Originally Posted by MontyB
I would also suggest that sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalalalalal" at the top of your voice isn't listening either.
This argument is stuck firmly on one point, neither side can agree on a start point.
If as Spike and myself do believe that the land is Palestinian/Arab/Syrian or what ever you want to call the original inhabitants then terrorism as a form of defence is perfectly acceptable when you do not have the ability to fight in a conventional manner and I would use the various resistance movement of WW2 to justify the argument.
If on the other hand you believe the land belongs to a bunch of European refugees invoking religious doctrine then obviously you do not accept terrorism is an acceptable defence although that would also bring up questions about how they pushed the British out of the region.
The problem for Israel in pushing the "terrorism can not be rewarded" argument is that Israel are the founders of modern terrorism so I guess what goes around comes around.
But I think the over riding reality in this is that no one is being convinced, no opinions are changing this thread has run its course as everything has been said repeatedly and it is falling on deaf ears, if we still had moderators I think they would be better off closing it and letting it disappear so the next one can repeat the process.
Nay; I do not accept terrorism as justified in any situation. Especially if the terrorism breaks out into hives (attacking other countries who are against them).
I accept guerrilla tactics (depending on the situation), but terrorism is unforgivable. The act of attacking civillians of one country or another is outrageous. Then you might as well say you support nuclear attacks (if that country feels like it will be crushed). They both are the same thing, indiscriminate attacks. I know war isn't pretty, but even in the case of self-defense, it is unlawful. Remember, this is attacking civillians, not combatants. How is killing unarmed people defense?
I am not sure if you mixed up guerillas warfare with terrorism as they are not relevant to one another except guerillas hide in civillian areas.
I believe no one will be convinced either; were stagnated. The point is I want to see why you hold your views, as I have shown why I hold mines. Of course you can argue there is no point, but without understanding each other, we will just see the other as incorrect ans resort to Seno's method (insults and such).
The fact they were given the land by the U.N and (Britain included, which ruled the area at that time) makes it hard to dispute Israel's existence regardless of how they came into being. I would definately be against the creation of Israel and their terrorist actions at that time, but that time passed. Once you give terrorism what it wants, it won't and rightfully shouldn't take kindly to a reverse in mind. especially after they claimed soveriegnty.... Remember this Palestine was never a soveriegn nation, so it is quite desputable about why they legally hold grounds for a state except the fact that the region was named Palestine and they lived there. Israel have just as much right to exist there because of that reason....
However, I rather not debate legality as it would force me to keep gathering sources which probably won't be heeded anyways lol. If you want to discuss legality then I can (reluctanly). I think VDKMS does a real good job at debating legality, so I would rather leave it to him.