Originally posted by Jade Constable:
]I didn't compare anything to Ulster
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I wouldn't compare the two, personally.
quote:
Human casualties, the Israeli military says, can be avoided by obeying instructions to residents to evacuate, <snip>
However, more than 50,000 people have been forced to leave their homes and sought refuge in UN temporary shelters, mainly schools.
quote:I don't remember the IRA ever coming to power in Ireland and then firing 1,700 rockets at the UK. I don't remember it because it never happened. If it did, I'd also remember the subsequent British invasion of Ireland.
originally posted by Doublethink:
You remember the IRA terrorist campaign - we didn't invade Ireland.
quote:I fail to see why casualty figures are damning. The only damning fact is that Hamas continues to fire rockets. Do you really expect the Israeli government to care more about the lives of the people of Gaza than their own democratically elected government? I sure don't.
originally posted by Curiosity Killed:
The casualty figures are pretty damning:
Palestinian casualties - over 370, including women and children,
Israeli casualties: 2 civilians and 5 Israeli soldiers
(from Daily Telegraph)
quote:I don't think so. Neither side really wants peace. Who believes the Israelis want peace when they do nothing about the Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory? The Palestinian position is that the Israelis should just give them everything they want no questions asked in return for peace. Even if the Israelis believed the Palestinians would give them peace, Israel is not about to give the Palestinians what amounts to status quo ante bellum.
originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Should they wish to come to a peace, they can do so. The grounds are there.
quote:Jews for Justice for Palestinians
JVP opposes anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and anti-Arab bigotry and oppression. JVP seeks an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem; security and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians; a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on principles established in international law; an end to violence against civilians; and peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East.
quote:Combatants for Peace
Jews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.
quote:There is hope.
The “Combatants for Peace” movement was started jointly by Palestinians and Israelis, who have taken an active part in the cycle of violence; Israelis as soldiers in the Israeli army (IDF) and Palestinians as part of the violent struggle for Palestinian freedom. After brandishing weapons for so many years, and having seen one another only through weapon sights, we have decided to put down our guns, and to fight for peace.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:I've heard from many Christian seminars on Israel that the Palestinian position is that all Israelis must be annihilated for there to be peace. I've met an educated Moroccan who also shares this position with the same certainty as 1 + 1 = 2, so I'm ready to side with that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Palestinian position is that the Israelis should just give them everything they want no questions asked in return for peace.
quote:There are organisations, including Hamas, who advocate the destruction of Israel. While that is an extreme position it is not the same as advocating a genocide of Israelis. It is also worth remembering that there are more than a few Israelis who call for "greater Israel" and the removal of all Palestinians from it. The settlement activity over the last few decades of testament to an Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing.
Originally posted by Highfive:
I've heard from many Christian seminars on Israel that the Palestinian position is that all Israelis must be annihilated for there to be peace. I've met an educated Moroccan who also shares this position with the same certainty as 1 + 1 = 2, so I'm ready to side with that.
quote:For credibility's sake it would probably have to be a Muslim person doing something like this. I also haven't found much in other news outlets about this family so it seems they aren't getting the press.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Like these people, for example?
quote:What a sad story. It shows that Israel has won, really, and Palestine is finished. I suppose Israel will continue to pay a price, as there is so much hatred of them now. But they don't need a peace deal now, they can just keep grabbing land.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Like these people, for example?
quote:Except that this doesn't take place in a vacuum. The corrected analogy would an ever expanding set of British settlements in Northern Ireland gradually displacing the Irish.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Palestinians have played this game for decades. Step 1...start a fight with a superior military. Step 2...make no effort to distinguish your fighters from civilians. Step 3...complain that you are helpless victims and the opposing military is killing civilians. Step 4...don't mention the fact that the military in question could easily kill all of you. Step 5...wait for the sympathy and outrage. Hamas didn't invent this technique.
quote:...because the average pro-Israeli Westerner is unaware that Palestinian Christians exist? Though they probably won't for much longer, the Israeli government and the Islamic extremist groups both have it in for them.
For credibility's sake it would probably have to be a Muslim person doing something like this...
quote:Probably, but that's not why I said that.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...because the average pro-Israeli Westerner is unaware that Palestinian Christians exist?
quote:I said no such thing nor did I even suggest it. But I do not think that a Christian family is going to change the mind of Muslim leaders - like Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan who said this past weekend "(Israelis) have no conscience, no honour, no pride. Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism."
Originally posted by Jane R:
And dismissing them with 'oh well, they're not Muslims so it doesn't count' makes it even more depressing.
quote:Indeed. For the pro-Israel Christian who sees the modern state of Israel as some kind fulfilment of prophesy Palestinian Christians are simply the wrong sort of Christian, the ancient type.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And the US is not going to change foreign policy for a Palestinian Christian family because they are probably nasty Orthodox instead of good Southern Baptists or evangelicals. (sarcasm)
quote:For a long time there were believed to be IRA training camps in Ireland. And the Irish state maintained a claim in their consitution that Northern Ireland was part of their country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I don't remember the IRA ever coming to power in Ireland and then firing 1,700 rockets at the UK. I don't remember it because it never happened. If it did, I'd also remember the subsequent British invasion of Ireland.
originally posted by Doublethink:
You remember the IRA terrorist campaign - we didn't invade Ireland.
quote:As far as Gaza is concerned, she has, hasn't she?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The thing that would probably help the most is Israel getting out of its illegal settlements.
quote:They might mean Israel's end as a Jewish State.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:There are organisations, including Hamas, who advocate the destruction of Israel. While that is an extreme position it is not the same as advocating a genocide of Israelis. It is also worth remembering that there are more than a few Israelis who call for "greater Israel" and the removal of all Palestinians from it. The settlement activity over the last few decades of testament to an Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing.
Originally posted by Highfive:
I've heard from many Christian seminars on Israel that the Palestinian position is that all Israelis must be annihilated for there to be peace. I've met an educated Moroccan who also shares this position with the same certainty as 1 + 1 = 2, so I'm ready to side with that.
quote:Help who the most? Probably the Palestinian terrorists who would be able to train, organise and plan attacks with impunity.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The thing that would probably help the most is Israel getting out of its illegal settlements. Imperialism is not really a good recipe for peace.
quote:Terrorist campaigns are the same everywhere. Civilians get killed indiscriminately for political and strategic ends.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:As far as Gaza is concerned, she has, hasn't she?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The thing that would probably help the most is Israel getting out of its illegal settlements.
I'm afraid I don't really understand the comparison between Ulster and Israel. The two terrorist campaigns are of a rather different nature, aren't they?
quote:Help whom though? Israel has occupied a big chunk of the West Bank, and will presumably occupy more and more. The US will not really oppose this, so Israel had no need of a peace deal; the notion of a Palestinian state is now defunct. The end.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The thing that would probably help the most is Israel getting out of its illegal settlements. Imperialism is not really a good recipe for peace.
quote:Let me get this straight. The Obama administration is letting a bunch of crazy fundamentalists who aren't going to vote for them in a million years decide how they conduct foreign policy? I don't think so.
originally posted by Squirrel:
A lot of the problem comes from crazy fundamentalists who see the founding of modern Israel as the fulfillment of prophesy, and any attacks on it as coming from the devil.
quote:Oh, the Israelis have big plans for the Plantation of Palestine. They'll eventually get around to allowing the settlements to decide if they want to apart of Israel or Palestine. It might be 300 or so years from now but it will happen.
originally posted by chris stiles:
Except that this doesn't take place in a vacuum. The corrected analogy would an ever expanding set of British settlements in Northern Ireland gradually displacing the Irish.
quote:Indeed...3,000 people died in the Troubles. An even larger number of people have died in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. What's your point? You are also only listing the number of civilians killed by rocket fire. The Palestinians have killed far more Israeli civilians than just the 29 killed by rockets.
originally posted by Doublethink:
Over 3000 people died in the troubles.
quote:I'm sure they'll consider that when their Middle Eastern neighbors do.
originally posted by Anglican Brat:
If an American stands up and says that America is a White State and that whites should be privileged, that American would be condemned by most civilized people. Yet Israel's claim as a Jewish State which IMHO, means that Israel's Jews should be privileged above everyone else in historic Palestine is seen as the basic condition for any kind of peace from the Israeli government's side.
quote:One blogger makes this point of comparison.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I don't really understand the comparison between Ulster and Israel. The two terrorist campaigns are of a rather different nature, aren't they?
quote:This was written when the Israeli campaign was still limited to aerial bombardment, but I think the point stands.
Meanwhile, those who speak for the Israeli government go around claiming that no state could tolerate missiles being fired into its territory and that any state would have to retaliate. This is false, indeed absurd: much of British policy in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 80s was deplorable, but though the IRA fired plenty of mortar rounds across the border, nobody seriously contemplated taking out “terror operatives” by aerial bombardment of civilian housing in the Irish Republic.
quote:Another way: Stop supporting the Palestinians until they are willing to come to the negotiating table with realistic demands(given that their side lost).
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There is a way: stop supporting Israel, especially the USA, both politically and militarily.
quote:Well, when you put the Palestinians in a ghetto, making it smaller and smaller all the time, what do you expect? Oh the irony! It's just a shame that Israelis and American evangelicals can see it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Another way: Stop supporting the Palestinians until they are willing to come to the negotiating table with realistic demands(given that their side lost).
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There is a way: stop supporting Israel, especially the USA, both politically and militarily.
A significant number of Americans join the majority of Israelis in not really caring about what the UN says about the actions. Israel doesn't believe the UN is impartial. We think the UN is a joke. So...there you go.
quote:A sizable portion of Obama's donor base also has a religious reason for supporting Israel, although not the same one. And many of them are extremists when it comes to any suggestions of not unquestioningly supporting Israel. I grew up outside of New York City and learned at a very young age not to discuss the Israel/Palestine conflict in school as a handful of Jewish parents were known to complain about teachers who took any sort of position that was even vaguely critical of Israel.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let me get this straight. The Obama administration is letting a bunch of crazy fundamentalists who aren't going to vote for them in a million years decide how they conduct foreign policy? I don't think so.
originally posted by Squirrel:
A lot of the problem comes from crazy fundamentalists who see the founding of modern Israel as the fulfillment of prophesy, and any attacks on it as coming from the devil.
quote:If that's the basis for negotiation then Israel is stuck, at least until it has a more courageous PM.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Another way: Stop supporting the Palestinians until they are willing to come to the negotiating table with realistic demands(given that their side lost).
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There is a way: stop supporting Israel, especially the USA, both politically and militarily.
