• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli air strikes target Gaza

'Islamic states must cut Israeli ties'

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Mliki's Dawa party has called on the Islamic countries to cut relations with Israel over its atrocities in Gaza.

The ruling party described the International community's silence and the Arab countries' indifference towards the recent Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip as 'surprising' and 'disappointing'.

In a statement released on Monday, Dawa Party condemned the Israeli slaughter of Gazans -- which started on Saturday and has so far left 345 Palestinians killed and 1,550 other wounded.

The party said Israel's aggressive policies are not surprising. However, the statement suggests it is surprising that the Islamic and Arab countries' take no steady and serious action in condemning Israel and its aerial strike on the costal sliver.

Iraq's ruling party called on all Islamic countries to cut their 'covered' and 'exposed' relations with the Israel regime and stand beside the oppressed nation of Palestine.

The statement came a day after Hezbollah Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah accused 'some' Arab states of collaborating with Israel.

"There are some Arab regimes who are truly partners of this project, especially those who signed peace treaties with Israel. They are supporting (the US-Israeli project) politically, psychologically, militarily and culturally through the media… They are contributing to impose the conditions of surrender on the rest of the resistance groups," he said.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel vows lasting Gaza campaign

Israel says it is ready for "long weeks of action" as it continues its fiercest air assault on Gaza for decades to stamp out militant rocket attacks.

Palestinian officials say 10 people died in the latest attacks, taking the death toll to over 360 since Saturday. Four Israelis have died in rocket fire.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said this was the "first of several stages" of military action.

A UN human rights monitor accused Israel of "shocking atrocities".

Richard Falk - the special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories - said the international community must put more pressure on Israel to end its attacks on Gaza.

"Israel is committing a shocking series of atrocities by using modern weaponry against a defenceless population - attacking a population that has been enduring a severe blockade for many months," Mr Falk said in a BBC interview.

The UN says at least 62 of the Palestinians killed so far have been women and children, and it is calling for an investigation into the attacks, which are causing heavy civilian casualties.
 
I don't create excuses for Hamas, I explain that Israel is as wrong as them.
No, you're creating excuses.
Not once have you declared that Hamas is wrong.
 
IShould a nation be able to use military force to retaliate against acts of aggression that were in breach of a ceasefire?

If the nation in question never broke the ceasefire itself then yes.
 
No.
Somaliland will not and should never react by killing people if rockets fell on Somaliland.

I don't care how many rockets, you do not react by dropping bombs on them to stop it. Somaliland should stop it but not by the same means.

And what if they are not willing to stop firing the rockets? Do you ask nicely?

If what you have stated is correct, then there can never be any form of defensive war at all, but rather only pacifism and the turning of the cheek.
 
And what if they are not willing to stop firing the rockets? Do you ask nicely?

You show you are above them.
You remove its support base. A terrorist group never gets where it is without a reason for it being there.
 
I understand that, but you were asked a hypothetical, which by virtue is removed from the factual and is premised on the POSSIBLE.

So I will ask this philosophical question of you. Should a nation be able to use military force to retaliate against acts of aggression that were in breach of a ceasefire?

I wound answer yes, but I think there's a better question.

Should a nation use military force to retaliate against acts of aggression using long range weaponry if it will not solve the problem and may make it worse?

The fact is these attacks accomplish nothing for either side. Hamas lacks the capabilities and intelligence to become a working party which could be held accountable and Israel lacks the will to solve the problem they've allowed to fester on their doorstep.
 
No.
I don't care how many rockets, you do not react by dropping bombs on them to stop it. Somaliland should stop it but not by the same means.
Why do you absolutely reject responding to terrorist attacks with military force?
 
I wound answer yes, but I think there's a better question.

Should a nation use military force to retaliate against acts of aggression using long range weaponry if it will not solve the problem and may make it worse?
This presupposes facts that have not been established as facts.
Thus, the question is invalid.
 
Last edited:
No, you're creating excuses.
Not once have you declared that Hamas is wrong.

you fail

Hamas are ***** and should stop their attacks immediatly. They have violated the ceasefire by launching rockets, and it's normal that Israel tries to kill them

both parts share a part of responsibility, and that you can not blame everything on one side

Palestinians should stop launching rockets immediatly. We both agree on that.

Indeed, Hamas seems to have started using violence, and I condemn them as much as you do

But I'm affraid it's a bit too subtle for certain posters not to blame everything on one side
 
You show you are above them.
You remove its support base. A terrorist group never gets where it is without a reason for it being there.

Your premise assumes that the violence is based on reaction to violence or injustice. What happens if the terrorist organization motives or reason do not relates to reactionary positions?
 
