The Gasbuster Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 Etherway the rights and wrongs, we have no business getting involved in the middle east, to be honest there would be a peaceful middle east if it wasn't for israel being forced upon them, Correct, it is down to the Arab League to sort this out. Britain, France and the U.S. have done more than enough over the last decade. Soon the trigger happy Israelis could be surrounded by countries in open revolt. When it gets to their doorstep, they won't hesitate to strike first. This could get very messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 Etherway the rights and wrongs, we have no business getting involved in the middle east, to be honest there would be a peaceful middle east if it wasn't for israel being forced upon them, No. Bang wrong. If anything I think Israel being there helps because it gives them something that they are united against, though you won't find a muslim who agrees with that statement. The division between Sunni and Shi'ite muslims is huge, that is why the bombs are still going off in market places and outside mosques in Iraq and Pakistan. In some counries these factions hate each other and it's only the presence of repressive regiemes that prevented mass slaughter. Hence why I would have kept in place Saddam Hussein and now Assad. Though I was all for Gaddafi getting his just deserts after his giving weapons to the IRA. Sometimes it is our conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 Correct, it is down to the Arab League to sort this out. Britain, France and the U.S. have done more than enough over the last decade. Soon the trigger happy Israelis could be surrounded by countries in open revolt. When it gets to their doorstep, they won't hesitate to strike first. This could get very messy. Well if you want to be pedantic, we've done more than enough to cause this whole mess when we decided to arbitrarily carve up the Middle East after WW1 and placed rival tribal and ethnic groups within borders and tried to make them all play nice. I don't particularly subscribe to us being responsible for the actions of our great-great grandfathers, but I'm sure some do. We've meddling in te rest of the world for hundreds of years, not sure we can wipe our hands of it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 No. Bang wrong. If anything I think Israel being there helps because it gives them something that they are united against, though you won't find a muslim who agrees with that statement. The division between Sunni and Shi'ite muslims is huge, that is why the bombs are still going off in market places and outside mosques in Iraq and Pakistan. In some counries these factions hate each other and it's only the presence of repressive regiemes that prevented mass slaughter. Hence why I would have kept in place Saddam Hussein and now Assad. Though I was all for Gaddafi getting his just deserts after his giving weapons to the IRA. Sometimes it is our conflict. as chip said you look at what we (the western world) after the 1st and 2nd world war, thats why its uproar over their, Israel with their blantant aggression doesn't help the situation ether, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 as chip said you look at what we (the western world) after the 1st and 2nd world war, thats why its uproar over their, Israel with their blantant aggression doesn't help the situation ether, The kingdom of Israel was there from about 1020 bc, Muhammed didn't spring up until about 610 AD, so if we want to use history as a term to say if people should or shouldn't be somewhere, then there is no contest here. Before that ther were nomadic settlements of various culture, from Southern Europe, Middle east and North Africa. Israelis believe that is their home, as they were there along time before what constitutes a islamic area. So how far do we go back blaming each side? or does only the last 100 years count? either way what happens happens, places are constantly conquered and re-conquered, it is the way of the world, what will be will be. Borders change, countries religions and races die out. Only the strongest survive. Arguments over land going back so far makes the whole thing bloody pointless. As Harry Hill says...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 as chip said you look at what we (the western world) after the 1st and 2nd world war, thats why its uproar over their, Israel with their blantant aggression doesn't help the situation ether, While I'm generally one of these lefty, liberal types, Israel are and have historically been, far less aggressive to the neighbours than vice versa. The only time I believe Israel invaded a neighbouring country was the '6 Day War' when it was painfully obvious that the Syrians and Egyptians were about to do the sane anyway. The Jews didn't just rock up in the 1930s and decide to steal some land, Hitler paid them to go and told them he's sorted it with the locals. There's a certain irony that us and America then continued his policy after the war without any thought of how it might work. The Israeli treatment of Palestinians is a different kettle of fish, though I would say that Gandhi gained independence for the whole of India by peaceful protest, while Hamas and the PLO have taken the path of blowing up nightclubs and school buses and are living in ghettos behind concrete Walls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 While I'm generally one of these lefty, liberal types, Israel are and have historically been, far less aggressive to the neighbours than vice versa. The only time I believe Israel invaded a neighbouring country was the '6 Day War' when it was painfully obvious that the Syrians and Egyptians were about to do the sane anyway. The Jews didn't just rock up in the 1930s and decide to steal some land, Hitler paid them to go and told them he's sorted it with the locals. There's a certain irony that us and America then continued his policy after the war without any thought of how it might work. The Israeli treatment of Palestinians is a different kettle of fish, though I would say that Gandhi gained independence for the whole of India by peaceful protest, while Hamas and the PLO have taken the path of blowing up nightclubs and school buses and are living in ghettos behind concrete Walls... To be fair, a substantial proprtion of the population of Palestine was Jewish before 1940. Roughly a third of the wider Palestinian area. The British had at first encouraged Zionist emigration ("the Balfour Declaration") as it acted as a block to the Young Turk territorial ambitions of the Empire's Turkish enemy during WWI. After the war, the Brits were as pro-active as we could be in limiting Jewish emigration to the Israel area, but let's face it - the Jewish people had little choice and the centuries of persecution in Europe had led them to seek a different solution. One with some footing in ancient boundaries. Those who seek to "undo" Israel, must also want the return of ethnic Greek teritory in Anatloia and Cyprus; ethinic Armenian territory in Asia minor;; Tibetan soveriegnity; Russians out of Sakhalin Island; Cossacks out of Moldova; Poles out of Gdansk - and a host of other post-War population exchanges that in actual fact are irreversible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.