A significant number of Americans join the majority of Israelis in not really caring about what the UN says about the actions. Israel doesn't believe the UN is impartial. We think the UN is a joke. So...there you go.
quote:It should be noted that U.S. aid to Israel, including military aid, is the product of Congressional appropriations, not Presidential fiat. So yes, it's doubtful anyone could ever be elected U.S. President without fully supporting Israel, but the question of aid is not necessarily a presidential one.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I've always assumed that no American president could ever give less than full support to Israel, and that includes arms.
quote:Uh, it's called Palestinians being able to live in their own country. If that happened then there wouldn't be a reason for them to attack.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Help who the most? Probably the Palestinian terrorists who would be able to train, organise and plan attacks with impunity.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The thing that would probably help the most is Israel getting out of its illegal settlements. Imperialism is not really a good recipe for peace.
Is that what you desire JC?
quote:I didn't compare anything to Ulster
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:As far as Gaza is concerned, she has, hasn't she?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The thing that would probably help the most is Israel getting out of its illegal settlements.
I'm afraid I don't really understand the comparison between Ulster and Israel. The two terrorist campaigns are of a rather different nature, aren't they?
quote:Apologies - I was referring to the comparison made by other posters. I could have separated out my comments more clearly.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
]I didn't compare anything to Ulster
I wouldn't compare the two, personally.
quote:Your point is well taken. Premillenialist influence over the Democrats must be close to nil.
Let me get this straight. The Obama administration is letting a bunch of crazy fundamentalists who aren't going to vote for them in a million years decide how they conduct foreign policy? I don't think so.
quote:I think if my government was showing exactly the same response to thst neighbouring state as it had been showing for the past thirty years, with exactly the same lack of results, I wouldn't use the word 'disproportionate' so much as ...
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the inhabitants of a neighbouring state were peppering me daily with a stream of home made missiles, could I imagine any level of response by my own government that I would regard as disproportionate? Probably not.
quote:But isn't there one pretty fundamental difference here? While Anglo-Irish relations weren't exactly at their best in the 1960s - 80s, terror was not being conducted by the Irish government but by the IRA, which may have been operating in the Irish Republic. This seems rather different to a regime that is both governing a territory and attacking its neighbour from that territory.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:One blogger makes this point of comparison.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I don't really understand the comparison between Ulster and Israel. The two terrorist campaigns are of a rather different nature, aren't they?
quote:This was written when the Israeli campaign was still limited to aerial bombardment, but I think the point stands.
Meanwhile, those who speak for the Israeli government go around claiming that no state could tolerate missiles being fired into its territory and that any state would have to retaliate. This is false, indeed absurd: much of British policy in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 80s was deplorable, but though the IRA fired plenty of mortar rounds across the border, nobody seriously contemplated taking out “terror operatives” by aerial bombardment of civilian housing in the Irish Republic.
quote:The article cited in the blog post contradicts this premise.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But isn't there one pretty fundamental difference here? While Anglo-Irish relations weren't exactly at their best in the 1960s - 80s, terror was not being conducted by the Irish government but by the IRA, which may have been operating in the Irish Republic. This seems rather different to a regime that is both governing a territory and attacking its neighbour from that territory.
quote:The situation seems more parallel than you indicate.
Hamas’ Hebron branch — more a crime family than a clandestine organization — had a history of acting without the leaders’ knowledge, sometimes against their interests.
<snip>
The last attack on Gaza, the eight-day Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, targeted Hamas leaders and taught a sobering lesson. Hamas hadn’t fired a single rocket since, and had largely suppressed fire by smaller jihadi groups. Rocket firings, averaging 240 per month in 2007, dropped to five per month in 2013. Neither side had any desire to end the détente.
quote:Yes, the one solution which I hear about more and more is the one state solution. This assumes that the idea of a Palestinian state is finished now. But a one state solution presents massive problems, as presumably Israel would demand a built-in Jewish majority. It sounds impossible, but so is everything else.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Meanwhile numerous people from both 'sides' in this situations are saying that they "refuse to be enemies".
quote:Slightly similar to that well-known 100 yr old situation where human friendship and fellowship broke-out right in the middle of a tortured war-zone.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Meanwhile numerous people from both 'sides' in this situations are saying that they "refuse to be enemies".
quote:The analogy isn't correct, as the Israel situation is one of being surrounded by hostile countries with policies to eliminate the country and people, which doesn't exist for Ireland. This has changed because Israel has won all of the wars with (mainly) USA backing, but it is still a major problem. The situation for the occupied territories is not one of the surrounding countries originally respecting them as Palestinian territories - no one did. Egypt and Jordan occupying them after 1948. It makes sense that they would have I suppose, because if they hadn't the Palestinians wouldn't have had a chance.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Except that this doesn't take place in a vacuum. The corrected analogy would an ever expanding set of British settlements in Northern Ireland gradually displacing the Irish.
It also ignores the period of time between the Occupation and the first intifada. An interesting counterfactual would have been if the Palestinians had gone with a 'no taxation without representation' line.
quote:Let me get this straight. The Obama administration is letting a bunch of crazy fundamentalists who aren't going to vote for them in a million years decide how they conduct foreign policy? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QB] [QUOTE]originally posted by Squirrel:
A lot of the problem comes from crazy fundamentalists who see the founding of modern Israel as the fulfillment of prophesy, and any attacks on it as coming from the devil.
quote:European Jews didn't try pacifism unsuccessfully in WW2. They tried accommodation unsuccessfully. There's a huge difference. The few places where pacifism was tried in WW2 were successful. (see Walter Wink)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, if one side would take a pacifist position, this would work itself out in no time flat and be an improvement for the Palestinians. Both sides adopting a pacifist position would be even better. Seeing as how neither will (certainly not Israel after the disaster that befell the European Jews when they tried pacifism), it is a moot point.
quote:The continued existence of the Palestinian people is a fantasy now. I can't put a year on it, but soon the genocide will be complete.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure about Israel's cleft stick. They have got what they want - a licence to grab land. They will put up with Hamas rockets I think, for that. Basically, they have won. A Palestinian state is a fantasy now.
quote:Like fucking Hell. The settlements will always be part of Israel, unless by "Palestine" you mean a second Jewish state.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, the Israelis have big plans for the Plantation of Palestine. They'll eventually get around to allowing the settlements to decide if they want to apart of Israel or Palestine. It might be 300 or so years from now but it will happen.
quote:Rearrange these words to make a famous saying:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm sure they'll consider that when their Middle Eastern neighbors do.
quote:This would be the genocide causing the Palestinian population to increase each year would it? Bit unusual for a soon to be completed genocide, n'est-ce pas?
Originally posted by mousethief:
The continued existence of the Palestinian people is a fantasy now. I can't put a year on it, but soon the genocide will be complete.
quote:Obama is not a Republican. Clinton was not a Republican. So, I fail to see how you can argue that the lunatic fringe of the Republican party has any influence on how Democratic presidents conduct foreign policy. For the correct answer, read Stetson's post.
originally posted by Squirrel:
My reply:
Obama has no use for those nuts. But they still yield power with the lunatic fringe, chiefly in the Republican party. And the fringe elements do carry some power.
quote:If Israel planned on killing all of the Palestinians in Gaza, they would already be dead.
originally posted by mousethief:
The continued existence of the Palestinian people is a fantasy now. I can't put a year on it, but soon the genocide will be complete.
quote:At the time of the Stuart Monarchy, nobody would have envisioned the English allowing Irish self determination either.
originally posted by mousethief:
Like fucking Hell. The settlements will always be part of Israel, unless by "Palestine" you mean a second Jewish state.
quote:Apparently neither the Jews of Israel nor the Muslims of virtually every other nation in the Middle East think it is a wrong and that's all that matters.
originally posted by mousethief:
Rearrange these words to make a famous saying:
a, don't, make, right, wrongs, two
quote:Wrong. If they had already wiped them out, it would have been obvious and blatant, and the international community (by which in this case I mean the United States) would actually be forced to condemn them. By taking it slow and piecemeal, they can get away with it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Israel planned on killing all of the Palestinians in Gaza, they would already be dead.
quote:The huge difference is that the Stuart Monarchy wasn't a religion, and didn't think that God gave them Ireland 4,000 years ago, and that they were just taking back what had always been theirs. Nor did the rest of the world smile and nod when they invaded Ireland due to the fact that the House of Hesse just tried to wipe them off the face of the map.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
At the time of the Stuart Monarchy, nobody would have envisioned the English allowing Irish self determination either.
quote:Indeed. And I should well imagine that this is one of the things that irks the Palestinians the most, having Brooklyn or St. Petersburg Jews whose forefathers last lived in Palestine hundreds if not over a thousand years ago take their land, or Israeli soldiers speaking Russian or English stopping Palestinians from moving freely.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Uh, it's called Palestinians being able to live in their own country. If that happened then there wouldn't be a reason for them to attack.
Please tell me why American Jews should be able to live in illegal Palestinian settlements, but not Palestinians?
quote:Not to mention that it is debatable if every person identifying as Jewish today actually is descended from the ancient Israelites. There is a strong likelihood that many Jews were descended from converts.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Indeed. And I should well imagine that this is one of the things that irks the Palestinians the most, having Brooklyn or St. Petersburg Jews whose forefathers last lived in Palestine hundreds if not over a thousand years ago take their land, or Israeli soldiers speaking Russian or English stopping Palestinians from moving freely.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Uh, it's called Palestinians being able to live in their own country. If that happened then there wouldn't be a reason for them to attack.
Please tell me why American Jews should be able to live in illegal Palestinian settlements, but not Palestinians?
quote:True, and that it's Jews who are practising aparteid seems very ironic indeed. One would have thought they knew better but apparently not. Maybe we can then ignore their cries of antisemitism when we criticise them.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think putting all the responsibility on Palestine is the answer at all - it totally removes Israel's responsibility to you know, not be enforcing apartheid. How about the US preventing its citizens from claiming a home in settlements?
Also, er, Mandela was not a pacifist. I agree that there needs to be a Palestinian Mandela (and also an Israel boycott like the South Africa boycott, and global condemnation of Israel's apartheid) but that naturally means non-pacifism involved.
Palestine needs an Order of the Phoenix, not a Ministry of Magic.
quote:We would have done had there been 1000s of rockets being fired into civilian populations.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You remember the IRA terrorist campaign - we didn't invade Ireland.
quote:Perhaps the Israelis have got a bet on with Ian Duncan Smith as to whether they can eliminate the Palestinians before the introduction of Universal Credit?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Wrong. If they had already wiped them out, it would have been obvious and blatant, and the international community (by which in this case I mean the United States) would actually be forced to condemn them. By taking it slow and piecemeal, they can get away with it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Israel planned on killing all of the Palestinians in Gaza, they would already be dead.
quote:It's the Israeli government, acting on behalf of a majority of the Israeli population, most of whom are Jewish. It's not "Jews" or "they" doing anything. It is precisely this sort of conflation that leaves you open to accusations of anti-Semitism. The Israeli government likes it when this happens because it saves having to answer for their crimes.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
True, and that it's Jews who are practising aparteid seems very ironic indeed. One would have thought they knew better but apparently not. Maybe we can then ignore their cries of antisemitism when we criticise them.
quote:Absolutely it's the government of Israel, not "jews".
