test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Spike

Politics & Stuff

Started by Spike,

7,267 posts in this topic

Israel does not kill for fun. Israel does not want to kill civilians. Unfortunately they do kill innocent civilians that stand in the way to stop 'terror' (I do not approve that but it happenes and Israel must defend itself). I will ask again. Can the 'international community' promise that if Israel acts right, there will be peace and quiet from the Palestines? I have studied that and there is no promising such a thing. I personally think Israel should follow back to what Rabin did but I understand the claim of many Israelis who say that it's a very naive move that can cause lots of trouble in the future. 'REAL TROUBLE' not like Hamas shooting a couple of 'shit' rockets from Gaza. This is not easy.

That's why Stingray said there must be a leap of faith. Nobody can assure Israel it will happen. What can be assured is if you continue "defending" yourself it won't stop until either side is completely destroyed. You guys could start using the money which will be saved from not spending in military actions to help reaching the goal of peace.

Mohammed Seif, haranr and Stingray like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there are no guarantees, but that is the most likely, if not the ONLY way peace can be achieved.

To begin with, the attack nor the siege is or even can stop the rockets. This has already been proved. So it's not like you're risking losing anything with ending them.

Better living conditions does not mean spending a lot of money. In fact, your state spends A LOT on making their lives miserable. You can make their lives a million times betetr by addressing these issues:

Again, there are no guarantees, but history shows that extremists rise as a result of extreme situations. In fact Hamas themselves are living proof of that. Go back and look into the past 66 years, especially the last 32 years, every single time Israel have launched a war to end a resistance, a stronger and more radical one has emerged from the ashes.

Right now, you can talk about Hamas using civilians as shields all you want, but the fact is, the absolute majority of Gaza is behind Hamas and rooting for them. The power is not for Hamas, the power is always for the people. If Hamas does anything that is against the will of the people they will be rejected by the Palestinian society. A resistance has nothing if not the people.

Human history teaches us that giving people freedom and a good life is the only way to possibly get rid of extremism. The instinct to live a happy life transcends any thoughts beliefs or ideologies. I cannot guarantee that will happen in Palestine, but I CAN guarantee that there will never be any hopes of peace with the continued violence. All you will get is even more extremism.

I won't go into the one-state discussion further because, as I said, I do not believe it is possible in the foreseeable future. But I will say that the two-states only widens the gap and confirms the differences that are the origin of the conflict. It can never be a long-term solution.

I agree 100 percent.

As you said, Of course there are no guarantees, but that is the most likely, if not the ONLY way peace can be achieved.

Sadly, most Israelis need that 'guarantee' and you MUST admit they have a point. I support your claims 100 percent though.

They can choose to say "We want peace, we do not want to fight, we want a country". The shit right-wing Israeli goverment will delay them from a state as long as they can but in the end they will have to give it to them. It's a better approach than resist with 'terror'.

Fulham Broadway and CHOULO19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why Stingray said there must be a leap of faith. Nobody can assure Israel it will happen. What can be assured is if you continue "defending" yourself it won't stop until either side is completely destroyed. You guys could start using the money which will be saved from not spending in military actions to help reaching the goal of peace.

Correct except that last part "You guys could start using the money which will be saved from not spending in military actions to help reaching the goal of peace."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muzchap, i like you. But this is happenings as are the plus 600 pictures of people being bombed in a de facto prison. To do nothing is a crime. It would be the same as to do nothing in the Shoah. Its a responsability. You seem to think stuff is pretty ok, but it is nuts. To think you can let them argue it out is the same as say : let the Warschau getto people talk it out with the occupier. Im not even kidding here. Get some background plz, i beg you. Even though i agree this is a minority

Hey - where have I ever said its ok?

Never

I said as a World we haven't progressed since Medieval times?

The point I'm trying to make is that extremists on both sides are the cause, whilst the 'majority' of innocent people are killed, maimed and traumatised beyond belief...

So there are a bunch of arseholes who think its cool to relish killing people - yet they scream outrage if they or their family are hurt. These guys are hypocrites first and foremost - terrible people second...

There are no 'winners' in a war - just one bigger loser than the other.

This conflict is akin to Pyrrichs victory - one side will claim victory, but at what cost?

