seriously doubt with vigilant people like you around that Iran is a serious threat as a result. Even paranoids have enemies I think the saying goes.

You are indeed entitled to opinions. But your opinions are so one-sided and uninformed that they are too easily dismissed as the rantings of a crank, and sound as though you practiced them in an echo chamber or in front of the mirror. Just as you would have us dismiss Iran as a collection of religious nutcases worthy of being bombed into oblivion, it would be wise to observe the ideas of other people who disagree with you once in a while and try to figure out why that is rather than presume that your entitled opinion entitles you to the belief that you are correct without cross-examination.

Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran. He has no power. He has also repeatedly stated that attacking another country with nukes is religious anathema to both him and Khamenei, who is the true leader of the country. Also, you do realize that Iran is countries/thousands of miles from Israel. Any tactical missile aimed directly at Israel would have to pass through airspace held by the US (Iraq). Do you really think they'd get away with that?____Also, Iran has also been one of Israel's most powerful Middle Eastern allies in the past.____Also, like I stated earlier, both Israel and the Muslims have done horrible things. The Israelis have killed people