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:It's the Israeli government, acting on behalf of a majority of the Israeli population, most of whom are Jewish. It's not "Jews" or "they" doing anything. It is precisely this sort of conflation that leaves you open to accusations of anti-Semitism. The Israeli government likes it when this happens because it saves having to answer for their crimes.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
True, and that it's Jews who are practising aparteid seems very ironic indeed. One would have thought they knew better but apparently not. Maybe we can then ignore their cries of antisemitism when we criticise them.
quote:Considering that any Jew immigrating there from anywhere in the world automatically becomes a citizen, and that non-Jewish citizens have curtailed rights compared to Jewish citizens, and that supporters of Israel are constantly harping about the "right" of the Jewish people to a homeland, I really get sick of people claiming it's a secular state.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Er, isn't Israel a Jewish state?
quote:And my point, which seems to have been missed, is that given the ghettos and concentration camps of WWII that aJewish state, yes for the Jews, would know better. Am I the only one who sees the irony of this?
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:Absolutely it's the government of Israel, not "jews".
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:It's the Israeli government, acting on behalf of a majority of the Israeli population, most of whom are Jewish. It's not "Jews" or "they" doing anything. It is precisely this sort of conflation that leaves you open to accusations of anti-Semitism. The Israeli government likes it when this happens because it saves having to answer for their crimes.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
True, and that it's Jews who are practising aparteid seems very ironic indeed. One would have thought they knew better but apparently not. Maybe we can then ignore their cries of antisemitism when we criticise them.
What is worth remembering is that by the end, Israel was the only western, democratic state left supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa. It had been supporting that regime for years, if not decades.
John
quote:Being a Jewish state (as outlined by mousethief) is not the same thing as being "the Jews".
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Er, isn't Israel a Jewish state?
quote:No? Who is the Jewish state for then?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Being a Jewish state (as outlined by mousethief) is not the same thing as being "the Jews".
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Er, isn't Israel a Jewish state?
quote:Maybe, however, the one with the greater might bears the greater responsibility. The bullied has become the bully.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, of course you aren't the only one who sees the irony, Ad Orientem.
Conversely, there are militant Islamists who are Holocaust-deniers and who are calling for genocide against the Jewish people.
Can you not see the irony of that either?
quote:In your view, what would a proportionate response look like?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The Israeli response is the epitome of overkill, and it does not work.
quote:It could treat terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war. Using 60 ton Merkava tanks as snatch vehicles is hardly proportionate.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:In your view, what would a proportionate response look like?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The Israeli response is the epitome of overkill, and it does not work.
quote:How would that work? Would a couple of Israeli policemen make house-to-house enquiries in Gaza?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It could treat terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war. Using 60 ton Merkava tanks as snatch vehicles is hardly proportionate.
quote:Any reaction from the Israelis must be proportionate. What is the actual threat from Hamas rockets that justify now hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians? "Your rockets killed two of ours so we'll kill 500". Two wrongs don't make a right.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish people would accept this truth: the Palestinian military installations are deliberately placed in civilian areas. What do you expect Israel to do? Do you want them to say, 'Oh dear, we can't destroy these rockets because there are under someone's house or next to a hospital?' Oh yes, Israel should just allow the Palestinians to fire their rockets every day... even when the missiles are fired with increasing intensity from the hospital grounds themselves!?
And the reason so few Israelis are killed is because there are loads of air-raid shelters - something Hamas won't give its people.
And Israel does tell the Palestinian citizens to get out of the way while they target a military installation - but Hamas makes them stay put.
And yes, Palestinians do attack Israeli soldiers with a gun in one hand and a child in the other. They do use children and women as human shields.
These people are lunatics!
Can I ask what opinion you would have had in WWII when Lancaster bombers went to Germany and bombed the cities there in response to the blitz?
Would you have wanted nothing but political talks then and allowed the Nazis to grow stronger and then win the war?
I really don't think some opinions expressed here are in the real world - Isis is already in the Palestinian area, Hamas will never negotiate because it's aim is not peace but the annihilation of Israel.
And what do you make of Ban Ki-moon saying that Israel has the right to defend itself (whilst calling urging restraint, of course)?
Restraint, maybe, but certainly not inaction in the face of attacks on Israeli civilians.
quote:Simple answers:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A few thoughts - Hamas has managed to kill a total of two people with its rockets. How many innocent Palestinian civilians would Israel have had to kill to prevent those two deaths? Given the hundreds its killed so far, clearly Israel places the value of a Palestinian life as many times less than the value of an Israeli life. I personally find that morally reprehensible.
The way people talk you'd think these Hamas rockets were actually hitting their targets and killing lots of people. They aren't.
quote:Poo poo! Even if true, completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Simple answers:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A few thoughts - Hamas has managed to kill a total of two people with its rockets. How many innocent Palestinian civilians would Israel have had to kill to prevent those two deaths? Given the hundreds its killed so far, clearly Israel places the value of a Palestinian life as many times less than the value of an Israeli life. I personally find that morally reprehensible.
The way people talk you'd think these Hamas rockets were actually hitting their targets and killing lots of people. They aren't.
Israel has a decent anti-missile defence system - the Palestinians haven't.
Israel provide air raid warnings and shelters for its civilians and they are well-used - the Palestinians don't.
Israel tells its civilians to get out of the way - the Palestinians tell their people to stay put.
Israel doesn't deliberately and cynically put it's military installations in civilian areas - the Palestinians do.
quote:You've answered none of my questions with your comments. Again, how is it morally acceptable to kill hundreds of people in order to possibly save the lives of a few? Would you do it? Would you machine gun a hospital ward or a residential street to save the life of one person?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Simple answers:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A few thoughts - Hamas has managed to kill a total of two people with its rockets. How many innocent Palestinian civilians would Israel have had to kill to prevent those two deaths? Given the hundreds its killed so far, clearly Israel places the value of a Palestinian life as many times less than the value of an Israeli life. I personally find that morally reprehensible.
The way people talk you'd think these Hamas rockets were actually hitting their targets and killing lots of people. They aren't.
Israel has a decent anti-missile defence system - the Palestinians haven't.
Israel provide air raid warnings and shelters for its civilians and they are well-used - the Palestinians don't.
Israel tells its civilians to get out of the way - the Palestinians tell their people to stay put.
Israel doesn't deliberately and cynically put it's military installations in civilian areas - the Palestinians do.
quote:Wait a minute - Israel is targeting military installations. it's not their fault if Hamas tells the Civilians to stay there.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What is the actual threat from Hamas rockets that justify now hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians? "Your rockets killed two of ours so we'll kill 500". Two wrongs don't make a right.
quote:Poo poo! Even if true, completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Simple answers:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A few thoughts - Hamas has managed to kill a total of two people with its rockets. How many innocent Palestinian civilians would Israel have had to kill to prevent those two deaths? Given the hundreds its killed so far, clearly Israel places the value of a Palestinian life as many times less than the value of an Israeli life. I personally find that morally reprehensible.
The way people talk you'd think these Hamas rockets were actually hitting their targets and killing lots of people. They aren't.
Israel has a decent anti-missile defence system - the Palestinians haven't.
Israel provide air raid warnings and shelters for its civilians and they are well-used - the Palestinians don't.
Israel tells its civilians to get out of the way - the Palestinians tell their people to stay put.
Israel doesn't deliberately and cynically put it's military installations in civilian areas - the Palestinians do.
quote:I think part of the problem with this debate is the whole notion that we have to take sides. There is no logical contradiction in holding that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to self determination and that both Hamas and the IDF act in ways that constitute an Epic Fail in Just War Theory 101. There is some excuse for grotesque national chauvinism among populations which are being bombed; but none whatsoever among people pontificating on the subject from the safety of the United Kingdom.
It all comes down to one question: do you think the state of Israel should exist? From the attitudes of many people - and I am grieved that so m any church goers are of this opinion - it seems that people would rather side with the Palestinian terrorists than the democratic and US-created Israel.
quote:And that is precisely the unacceptable view that the liberal chattering-classes come out with that deserves
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: I incline towards pacifism, but I can't guarantee I wouldn't be manning the rockets myself if you did that to me. [/QB]
quote:It most certainly is their fault if knowing they are going to kill civilians they do it anyway. Suppose a bank robber has a bunch of hostages during a robbery. The Israeli action is a bit like the police storming the place, raking it with machine gun fire and killing half the hostages. They don't do that, because the whole point is not killing innocent people. Israel seems to me to be charging in and quite comfortable to kill innocents if they get a bad guy at the same time. Yeah, Hamas has plenty of blame for that, but so do the Israeli strategists saying "blow it up anyway. Shame about the collateral."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Wait a minute - Israel is targeting military installations. it's not their fault if Hamas tells the Civilians to stay there.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What is the actual threat from Hamas rockets that justify now hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians? "Your rockets killed two of ours so we'll kill 500". Two wrongs don't make a right.
Hamas, on the other hand, is deliberately targeting civilian populations - but Israel has an effective air raid system and moves the people out of the way.
It is not for want of trying that Hamas has only managed to kill a few Israelis. Their intent, their motivation, is shown in the thousands of rockets that have been fired. Do you think that Hamas is happy they've only killed a handful of people? The wanted to kill hundreds but Israel looks after its people better.
quote:Well, If I was a Palestinian I'd be pretty pissed off if all of a sudden my land was taken away by Jews from America and Europe, Jews whose forefathers haven't lived there for hundreds if not well over a thousand years.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The entire problem, as I see it, is caused by Arabs. They invaded Israel the very day after the state of Israel was created and they've been fighting ever since.
quote:I don't see that Israel has any more right to exist than any other country. States come and go. It would have been better had it not been created at all.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It all comes down to one question: do you think the state of Israel should exist? From the attitudes of many people - and I am grieved that so m any church goers are of this opinion - it seems that people would rather side with the Palestinian terrorists than the democratic and US-created Israel.
quote:Zzzzz!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's nothing short of Muslim-appeasing antisemitism.
quote:So it's unacceptable to draw attention to the fact that killing people tends to make their relatives do unreasonable things?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And that is precisely the unacceptable view that the liberal chattering-classes come out with that deserves
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: I incline towards pacifism, but I can't guarantee I wouldn't be manning the rockets myself if you did that to me.