The only sensible resolution is a forced ceasefire immediately - then negotiations - via a 3rd party intermediary - this has to stop!

And whilst not on the same scale - my family suffered during the IRA conflict and 3 of my cousins were killed in a bomb blast - all innocent people at a party - not one militant there!

So I'm not being blasé about this - I just struggle to comprehend its 2014 and this madness continues...

Stingray and Fulham Broadway like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct except that last part "You guys could start using the money which will be saved from not spending in military actions to help reaching the goal of peace."

If you took the leap of faith and ceased fire wouldn't you guys be saving some money in weaponry? I would think so. From what I've heard wars are expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you took the leap of faith and ceased fire wouldn't you guys be saving some money in weaponry? I would think so. From what I've heard wars are expensive.

The money that we could have 'earned' from that would be better moved into the economy.

Again, the situation in Israel financially isn't good. The majority of the people are not living 'well' they would not appreciate that their money goes to other people, not citizens, and that is 100 % legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money that we could have 'earned' from that would be better moved into the economy.

Wouldn't it be good for economy to work in a state of peace and being able to have a commercial partner that lives just by your borders? Wars are wonderful for the economy. For the economy of the countries supplying you, because your labor force is occupied fighting the enemy, not producing any trading goods, thus making a case for importing weaponry, more food etc. Good for them, definitely not good for you. Achieving peace with your neighbors is a good way to improve your economy.

Fulham Broadway likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be good for economy to work in a state of peace and being able to have a commercial partner that lives just at your border? Wars are wonderful for the economy. For the economy of the countries supplying you, because your labor force is occupied fighting the enemy, not producing any trading goods, thus making a case for importing weaponry, more food etc. Good for them, definitely not good for you. Achieving peace with your neighbors is a good way to improve your economy.

No. You are simply wrong not because what you are saying is wrong. What you are saying is true but you don't understand the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You are simply wrong not because what you are saying is wrong. What you are saying is true but you don't understand the situation.

Then explain it to me. I'm trying to understand what the problem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100 percent.

As you said, Of course there are no guarantees, but that is the most likely, if not the ONLY way peace can be achieved.

Sadly, most Israelis need that 'guarantee' and you MUST admit they have a point. I support your claims 100 percent though.

They can choose to say "We want peace, we do not want to fight, we want a country". The shit right-wing Israeli goverment will delay them from a state as long as they can but in the end they will have to give it to them. It's a better approach than resist with 'terror'.

You also have to remember something buddy, such a proactive peaceful approach by Israel, would put neighbouring countries in a tight spot. They will be forced to help out maintain such achievements and as crazy as this might sound they will actually face Hamas or any other Islamic extremist group that rises. Btw such cooperation between Israel and Egypt already exists but very limited. The Egyptian military has been fighting on daily basis in Sinai now for months and taking out extremists. Some of which are Hamas members. Now that means there is a clear breach of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Yet Israel does nothing about it. You know why? Because both of them agreed on it, as extremists might target Israel from Sinai, causing a conflict between Egypt and Israel. Countries like Egypt and others will cooperate with Israel to end extremists. Actually you will have more partners than you think. Strategic partners.

Dion likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to elaborate an analogy to showcase more or less how I see the situation. And forgive me if it ends up sounding a tad simplistic or if I got something wrong.

You see, I have been living in this house for quite some years now. Then one day, out of the blue, someone knocks at my door and says that this dude who is 6'6'' tall (while I am 5'10'') has the right to be living in my house. Of course I don't like it and I want to fight him and take him out. But in the end he's stronger and wins - as I don't have anywhere else to go, I stay in the house and try to keep my losses at a minimum. However, this dude now has decided half of my house is not enough for him and he takes by force the second bathroom too, leaving me with none. And then he keeps taking more and more until I'm left to live in my backyard and sleep in the dog's house. Can you blame me for taking my rockets I used to hide below the dog's house and wanting to blow his face? Unfortunately he has a force shield and I can't hit him directly, he only takes minor injuries from the explosions around, and he comes in the backyard and beats the shit out of me whenever I try it. He says he's only defending himself from me and asks me to stop. He claims he doesn't understand why can't I just accept and live in the place where he left me to live.