Why don't you? Our views differ

Sorry to go for the soft underbelly, but when it comes to certain issues, you do not believe in pacifism. I'll remind of your discussions of the historical reasons for jihad. If this is so, then under certain conditions you have no problem with rationalizing defensive violence.
 
Your premise assumes that the violence is based on reaction to violence or injustice. What happens if the terrorist organization motives or reason do not relates to reactionary positions?

But it is many times but lets say it is not, then another method would be needed.

Israel wanted to remove Hamas and its support by this attack.
Instead it has increased support for Fundementalism within the Muslim world.
Israel's attack has also put the Pro West Arab Governments in a dangerous positions to the point where there is a demand of Israeli ambassadors to be thrown out and all ties to be cut, these are countries with peace treaties with Israel.
There is a demand that those Pro Israel/West Governments be overthrown
Radical Muslims now have a means to pressure the Governments to act, calling them cowards
Hezbollah just now looks plain cool compared to the weak ass response from Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
Oh and Iran comes out of this looking great

Soooo, Israel by this attack has not made no actual difference.
 
Last edited:
This presupposes facts that are not established as facts.
Thus, the question is invalid.

How many years of the same old strategy will it take before it becomes a fact that the conflict will not be solved by long ranged bombardment?

Face the facts Goobieman, modern warfare is changing and there's no longer the need for long ranged killing power that there once was. Weapons win battles but cannot win wars in the ME.
 
I wound answer yes, but I think there's a better question.

Should a nation use military force to retaliate against acts of aggression using long range weaponry if it will not solve the problem and may make it worse?

The fact is these attacks accomplish nothing for either side. Hamas lacks the capabilities and intelligence to become a working party which could be held accountable and Israel lacks the will to solve the problem they've allowed to fester on their doorstep.

Israel did not allow the problem to fester at their footstep. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. The people of Gaza held elections and voted in Hamas. Hamas now governs Gaza. So what do you want Israel to do? Do you want the Israel's to constantly look after the Gaza strip and re-occupy it or do you hold the Hamas government accountable for their own actions? Unilateral withdrawl from Gaza, showed (that at least in relation to the Gaza strip) Israel did have the WILL to deal with the problem by leaving the territory.

So how is Hamas the festering problem that Israel failed to deal with?
 
Israel did not allow the problem to fester at their footstep. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. The people of Gaza held elections and voted in Hamas. Hamas now governs Gaza. So what do you want Israel to do? Do you want the Israel's to constantly look after the Gaza strip and re-occupy it or do you hold the Hamas government accountable for their own actions? Unilateral withdrawl from Gaza, showed (that at least in relation to the Gaza strip) Israel did have the WILL to deal with the problem by leaving the territory.

So how is Hamas the festering problem that Israel failed to deal with?

They should have found a solution which involved a geographic unification of Palestine. Hamas brutally took power in Gaza and they are completely shut off from the West Bank.
 
I would never support Jihad in this day and age.

Yes but your efforts to defend jihad in the past shows that in the right context, your are willing to support defensive violence. Granted that times have changed, and I acknowledge your rebuttal, but I just don't see how the change in time or the modern world suddenly precludes the use of military force.

This question about what is just and right in response to aggression has been faced by generations of people and is a timeless question. That is how do you react to such acts?
 
But it is many times but lets say it is not, then another method would be needed.

Israel wanted to remove Hamas and its support by this attack.
Instead it has increased support for Fundementalism within the Muslim world.
Israel's attack has also put the Pro West Arab Governments in a dangerous positions to the point where there is a demand of Israeli ambassadors to be thrown out and all ties to be cut, these are countries with peace treaties with Israel.
There is a demand that those Pro Israel/West Governments be overthrown
Radical Muslims now have a means to pressure the Governments to act, calling them cowards
Hezbollah just now looks plain cool compared to the weak ass response from Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
Oh and Iran comes out of this looking great

Soooo, Israel by this attack has not made no actual difference.

I understand your argument, but it is consequentialist in nature. It does not deal with what Israel should do in response to Katusha rocket attacks.
 
Why don't you? Our views differ
Are you simply unable to explain your refusal to consider military force, or are you just a contrarian?
 
Yes but your efforts to defend jihad in the past shows that in the right context, your are willing to support defensive violence.

Well yeah but there is no right context for me to support defensive violence tbh
 
How many years of the same old strategy will it take before it becomes a fact that the conflict will not be solved by long ranged bombardment?

Face the facts Goobieman, modern warfare is changing and there's no longer the need for long ranged killing power that there once was. Weapons win battles but cannot win wars in the ME.
Again:
This presupposed facts that have not been established.

You can keep trying to present your -opinion- as fact, but we both know that as soon as you are asked to actually support your statements and show that they are indeed facts (rather than mere opinion based on pure ignorance) you'll revert to your usual whining and crying.
 
Back
Top Bottom