Total Condemnation from all sides. [/QB]
quote:Unfortunately, unless you are planning to hop into your TARDIS and single handedly defeat the Haganah in 1948, we are rather stuck with a large number of Israeli nationals who have grown up in the place and rather regard it as their own. And who, as you may have noticed, have rather a lot of kit and no compunction about using it in defence of home and hearth. Which rather inclines me to the view that it might be both prudent and moral to suggest that any solution to that particular conflict might just have to take that particular consideration into account. Or you can wait to the glorious day until the resurgent armies of Hamas rise up and drive the Israelis into the sea. I must say that hasn't worked particularly well for them, so far.
I don't see that Israel has any more right to exist than any other country. States come and go. It would have been better had it not been created at all.
quote:Protecting the lives of it's citizens against attacks from foreign entities is one of the chief responsibilities of any government and has been since governments existed. So, yes, I would expect any government to value the lives of it's people over the lives of others. The question is why doesn't Hamas value the lives of their citizens over ginning up supportive rhetoric from the Western Left and Far Right.
originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You've answered none of my questions with your comments. Again, how is it morally acceptable to kill hundreds of people in order to possibly save the lives of a few? Would you do it? Would you machine gun a hospital ward or a residential street to save the life of one person?
quote:A bunch of Western governments took their land and gave it to someone else, and they didn't just sit back and accept it? How very dare they! Those uppity ragheads should just know their place, right?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The entire problem, as I see it, is caused by Arabs. They invaded Israel the very day after the state of Israel was created and they've been fighting ever since.
quote:It's a moot point, because Israel does exist and we have to work with that. But I for one think that its creation was a big mistake.
It all comes down to one question: do you think the state of Israel should exist?
quote:Just like the way people - church goers included - sided with the terrorist Mandela over the democratically-elected South African government.
From the attitudes of many people - and I am grieved that so m any church goers are of this opinion - it seems that people would rather side with the Palestinian terrorists than the democratic and US-created Israel.
quote:That's no truer than the idea that your side is founded on Jew-appeasing Islamophobia and racism.
It's nothing short of Muslim-appeasing antisemitism.
quote:So how many Palestinian civilians is it acceptable to kill to save one Israeli? 10? 100? 1000? All of them? Is there a limit to this "valuing more"?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Protecting the lives of it's citizens against attacks from foreign entities is one of the chief responsibilities of any government and has been since governments existed. So, yes, I would expect any government to value the lives of it's people over the lives of others. The question is why doesn't Hamas value the lives of their citizens over ginning up supportive rhetoric from the Western Left and Far Right.
originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You've answered none of my questions with your comments. Again, how is it morally acceptable to kill hundreds of people in order to possibly save the lives of a few? Would you do it? Would you machine gun a hospital ward or a residential street to save the life of one person?
quote:This is my position too.
Marvin the Martian: It's a moot point, because Israel does exist and we have to work with that. But I for one think that its creation was a big mistake.
quote:Sure, when Hamas stops trying to indiscriminately kill Israelis, the limit will have been reached. Frankly, I'm with Mudfrog. With every rocket fired, Hamas hopes to kill as many of it's own civilians as it does Israelis. So why give Hamas what they want? Israel is willing to allow Hamas to achieve its goal of ginning up supportive rhetoric from the Western Left and Far Right in order to stop the attacks on its citizens. Hamas doesn't care about the average Palestinian in Gaza any more than Israel. Given Fatah's reputation for corruption, it's hard to see how they do either.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:So how many Palestinian civilians is it acceptable to kill to save one Israeli? 10? 100? 1000? All of them? Is there a limit to this "valuing more"?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Protecting the lives of it's citizens against attacks from foreign entities is one of the chief responsibilities of any government and has been since governments existed. So, yes, I would expect any government to value the lives of it's people over the lives of others. The question is why doesn't Hamas value the lives of their citizens over ginning up supportive rhetoric from the Western Left and Far Right.
originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You've answered none of my questions with your comments. Again, how is it morally acceptable to kill hundreds of people in order to possibly save the lives of a few? Would you do it? Would you machine gun a hospital ward or a residential street to save the life of one person?
quote:What is this? Stop making sense, start making war week?
Sure, when Hamas stops trying to indiscriminately kill Israelis, the limit will have been reached. Frankly, I'm with Mudfrog. With every rocket fired, Hamas hopes to kill as many of it's own civilians as it does Israelis. So why give Hamas what they want? Israel is willing to allow Hamas to achieve its goal of ginning up supportive rhetoric from the Western Left and Far Right in order to stop the attacks on its citizens. Hamas doesn't care about the average Palestinian in Gaza any more than Israel. Given Fatah's reputation for corruption, it's hard to see how they do either.
quote:I believe you are a bit naïve about how the police would handle a gang of freaks going on a murderous rampage through the city of Chicago. If you got a group of freaks together and went on a murderous rampage, the Chicago PD would stop you even if it meant innocent bystanders were killed in the process. If you used supportive bystanders as shields while continuing to randomly kill Hoosiers, there would be a greater chance those bystanders would be killed.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Beeswax Altar, by that logic if I get a group of freaks together and we start murdering people from Indiana, it's okay for Hoosiers to murder any available Chicagoans until someone manages to stop my group from our murderous rampage?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:So, in your view, what would a proportionate response look like?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Any reaction from the Israelis must be proportionate.
quote:Yes, yes, we get, we know, how terrible and evil Hamas are. The problem here is most of the people getting blown to bits are not members of Hamas - they're ordinary people. People like you, like me, people with children, and often, now, thanks to Israeli airstrikes, people with dead children. People who may, however much you might like to try to call Godwin on the illustration, be more likely to become members of Hamas as a direct result.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thanks Beeswax Altar - I appreciate the support
I do recognise the very complicated history.
I do recognise the dreadful things that Israel did at the end of the 1940s - no nation on earth can say they conducted their wars according to the rule book and without any deserved reproach. That does not of course absolve Israel from its crimes.
I do reject the idea that Israel is deliberately killing a hundred Palestinian civilians in order to protect one Jewish one. What they are doing is destroying rockets to prevent further minor damage and minimise the terror felt by its citizens and also any future capability to do greater damage. Seriously, what do you want Israel to do, stop destroying Palestinian installations to allow Hamas to stockpile more and more rockets so that one day even Israel hasn't the capability to withstand the onslaught when they all eventually get launched in a mass attack on a scale we dion't see today??
Israel is not simply marching in and killing civilians - they are giving them fair warning - it's Hamas that is keeping the women and children there!
What it also very telling and significant is that when Egypt tried to bet a ceasifre going last week, Israel immediately agreed but Hamas took their tiome to refuse it. And then, when there was a 5 hour ceasfire, it was Hamas that launched missiles within a couple of miniytes of it ending.
What people do not realise is that Israel is the defender in all this. The Palestinians are the aggressors - every time.
quote:The Palestinians aren't engaging in land grabs and ethnic cleansing by forcing Israelis to leave ancestral homelands then building their own settlements there.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What people do not realise is that Israel is the defender in all this. The Palestinians are the aggressors - every time.
quote:I think despair is an important word here. Palestine is now extinct - it ain't going to happen, as Israel has sliced and diced the West Bank to smithereens. The 'international community' has made feeble protests, but also armed Israel.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Last night I heard a very intelligent (he's an engineer and religious leader), quiet, gentle Islamic Londoner explain how he became radicalised back in the 80s and 90s to the point he celebrated 9/11 and fought for Jihad in Afghanistan. His story reclarified how the Palestinians are radicalised.
He talked about the racism and abuse he suffered on the streets of London, the feeling of despair as Iran and Afghanistan were invaded by the posturing Christian leaders of Bush and Blair, how he was brought up in a strict Islamic household and he, with many of his fellow students, felt they had to get involved.
The aim of Israel seems to be to drive Palestine as an area out of existence. The policies of the Israeli government are making the lives of the Palestinians so difficult with the wall as a border, ploughing up of the orchards and olive trees, lack of access to water, to jobs, to medical treatment. Israel was only formed in 1948, in living memory for many, in what was the land of those Palestinians, and since Israel has been formed it has grabbed land and resources and redrawn the borders continuously. One of the desires of the Palestinians is to go back to the agreed 1967 borders, before the 6 days war and more land grabbing. And still Israel continues to grab more, leave the Palestinians with less and less. There are thousands of Palestinian refugees across the Middle East, in Syria, in Jordan. Why would the Palestinians not be radicalised? Why would this not be a cause for Jihad?
quote:Moral agency? The IDF would argue double effect. You might disagree with them. Besides, ethics went out the window a long time ago. Israel is the only side of the conflict even giving lip service to the rules of war. Personally, I've always thought the rules of war worked only so long as everybody followed them. Once one side stops following them, what's the point? Few people are going to sacrifice their lives in order to stay within the moral principles held by those thousands of miles away who care more about those principles than they do the lives of those they expect to live by them.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:What is this? Stop making sense, start making war week?
Sure, when Hamas stops trying to indiscriminately kill Israelis, the limit will have been reached. Frankly, I'm with Mudfrog. With every rocket fired, Hamas hopes to kill as many of it's own civilians as it does Israelis. So why give Hamas what they want? Israel is willing to allow Hamas to achieve its goal of ginning up supportive rhetoric from the Western Left and Far Right in order to stop the attacks on its citizens. Hamas doesn't care about the average Palestinian in Gaza any more than Israel. Given Fatah's reputation for corruption, it's hard to see how they do either.
Last time I looked Israelis had moral agency. If the IDF drop a bomb on a hospital the moral responsibility for emergency ward ten going up in smoke lies with the IDF. Everything else is blowing smoke and the amateur geostrategists equivalent of "But Miss, he started it..."
quote:is patently bullshit.
What people do not realise is that Israel is the defender in all this. The Palestinians are the aggressors - every time.
quote:Perhaps not, but perhaps you might have been surprised to the extent which IRA leadership, both Provisional and Official (and don't forget the IRSP), arrogated to themselves the authority of the Irish state. I well recall references to the True Republic, and how decisions, taken in "an authentically republican spirit," trump the actions of the authorities of the Republic of Ireland. Statements that no-one speaks for the people of Ireland but the army of the people of Ireland were frequent enough at rallies.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I don't see how it does, Croesos. The Hebron branch of Hamas is operating, obviously, in the West Bank, away from Hamas' power base in the Gaza Strip. It may or may not act with a high degree of autonomy, but it is - nominally at least - an arm of the same movement that is governing Gaza.