How different could it have gone if after settling in my house he offered to discuss which part I wanted to keep and which part he wanted, or better, if everything was shared as common space? If he offered to split the costs for internet and cable tv? If he volunteered to take turns for taking the clothes to the laundry? I mean, it's true I lost some freedom and space and I'm still pissed about that. But I can't take him out by force and his stay here has increased my quality of life despite everything. Maybe I'm willing to compromise, maybe it could be good for both of us. However, had he took the place I consider mine with all my stuff to himself by force and left me to live a miserable life I'm pretty sure I would be more willing to kill him than to make any kind of deal.

The first situation is what happened in simple terms. The second is what Choulo19 proposed and that may or may not be out of reach at this point.

Fulham Broadway and CHOULO19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best chances of a peaceful settlement went away when the moderates like Yasser Arafat passed away. It'll be a long time until both sides have leaders that aren't aggressive.

Mohammed Seif likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best chances of a peaceful settlement went away when the moderates like Yasser Arafat passed away. It'll be a long time until both sides have leaders that aren't aggressive.

I disagree mate, as Abbass is much more moderate. But the real loss was Isaac Rabin. There is also quiet an impressive guy called Shlomo Ben Ami. Quiet impressive and moderate
MrExcalibur100 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree mate, as Abbass is much more moderate. But the real loss was Isaac Rabin. There is also quiet an impressive guy called Shlomo Ben Ami. Quiet impressive and moderate

Anwar Sadat was the best of them all though :)

Mohammed Seif likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anwar Sadat was the best of them all though :)

Sadat was the smartest of them all. And if the rest of the Arabs would have listened at the time, this region what have been so different. He got Egypt what it wanted and Israel what they needed. May he rest in peace.

EBH likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to elaborate an analogy to showcase more or less how I see the situation. And forgive me if it ends up sounding a tad simplistic or if I got something wrong.

You see, I have been living in this house for quite some years now. Then one day, out of the blue, someone knocks at my door and says that this dude who is 6'6'' tall (while I am 5'10'') has the right to be living in my house. Of course I don't like it and I want to fight him and take him out. But in the end he's stronger and wins - as I don't have anywhere else to go, I stay in the house and try to keep my losses at a minimum. However, this dude now has decided half of my house is not enough for him and he takes by force the second bathroom too, leaving me with none. And then he keeps taking more and more until I'm left to live in my backyard and sleep in the dog's house. Can you blame me for taking my rockets I used to hide below the dog's house and wanting to blow his face? Unfortunately he has a force shield and I can't hit him directly, he only takes minor injuries from the explosions around, and he comes in the backyard and beats the shit out of me whenever I try it. He says he's only defending himself from me and asks me to stop. He claims he doesn't understand why can't I just accept and live in the place where he left me to live.

How different could it have gone if after settling in my house he offered to discuss which part I wanted to keep and which part he wanted, or better, if everything was shared as common space? If he offered to split the costs for internet and cable tv? If he volunteered to take turns for taking the clothes to the laundry? I mean, it's true I lost some freedom and space and I'm still pissed about that. But I can't take him out by force and his stay here has increased my quality of life despite everything. Maybe I'm willing to compromise, maybe it could be good for both of us. However, had he took the place I consider mine with all my stuff to himself by force and left me to live a miserable life I'm pretty sure I would be more willing to kill him than to make any kind of deal.

The first situation is what happened in simple terms. The second is what Choulo19 proposed and that may or may not be out of reach at this point.

:lol:

:clap:

I disagree mate, as Abbass is much more moderate. But the real loss was Isaac Rabin. There is also quiet an impressive guy called Shlomo Ben Ami. Quiet impressive and moderate

Yeah, but Arafat was almost the sole representative of the Palestinian people while Abbas barely represents himself. He's really not that like from what I know.

Dion likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Arafat was almost the sole representative of the Palestinian people while Abbas barely represents himself. He's really not that like from what I know.

I didn't say Arafat wasn't a representative. He was by all means. But he was the symbol of resistance. Not the moderates. I remember his comment about the peace treaty at the time. He is a true face for the resistance. Definetely not a radical, but you can't say he was a moderate. Maybe in the last 10 years before he died. Abbass is more political. Not as popular as Arafat is ofcourse, but definitely more moderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.