The parallel doesn't hold true with Northern Ireland. The IRA was not an arm of the Irish government nor was it regarded as such by the UK. The IRA, or its political representatives, did not govern the Irish Republic.
quote:No, the Chicago PD uses tear gas when rioters get out of hand. Get an armed band together and go on a killing rampage on the streets of Chicago and SWAT will show up as well armed as a military unit. Will bystanders be killed? Yes. Will the Chicago PD claim they did everything in their power to protect the bystanders? Yes. Will some people say that whatever the Chicago PD did to protect bystanders wasn't enough and they are a bunch of murderous goons? Absolutely they would. I know that because that's what happens every single time the police use deadly force and anybody gets killed much less a bystander.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Completely true about the police reaction, I suspect. But it wouldn't be an intentional killing of bystanders. They wouldn't fire bullets into a crowd just because we were in it, I think. (Teargas more likely.) I see that as what Israel is doing.
quote:Well yes, I would, if you drop a bomb on a hospital you can hardly claim that it is forseen but unintended.
Moral agency? The IDF would argue double effect. You might disagree with them.
quote:If you need a 'point' to morality and honour you have, really, kind of missed the point of the exercise.
Besides, ethics went out the window a long time ago. Israel is the only side of the conflict even giving lip service to the rules of war. Personally, I've always thought the rules of war worked only so long as everybody followed them. Once one side stops following them, what's the point? Few people are going to sacrifice their lives in order to stay within the moral principles held by those thousands of miles away who care more about those principles than they do the lives of those they expect to live by them.
quote:And look at what the allied didn't do. We didn't, for example, machine gun prisoners of war. We tried War Criminals, rather than summarily executing them. Heck, we even acquitted some of them, or gave them determinate prison sentences. The point being, of course, that if one is fighting for civilisation you lose the war when you adopt barbarism as a way of life. That isn't, of course, to say that the Second World War was conducted by Queensbury Rules, of course it wasn't. And, of course, the war in the east was conducted in rather a different manner.
No, when it gets right down to it, Israel and everybody else who believes they are fighting for the survival of their way of life, will do whatever it takes to win. Look what the allies were willing to do during World War II when they believed they were fighting for the survival of their way of life.
quote:Remind me how many Israeli casualties there have been so far? Hamas does not constitute an existential threat to Israel and it is mischievous and dishonest to pretend that it does.
It takes a lot of gall to then to tell others what rules they must follow when they feel their survival is threatened.
quote:No doubt. But given the somewhat bleak prognosis for any given Palestinian entity, it hardly follows that Israel is under desperate threat and can, therefore, dispense with the laws of war, does it.
What about the Palestinians? At some point, they need to realize they've lost and sue for the best peace deal possible. Will they win the right of return? I doubt it. Will they be able to keep Eastern Jerusalem? Maybe not. However, they will be able to govern themselves independent of Israel. I'd say that's better than the status quo.
quote:Maybe the police would be more inclined to shoot at unarmed Hoosiers than unarmed Chicagoans.
Originally posted by Gwai:
BA, I'm not clear whether you are disagreeing with me, but I think we are getting off topic. My point is that I don't think the police would fire on an innocent crowd because we were hiding in it. Nor should Israel.
quote:Out of interest, if 1,600 rocket attacks in a month isn’t sufficient, how many rockets does Hamas have to launch against Israel before one can regard it as a threat without being mischievous and dishonest?
Hamas does not constitute an existential threat to Israel and it is mischievous and dishonest to pretend that it does.
quote:About how many people would you say die from these rocket attacks? What is the replacement rate in Israel? How long would it take to empty the country at this rate? Do you know what "existential threat" means?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, if 1,600 rocket attacks in a month isn’t sufficient, how many rockets does Hamas have to launch against Israel before one can regard it as a threat without being mischievous and dishonest?
quote:I did use the word 'existential'. Hamas does not currently threaten the existence of the state of Israel. I suggest you try reading for comprehension before attempting cleverness.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Out of interest, if 1,600 rocket attacks in a month isn’t sufficient, how many rockets does Hamas have to launch against Israel before one can regard it as a threat without being mischievous and dishonest?
Hamas does not constitute an existential threat to Israel and it is mischievous and dishonest to pretend that it does.
quote:Ah, so the threat and the fear and the disruption from these rockets, and the potential for death and destruction is not sufficient to do anything to stop them? Israel should just put up with all these rockets and treat them as an inconvenience?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:About how many people would you say die from these rocket attacks? What is the replacement rate in Israel? How long would it take to empty the country at this rate? Do you know what "existential threat" means?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, if 1,600 rocket attacks in a month isn’t sufficient, how many rockets does Hamas have to launch against Israel before one can regard it as a threat without being mischievous and dishonest?
quote:Jesus, Mudfrog, will you please read what I said? I didn't say any of those things. I was arguing against the absurd idea that the rockets posed an existential threat. I didn't say they were good, or okay, or not a problem. Only that they don't pose an existential threat. You really must respond to what people say, and not what you want them to have said, or fear they said, or think they said.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ah, so the threat and the fear and the disruption from these rockets, and the potential for death and destruction is not sufficient to do anything to stop them? Israel should just put up with all these rockets and treat them as an inconvenience?
quote:Including the Palestinians? The chief difference being that - unlike the Israelis - there is a clear, present and specific danger to the survival of their way of life.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, when it gets right down to it, Israel and everybody else who believes they are fighting for the survival of their way of life, will do whatever it takes to win.
quote:Excluded middle there Muddy. There are other potential actions other than "do nothing" and "bomb any site there might be missiles even if it means killing lots of innocent people."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Ah, so the threat and the fear and the disruption from these rockets, and the potential for death and destruction is not sufficient to do anything to stop them? Israel should just put up with all these rockets and treat them as an inconvenience?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:About how many people would you say die from these rocket attacks? What is the replacement rate in Israel? How long would it take to empty the country at this rate? Do you know what "existential threat" means?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, if 1,600 rocket attacks in a month isn’t sufficient, how many rockets does Hamas have to launch against Israel before one can regard it as a threat without being mischievous and dishonest?
quote:It's easier to blow up a Kindergarten than it is an Arms Depot. I don't think that it follows that blowing up Kindergartens is OK when your military capacity drops below a certain level.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is a long track record of armed Palestinian groups going after civilian targets. Surely there are two reasons for this: first is that they simply don't have the capacity to target the military. Even attacking civilian targets they have been ineffective. It's pretty hard to tell people that they can't do anything to fight back because the targets they're "meant" to go for are out of their reach. Secondly, isn't pretty much every Israeli adult a reservist? Where do you drawn the line between civilian and military when all your civilians have military training and can be activated at a moment's notice. Do all Palestinians become off-limits if they announce that they're off-duty?
quote:I know what you said; you mean that the rockets are not threatening the very existence of the state of Israel. The implication of that, coupled with other things, are that if they don't threaten the national existence, then they shouldn't be met with such a response - i.e. 'Don't fight back so hard; after all, no one's getting killed are they?'
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Jesus, Mudfrog, will you please read what I said? I didn't say any of those things. I was arguing against the absurd idea that the rockets posed an existential threat. I didn't say they were good, or okay, or not a problem. Only that they don't pose an existential threat. You really must respond to what people say, and not what you want them to have said, or fear they said, or think they said.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ah, so the threat and the fear and the disruption from these rockets, and the potential for death and destruction is not sufficient to do anything to stop them? Israel should just put up with all these rockets and treat them as an inconvenience?
quote:But again, you miss the point.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that the response is killing hundreds of people and the missiles virtually no-one, is that such an unreasonable position?
quote:I think that stands out for me. Palestine has been destroyed in effect; now they face a possible cultural genocide. I mean that it's quite possible that their traditional way of life will end, most of their land will be taken away, and they will becomes refugees, or cling on, in the margins of Eretz Yisrael.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Including the Palestinians? The chief difference being that - unlike the Israelis - there is a clear, present and specific danger to the survival of their way of life.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, when it gets right down to it, Israel and everybody else who believes they are fighting for the survival of their way of life, will do whatever it takes to win.
quote:Erm, weren't they offered a state of their own from day one? Are they still not being offered a state of their own, all in which to live as they wish, preserving their freedom, culture and religion?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I think that stands out for me. Palestine has been destroyed in effect; now they face a possible cultural genocide. I mean that it's quite possible that their traditional way of life will end, most of their land will be taken away, and they will becomes refugees, or cling on, in the margins of Eretz Yisrael.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Including the Palestinians? The chief difference being that - unlike the Israelis - there is a clear, present and specific danger to the survival of their way of life.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, when it gets right down to it, Israel and everybody else who believes they are fighting for the survival of their way of life, will do whatever it takes to win.
I suppose rationally, they should accept this and 'move on'. However, humans tend not to do this; they stand and fight, well, some of them. Resistance movements have always done this, in the face of huge odds, especially the young, who are not yet tired and disillusioned.
quote:Muddy, they are dying because Hamas is placing them in danger AND because Israel is lobbing bombs at them. You can't escape culpability for your actions just because you can cite someone else's wrongdoing as contributory.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:But again, you miss the point.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that the response is killing hundreds of people and the missiles virtually no-one, is that such an unreasonable position?
The lack of Israeli casualties is not down to Palestinian inferiority but good Israeli defences and their care and provision for their civilian population.
Were the thousands of Palestinian rockets getting through to the Israeli civilian populations they are targeting and killing the hundreds they are clearly intended to kill, would you be saying their attacks are over the top and barbarous? Yes I think so.
Palestinian civilians are dying only because Hamas is deliberately placing them in danger by not allowing them to move away from the rocket launchers. I mean, who sites heavy artillery in a hospital forecourt!?
quote:Apologies. I've no excuses to offer.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
This is obviously an issue over which tempers can flare quickly. Don't raise the temperature by using unnecessarily inflammatory language - or if you must, then do so in Hell.
/hosting
quote:Agreed. But then doesn't that cut both ways? The Israeli argument is that they are targeting civilians in Gaza because they can't get at the militants firing the rockets. Surely they should refrain because their technology is not up to the job? Likewise if the argument is that Palestinian militants shouldn't hide in civilian areas for protection, shouldn't Israeli military installations be more prominently identified so that those firing rockets can aim for them instead of civilians. Once you recast these arguments so that they affect the oppressor as well as the oppressed then it becomes obvious how absurd they are.
Originally posted by Gildas:
It's easier to blow up a Kindergarten than it is an Arms Depot. I don't think that it follows that blowing up Kindergartens is OK when your military capacity drops below a certain level.
quote:What? Women, children and pensioners too?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is a long track record of armed Palestinian groups going after civilian targets. Surely there are two reasons for this: first is that they simply don't have the capacity to target the military. Even attacking civilian targets they have been ineffective. It's pretty hard to tell people that they can't do anything to fight back because the targets they're "meant" to go for are out of their reach. Secondly, isn't pretty much every Israeli adult a reservist? Where do you drawn the line between civilian and military when all your civilians have military training and can be activated at a moment's notice. Do all Palestinians become off-limits if they announce that they're off-duty?
quote:I would disagree with that. The British bombing of German cities should have prosecuted as a war crime.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's an interesting point of law - if someone occupies your land/country, what is then justifiable in a resistance movement to that? People often cite WWII, which is of course much bigger, but the Brits flattened whole German cities, with lots of civilians, in bombing raids.
Of course, this is still controversial, and I suppose in a way it became 'extra-moral'. I mean that faced with an extreme threat to one's survival, anything seems to become permissible, including nuclear attack, and certainly mass civilian deaths.
quote:No. That is not the implication. DO NOT put words in my mouth.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I know what you said; you mean that the rockets are not threatening the very existence of the state of Israel. The implication of that, coupled with other things, are that if they don't threaten the national existence, then they shouldn't be met with such a response - i.e. 'Don't fight back so hard; after all, no one's getting killed are they?'
quote:That's a fair point about prosecution, although the Brits were on the winning side! Justice belongs to the victors.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:I would disagree with that. The British bombing of German cities should have prosecuted as a war crime.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's an interesting point of law - if someone occupies your land/country, what is then justifiable in a resistance movement to that? People often cite WWII, which is of course much bigger, but the Brits flattened whole German cities, with lots of civilians, in bombing raids.
Of course, this is still controversial, and I suppose in a way it became 'extra-moral'. I mean that faced with an extreme threat to one's survival, anything seems to become permissible, including nuclear attack, and certainly mass civilian deaths.
The idea of trying to kill your enemy before they kill you is the extreme end which shows just how wrong Benthamite utilitarianism is. If you accept the thought experiment about switching the train tracks then mass killing becomes an acceptable option.
Taking a step back and looking at the big picture, I cannot but agree with the pacifist point of view, even though that comes with its own great cost.
quote:Which is the justification for trying to get rid of Hamas's thousands of missiles.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose it's like cut off the head of the snake.
quote:And also, presumably the justification for Hamas attacking Israel.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Which is the justification for trying to get rid of Hamas's thousands of missiles.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose it's like cut off the head of the snake.
quote:But for this argument to work one has to regard Israel's defensive measures as comparable to Hamas' use of human shields. That's absurd, surely?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Likewise if the argument is that Palestinian militants shouldn't hide in civilian areas for protection, shouldn't Israeli military installations be more prominently identified so that those firing rockets can aim for them instead of civilians.
quote:They both serve to make civilian targets more vulnerable than military ones. The Israelis simply have more resources to pull it off. I'm sure, given the choice, Hamas would prefer to have bomb proof bunkers, anti-missile and anti-aircraft batteries et al. My point is that the Palestinians are using the resources at their disposal to fight in any way they can. They don't have the luxury of fighting clean, which the Israelis do as they've demonstrated that even with purely defensive technology they're near enough immune from rocket attacks. More people have died in car accidents in Israel than from rocket attacks in the same period. I think non-violent resistance is the only approach that is likely to lead to success for the Palestinians, as well as being the only morally justifiable one, but I'm not going to pretend that the armed resistance is unreasonable. The Palestinians rely on militias to defend against Israel, to expect them to segregate themselves into barracks or bases that make them an easy target for Israel is ridiculous. It's not like Iraq where Saddam Hussein brought civilians into military areas; this is a resistance movement dealing with a foreign occupation.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:But for this argument to work one has to regard Israel's defensive measures as comparable to Hamas' use of human shields. That's absurd, surely?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Likewise if the argument is that Palestinian militants shouldn't hide in civilian areas for protection, shouldn't Israeli military installations be more prominently identified so that those firing rockets can aim for them instead of civilians.
quote:How so? Which aspects of Israel's defensive measures are remotely comparable to the use of human shields? I find the claim astonishing.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
They both serve to make civilian targets more vulnerable than military ones.
quote:But Gaza hasn't been occupied for a number of years...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[T]his is a resistance movement dealing with a foreign occupation.
quote:Gazan residents have no control over their borders, their airspace, their sea or their citizenship. The buffer zone between Israel and Gaza is Palestinian land, but out of bounds for Gazans.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:But Gaza hasn't been occupied for a number of years...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[T]his is a resistance movement dealing with a foreign occupation.
quote:Even if this were true you have to ask yourself how desperate people have to be before they would deliberately put themselves in harms way. And seriously where do you think they should go?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Israel tells its civilians to get out of the way - the Palestinians tell their people to stay put.
quote:I suspect it'll be a combination of a whole range of things:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Do they 'put themselves in harms way' or do they follow the instructions of a Hamas terrorist?
I don't know, but would be interested to learn the dynamics of how it works.
quote:That would be the sort of special pleading which many of us agree is pretty despicable.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But there does seem to be an implicit view in some quarters that if Israel is dishing the shit then that's ok because it's Israel. If anyone else were dishing it then it would be wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, someone. Please.
quote:Necessary for what though, that is the question. It seems as if the Israeli goal is either the permanent subjugation of the Palestinian people or their removal from Palestine. The continued blockade of Gaza, the continued growth of settlements in the West Bank, the offer of token Bantustans only in negotiations to bring about a Palestinian state, all point to an Israeli government that sees no future that has a sovereign Palestinian state in it.
Originally posted by rolyn:
In this instance Israel obviously considers it's actions necessary otherwise it wouldn't be carrying them out .
quote:Isn't that how the Red Indians were seen by the Federal government at the time of, say, the 'Battle' of Wounded Knee?
Originally posted by rolyn:
If I think of the plight of the Palestinian people as being like the Red Indians of N. America then they command my sympathy. If, however, I see them as war-like, and not interested in peace on any terms, then things are somewhat different.
quote:You are wrong.
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Correct me if I'm wrong, someone. Please.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Plausibly they are worried about other, more objectively successful, competitor groups like ISIS wooing their militants away from their control. ISIS argues that Hamas is too soft and not doing enough to kill Jews and destroy Israel.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I've been wondering what on earth Hamas hopes to accomplish.
quote:Are you equating Israel with world Jewry? That's dangerous. People will call you names. Just a word to the wise.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, I think as a culture they're still suffering from PTSD following the Holocaust.
quote:How many of these migrant children have been killed by bombs yet? I mean, yes, the way we treat migrants and illegal aliens is heinous. But you're really overegging your pudding.
Plus the US is no better. Migrant children show up at our borders and the Texas governor calls out the national guard.
quote:Now you are equating Hamas with all Palestinians. Palestine is not shooting rockets. Hamas is. And drug lords are in effect waging wars just off our borders, and Americans are dying. We are not bombing Mexico City in response.
Imagine what some Americans might think we should do if Mexico started shooting rockets at El Paso and San Diego.
quote:Of course not. But attacking Gaza and killing innocent civilians including children is not the answer.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Ah, so the threat and the fear and the disruption from these rockets, and the potential for death and destruction is not sufficient to do anything to stop them? Israel should just put up with all these rockets and treat them as an inconvenience?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:About how many people would you say die from these rocket attacks? What is the replacement rate in Israel? How long would it take to empty the country at this rate? Do you know what "existential threat" means?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, if 1,600 rocket attacks in a month isn’t sufficient, how many rockets does Hamas have to launch against Israel before one can regard it as a threat without being mischievous and dishonest?
quote:Even so, we don't allow people with PTSD to take out their trauma on others violently.
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QB] No, I think as a culture they're still suffering from PTSD following the Holocaust.
quote:Somebody mentioned ISIS, and Hamas has been losing support, so I would think it is projecting itself as the only protection for Gazans. There is probably also a computation rather like Hezbollah's - how many Israeli soldiers can you kill? I can't remember the total right now - if it gets to 40 or 50, they will use that as propaganda after the cease-fire.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Note to non-North Americans: the phrase "Red Indians" is offensive to the indigenous peoples it's supposed to refer to.
I've been wondering what on earth Hamas hopes to accomplish. The NY Times has an interesting article today on that topic. It starts: "When war between Israel and Hamas broke out two weeks ago, the Palestinian militant group was so hamstrung, politically, economically and diplomatically, that its leaders appeared to feel they had nothing to lose."
And I've been trying and failing to find the radio piece I heard the other day in which someone in Kurdistan said Hamas had squandered its opportunity to govern in Gaza.
I am by no means highly pro-Israel; I think their treatment of the Palestinians has been appalling for years. But Hamas could have been building more helpful stuff with all the concrete that's gone into the tunnels.
quote:I'm not equating Israel with world Jewry. But Israel's position as the one Jewish state in the world and its formation in the aftermath of the Holocaust makes it the nation whose identity is most tied up with the effects upon Jewish people of having been subject to that genocide.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Are you equating Israel with world Jewry? That's dangerous. People will call you names. Just a word to the wise.
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, I think as a culture they're still suffering from PTSD following the Holocaust.
quote:The migrant children aren't lobbing rockets at us. They're not even throwing rocks. Lots of them are simply turning themselves in. In response, Texas has called up its militia. I'm not trying to draw exact parallels. None of the comparisons made here -- bringing in Ireland or the US treatment of Native Americans -- are great parallels to the current conflict. I'm just saying the US is not in a position to complain about other people's disproportionate responses to threats, real or perceived.
quote:How many of these migrant children have been killed by bombs yet? I mean, yes, the way we treat migrants and illegal aliens is heinous. But you're really overegging your pudding.
Plus the US is no better. Migrant children show up at our borders and the Texas governor calls out the national guard.
quote:If drug lords were elected to rule Mexico and they shot rockets into El Paso and San Diego, what would be the US response?
quote:Now you are equating Hamas with all Palestinians. Palestine is not shooting rockets. Hamas is. And drug lords are in effect waging wars just off our borders, and Americans are dying. We are not bombing Mexico City in response.
Imagine what some Americans might think we should do if Mexico started shooting rockets at El Paso and San Diego.
quote:Second Mexican War
originally posted by RuthW:
If drug lords were elected to rule Mexico and they shot rockets into El Paso and San Diego, what would be the US response?
quote:Yeah, this was on the news here yesterday.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
One also has to remember that the population density of Gaza is 12,056 per sq mile (about 1/2 NYC's population density) and the strip is about 3 times the size of Manhattan. To say that Hamas is intentionally using civilians as human shields is a bit meaningless. There aren't a lot of places for civilians to flee to anyway.
quote:If you ask me, this is what makes the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians even more incomprehensible. They should know better, otherwise they forfeit the right to play the Holocaust card.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not equating Israel with world Jewry. But Israel's position as the one Jewish state in the world and its formation in the aftermath of the Holocaust makes it the nation whose identity is most tied up with the effects upon Jewish people of having been subject to that genocide.
I'm not saying they get a pass on inflicting pain on others. I'm offering this as a possible explanation of why they react the way they do, not an excuse.
quote:No need for correction. You're right.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But there does seem to be an implicit view in some quarters that if Israel is dishing the shit then that's ok because it's Israel. If anyone else were dishing it then it would be wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, someone. Please.
quote:Yeah, they can. Jews in Russia had it hard for centuries with all the pogroms not to mention The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Didn't seem to get much better under the Communists.
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Equally, some Orthodox can also be anti-Semitic. And that is a concern.
quote:True. And Many Americans are not terribly happy about that. Just as there are many Israelis who are not happy about what their government is doing to the civilians of Gaza.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even if the drug cartels started firing rockets into El Paso and San Diego without ruling Mexico, the US would still attack. Obama prefers drone strikes. So, he would start with that before sending in the bombers. Speaking of drone strikes, many of those drone strikes Obama ordered caused civilian casualties.
quote:Proving to many minds that the Nobel Peace Prize isn't worth the gold it's printed on.
He's a Nobel Peace Prize winner even.
quote:Quite true. And the current PTB in both the government and the church there are hardly innocent of this charge either. Even Solzhenitsyn before he died turned into a raving antisemitic lunatic. It's like in the water there, or the caviar, or something.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yeah, they can. Jews in Russia had it hard for centuries with all the pogroms not to mention The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Didn't seem to get much better under the Communists.
originally posted by Gamaliel:
Equally, some Orthodox can also be anti-Semitic. And that is a concern.
quote:I think it makes it comprehensible. Who better than a slave to be a slave-owner?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:If you ask me, this is what makes the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians even more incomprehensible. They should know better, otherwise they forfeit the right to play the Holocaust card.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not equating Israel with world Jewry. But Israel's position as the one Jewish state in the world and its formation in the aftermath of the Holocaust makes it the nation whose identity is most tied up with the effects upon Jewish people of having been subject to that genocide.
I'm not saying they get a pass on inflicting pain on others. I'm offering this as a possible explanation of why they react the way they do, not an excuse.
quote:If it were an individual who was suffering from PTSD this badly they'd likely be institutionalised, or at least kept away from guns and sharp objects. Maybe the cultural approach to Israel should be the same?
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not equating Israel with world Jewry. But Israel's position as the one Jewish state in the world and its formation in the aftermath of the Holocaust makes it the nation whose identity is most tied up with the effects upon Jewish people of having been subject to that genocide.
I'm not saying they get a pass on inflicting pain on others. I'm offering this as a possible explanation of why they react the way they do, not an excuse.
quote:And Hamas seem to be in the same position. If they hadn't fired rockets, etc... Israel learn that the way to win is to be harder (or at least they can be with no harm).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot to mention that there are reports that Israeli troops are impressed by Hamas' fighting ability. They used to be known for running away, but seem to have toughened up, in a rather Hezbollah manner. These reports are of course unchecked, but the Israeli casualties seem quite high.
This puts Israel on double or quits. Do they escalate or pull out? Both are risky - on the one hand, how many Israeli casualties are sustainable; on the other, retreat might be condemned by the right-wing parties in Israel.
quote:I think also these things build up in intensity just before a ceasefire, as if both sides want to make a final impression. All rather pathetic I suppose, from the comfort of my armchair, but I don't know what I would do if I lived in Gaza. I can imagine that many young guys are absolutely desperate to prove themselves. Well, just desperate really.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:And Hamas seem to be in the same position. If they hadn't fired rockets, etc... Israel learn that the way to win is to be harder (or at least they can be with no harm).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot to mention that there are reports that Israeli troops are impressed by Hamas' fighting ability. They used to be known for running away, but seem to have toughened up, in a rather Hezbollah manner. These reports are of course unchecked, but the Israeli casualties seem quite high.
This puts Israel on double or quits. Do they escalate or pull out? Both are risky - on the one hand, how many Israeli casualties are sustainable; on the other, retreat might be condemned by the right-wing parties in Israel.
You'll have noted that when Israel wasn't attacking rocket fire wasn't zero but it wasn't 100s of rockets a year either let alone a day (and I'm not sure about the situation with those), neither sides actions came from nowhere and you can build a chain of 'and then they did'*.
Of the two, Israel probably had it easier to pull down, and make it clear that they were being nice not weak). Not sure now.
*I'm not going to because it would have to start and end somewhere.
quote:I must say that this kind of national psychoanalysis strikes me as being unhelpful. It's like saying that Palestinians have a penchant for blowing themselves up in pizza restaurants as a result of the nakhba. Nor, outwith the overtly religious settler movement, is it necessary to postulate election by God to explain why an embattled nationalist movement might not be terribly minded to negotiate with people who are not, themselves, terribly minded to negotiate back.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:If it were an individual who was suffering from PTSD this badly they'd likely be institutionalised, or at least kept away from guns and sharp objects. Maybe the cultural approach to Israel should be the same?
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not equating Israel with world Jewry. But Israel's position as the one Jewish state in the world and its formation in the aftermath of the Holocaust makes it the nation whose identity is most tied up with the effects upon Jewish people of having been subject to that genocide.
I'm not saying they get a pass on inflicting pain on others. I'm offering this as a possible explanation of why they react the way they do, not an excuse.
The alternative explanation, of course, is that Israeli Jews are more likely to believe that they are literally God's chosen people, and hence have more rights than other people, particularly in Israel-Palestine. This certainly seems to be the motivation of many settlers.
My suspicion is that it's a combination of the two.
quote:Many North Americans may not know this, but I suspect the majority of Israel Jews consider themselves secular, most Jews in Tel Aviv for example, are not very religious.
The alternative explanation, of course, is that Israeli Jews are more likely to believe that they are literally God's chosen people, and hence have more rights than other people, particularly in Israel-Palestine. This certainly seems to be the motivation of many settlers.
quote:You forgot the fourth option, which is one also taken by many minorities from the Middle East. They leave. There are at least 30,000 Canadians claiming Palestinian origin-- I run into them all the time. Baristas, shop clerks, students, nurses, bus drivers, my neighbour's banker... while anecdotage is not research, conversations suggest that unemployment and lack of opportunity seem to be the main movers-- Israeli policies and homophobia on the part of their families and neighbours both got equal rating. One economist, cheerfully pumping espresso in the months before her doctoral studies began, told me that "The best of us have left, or are leaving, or are trying to leave."
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
*snip*
RuthW - if you have nothing left, you have nothing to lose. If Israel has driven Palestine and Palestinians into an uneconomic, boxed in ghetto with no way out to work, no farming community or anywhere to farm, no medical treatment, not enough water, intermittent electricity, your historic lands taken away from you ... What have you got left except anger and a fire in your belly to fight? The other option is to give up and roll over as your country is annexed by Israeli.
*more snip*
quote:Of course they are. Anyone who has skills, or a transferable skill, and less to keep them in Gaza than not, is applying to every embassy under the sun to take them. They want to work hard and bring up their families to expect a better standard of living than them. I'm continually surprised that there's *anyone* left in Gaza, except obdurate militants.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
"The best of us have left, or are leaving, or are trying to leave."
quote:Point of view, perhaps. Talking with people over the years, I would have said that motives described to me had to do as much with giving up on Palestine (more anecdotage here) and the limitations and difficulty they faced there. It is, of course, arguable that Hamas and its extremism and mistreatment of Palestinians is due to the situation with Israel.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Leaving looks pretty much the same as giving up from where I'm sitting. Plus, if you leave, you have to find somewhere to go.
quote:I completely agree, though I suppose everyone is a hypocrite to some extent.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I still think that there is a double-standard as far as some commentators are concerned - and that applies both ways. Some people will defend the Palestinians whatever shit they commit. Conversely, others will do the same for Israel.
quote:Yes, and rather rapidly. In fact, in the area between the Mediterranian Sea and the River Jordan, Jews have ceased to be the majority a couple of years back.
quetzalcoatl: I suppose it might work, but then isn't the Palestinian population actually increasing?
quote:I thought that one reason for this is that Israel is supported in the main by most Western countries, so there is a corresponding indignation, and a kind of 'not in my name' attitude. The left would no doubt argue that the West is complicit in Israel's crimes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I completely agree, though I suppose everyone is a hypocrite to some extent.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I still think that there is a double-standard as far as some commentators are concerned - and that applies both ways. Some people will defend the Palestinians whatever shit they commit. Conversely, others will do the same for Israel.
I think what grates with me is the way that some are minded to be very vocal about any perceived abuse of Palestinians by Israelis (several thousand marched in London last weekend, for example) but many of these people seem to fall silent if Arabs are abused by other, Arab, regimes or if, say, Christians are persecuted by Islamic radicals. We all have our pet causes, but this apparent notion that it’s only worth hitting the streets if the Israelis do something bad leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth.
quote:For my part, I'm more vocal about Israeli atrocities because Israel is supposed to be a modern, civilised, democratic first-world nation - and therefore should be held to the same standards I'd expect of any other such nation. If some fundamentalist theocracy, tin-pot dictatorship or corrupt banana republic does something bad then that's to be expected, but modern democracies like Israel are supposed to be better than that.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think what grates with me is the way that some are minded to be very vocal about any perceived abuse of Palestinians by Israelis (several thousand marched in London last weekend, for example) but many of these people seem to fall silent if Arabs are abused by other, Arab, regimes or if, say, Christians are persecuted by Islamic radicals. We all have our pet causes, but this apparent notion that it’s only worth hitting the streets if the Israelis do something bad leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth.
quote:We rarely agree but, well said that man!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:For my part, I'm more vocal about Israeli atrocities because Israel is supposed to be a modern, civilised, democratic first-world nation - and therefore should be held to the same standards I'd expect of any other such nation. If some fundamentalist theocracy, tin-pot dictatorship or corrupt banana republic does something bad then that's to be expected, but modern democracies like Israel are supposed to be better than that.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think what grates with me is the way that some are minded to be very vocal about any perceived abuse of Palestinians by Israelis (several thousand marched in London last weekend, for example) but many of these people seem to fall silent if Arabs are abused by other, Arab, regimes or if, say, Christians are persecuted by Islamic radicals. We all have our pet causes, but this apparent notion that it’s only worth hitting the streets if the Israelis do something bad leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth.
Also, given that it's a democracy there's actually a chance that we might persuade enough of its citizens to vote for leaders that will stop the ethnic cleansing. Dictators seldom worry about what other people think of them.
quote:answers the summoning trumpet
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The left would no doubt argue that the West is complicit in Israel's crimes.
quote:Well, yes; but I suspect that somebody might very well tell you how not.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:answers the summoning trumpet
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The left would no doubt argue that the West is complicit in Israel's crimes.
How can they not be?
quote:That's not enough?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Other than an end to the rockets, what is in it for Israel?
quote:And if it's not, what does that tell us about Israel's true motivations/ intentions in the conflict?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's not enough?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Other than an end to the rockets, what is in it for Israel?
quote:Presumably you would view any solution that features an independent, free Palestine in the same way?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wouldn't think so. We won't fire rockets at you for 10 years but instead will use our new found freedom to acquire more destructive weapons and plan our next attempt to drive you into the sea.
quote:Israel will expect some guarantee of their safety. What that will look like I don't know. As long as Hamas has any power at all, peace is unlikely.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Presumably you would view any solution that features an independent, free Palestine in the same way?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wouldn't think so. We won't fire rockets at you for 10 years but instead will use our new found freedom to acquire more destructive weapons and plan our next attempt to drive you into the sea.
quote:The UN is the vehicle to promote a world government that will be the reign of the Antichrist. Duh.
Gamaliel: Why are so many Americans so suspicious of the UN - almost to the point of paranoia?
quote:As it is currently constituted, the UN is hardly worthy of paranoia. The UN could be a threat if the US gave up it's veto power and decided to automatically adopt whatever the UN says as law. No, the UN is just a joke.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just for clarification, Beeswax Altar, I know the UN can be inefficient and, like any other organisation, makes mistakes.
But what is it with the US and the UN? Why are so many Americans so suspicious of the UN - almost to the point of paranoia?
I've heard criticisms of the UN here, of course, but nowhere near on the scale that seems to come from the States.
Why is this? Have they 'called' you guys on something you don't like?
Is the UN regarded as some kind of pinko Commie plot? What is it?
I'm genuinely interested.
quote:I kept thinking about this point, and it has come up over other issues - why are there people on the streets in London over Israel, and not over ISIS, or Syria, or other stuff. (Actually, I think there have been demonstrations over Syria).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I completely agree, though I suppose everyone is a hypocrite to some extent.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I still think that there is a double-standard as far as some commentators are concerned - and that applies both ways. Some people will defend the Palestinians whatever shit they commit. Conversely, others will do the same for Israel.
I think what grates with me is the way that some are minded to be very vocal about any perceived abuse of Palestinians by Israelis (several thousand marched in London last weekend, for example) but many of these people seem to fall silent if Arabs are abused by other, Arab, regimes or if, say, Christians are persecuted by Islamic radicals. We all have our pet causes, but this apparent notion that it’s only worth hitting the streets if the Israelis do something bad leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth.
quote:It claims a hell of a lot of it. And the amount of it it claims grows annually. Your claim, however, is disproven by the facts on the ground.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In any even, a good first step would be to remove the settlers from the West Bank. Israel doesn't claim the West Bank.
quote:And it is not going to happen. There is nothing in the current or forseeable political climate in Israel that would make such a thing even remotely possible.
Getting rid of the settlements would be a good thing for everybody but the settlers.
quote:I would agree with Mousethief but would note that we should also remember how Ariel Sharon did just that-- using IDF troops and vehicles to close down settlements which were obstructing the process at that time. While it would be difficult to get someone more hawkish than Sharon, it was he who, seeing that he settlements were damaging Israel, closed them down. I do not see the younger Netanyahu having the same strength of character, but it is possible enough that the mention of it still sends shudders through the right wing. There are significant elements in Israel which see them as an expensive and ineffective sop to his faction, and Netanyahu will not be there forever.
Originally posted by mousethief:
*snip*
quote:And it is not going to happen. There is nothing in the current or forseeable political climate in Israel that would make such a thing even remotely possible. [/QB]
Getting rid of the settlements would be a good thing for everybody but the settlers.
quote:It's quite weird how pro-Israeli the establishment is, not just the government, but the BBC, most newspapers, the opposition, with the exception of some individual MPs. You have to come up for air, in order to escape the effect of it, which is quite an odd feeling.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The big demonstrations included one on Tuesday 15 July* attacking the BBC for biased coverage, before the march through London the following weekend. That was massive - several thousand people midweek. There was a big demonstration about Syria last August, and if you go near the embassies there's often a demonstration outside them. There's one slated for 26 July starting outside the Israeli Embassy.
What's more interesting is the lack of publicity. I found out about some of the marches from Twitter or the London Transport e-mails about transport disruption - and went to find out what the demonstrations were about.
* I only know about that one because I was due to go to the BBC that night for a recording, and chose not to.
quote:Not necessarily-- there is a combination of factors (I think) aside from the WWII-related historical context:
It's quite weird how pro-Israeli the establishment is, not just the government, but the BBC, most newspapers, the opposition, with the exception of some individual MPs. You have to come up for air, in order to escape the effect of it, which is quite an odd feeling.
quote:Yes, that's really bizarre. A tented anti-Israel and pro-Hamas encampment with lots of banners has also taken up residence in the last day or so outside BBC studios here. Yet, to a casual and not very involved television watcher (i.e. me), if anything the BBC gives the impression of being pro-Palestinian and slanted towards the Gazans. There's odd shots from a correspondent on the Israel side of the line so as to meet their charter obligation to appear to be impartial but all the conspicuous cover is of Lyse Doucet and injured children in Gaza.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The big demonstrations included one on Tuesday 15 July* attacking the BBC for biased coverage, before the march through London the following weekend. ....
quote:Well, quite. I've never watched a report by Jeremy Bowen and thought 'hey, this guy is really biased towards Israel'.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yet, to a casual and not very involved television watcher (i.e. me), if anything the BBC gives the impression of being pro-Palestinian and slanted towards the Gazans. There's odd shots from a correspondent on the Israel side of the line so as to meet their charter obligation to appear to be impartial but all the conspicuous cover is of Lyse Doucet and injured children in Gaza.
Presumably the Palestinian lobby take the line that anyone who is not over-the-top biased in their favour is prejudiced and pro-Israel?
quote:If Netenyahu moved against the settlements, his coalition would most likely collapse. Until enough Israeli voters choose enough parties that are anti-settler to form a stable government, the settlements will stay.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
There are significant elements in Israel which see them as an expensive and ineffective sop to his faction, and Netanyahu will not be there forever.
quote:In present-day Europe, Islamophobia is not exactly a rare thing. Yes, there is anti-Semitism in Muslim-controlled countries (not everyone in those countries is a Muslim) but it's not like Islamophobia is somehow non-existent.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:As it is currently constituted, the UN is hardly worthy of paranoia. The UN could be a threat if the US gave up it's veto power and decided to automatically adopt whatever the UN says as law. No, the UN is just a joke.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Just for clarification, Beeswax Altar, I know the UN can be inefficient and, like any other organisation, makes mistakes.
But what is it with the US and the UN? Why are so many Americans so suspicious of the UN - almost to the point of paranoia?
I've heard criticisms of the UN here, of course, but nowhere near on the scale that seems to come from the States.
Why is this? Have they 'called' you guys on something you don't like?
Is the UN regarded as some kind of pinko Commie plot? What is it?
I'm genuinely interested.
Why would Israel accept the UN as impartial? There are far more Muslims in the world than Jews. The Muslims support the Palestinians. Given the level of Antisemitism in Muslim countries, the deck is stacked against them already. On top of that, you've got the powerful allies of the Muslim nations like Russia and China. As mentioned before, the Russians aren't known for their love of the Jews. Then, we got Europe. Of course, the Jews had such a pleasant time in Europe. The only real ally Israel has in the UN is the US. Furthermore, the enemies of Israel have frequently captured UN equipment and used it to attack the IDF. If the UN peacekeepers are either unwilling or unable to prevent such as thing, what good are they for Israel?
quote:This.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think if Israel can become more humane in its dealings with the people of Gaza, Hamas will lose much of its power
quote:Or, the existence of Jews on the land that belonged to these Palestinians' parents or grandparents and was stolen from them. Very very few of the Jews living in Israel have descended from people who were living in Israel 100 years ago. Whereas the lion's share of Palestinians are direct descendants of people who lived there 100 years ago.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But that's a lot of 'context' for a 10 o'clock news report. And presumably some of the provocation is the mere existence of Jews?
quote:That's true so long as Palestian leaders storm out of peace talks with major concessions on the table, or torpedo yet more peace talks by cutting a deal with Hamas.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
[...] The essence of Hamas is, IMO, evil terrorism and anti-semitism; but they are the only current chance the average Palestinian man has of getting out from under Israeli oppression. [...]
quote:Ok, but this analysis seems to doubt the right of Israel to exist. If that's the case, then the only way for the BBC not to be tarred with the pro-Israel brush would be to question its existence in every news report.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Or, the existence of Jews on the land that belonged to these Palestinians' parents or grandparents and was stolen from them. Very very few of the Jews living in Israel have descended from people who were living in Israel 100 years ago. Whereas the lion's share of Palestinians are direct descendants of people who lived there 100 years ago.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But that's a lot of 'context' for a 10 o'clock news report. And presumably some of the provocation is the mere existence of Jews?
From the Palestinian POV, the Jews come in, scrape the Palestinians off their land, and herd them into a tiny box called "Gaza." (The West Bank of course is bigger, but it's getting smaller every year as the settlements chip away at it.)
And since the vast majority of these Jews are from Europe, it really just looks like another Crusade, only a Jewish one instead of a Christian one.
Gee, why would the existence of these Jews be such an irritant to the Palestinians?
quote:Well, it has no more right to exist than any other country. If you were to ask should it have been created in the first place I'd say, no. It's creation was a great injustice.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Israel was imposed on the Middle East by Britain and France in 1916 - with the Sykes-Picot line and the first Jewish settlements. It was further imposed by the UN in 1948 post WWII.
Should the question about Israel rather be: did the British French alliance and later the UN have a right to impose a solution of the Holocaust on the Middle East?
quote:But these are not the questions. We can have a discussion about whether or not Israel should have been created in the first place and I find some sympathy with the argument that it may well have been a bad idea. We could similarly have an argument about whether the United States should have encroached on Indian lands but that doesn’t stop one believing that the US should exist.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, it has no more right to exist than any other country. If you were to ask should it have been created in the first place I'd say, no. It's creation was a great injustice.
quote:The question about Israel's existence raises many questions - for example, how do we define it? As an ethnically cleansing, apartheid state, which is systematically taking land from its neighbour? I suppose those things are illegal.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Well, it has no more right to exist than any other country. If you were to ask should it have been created in the first place I'd say, no. It's creation was a great injustice.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:Yes - but within its original boundaries. That means no settlements in the West Bank or Gaza, no military occupation of those areas, and no blockades of ports or airspace in those areas. They should get out of Palestinian lands the same way they got out of Sinai 35 years ago - totally.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But this isn’t 1916 or 1948. It’s 2014 and Israel is a democratic UN member state. She exists. Should she continue to?
quote:Not as it is currently constituted - as a state that specifically favours one ethnic group over another. It can only currently exist because of ethnic cleansing. If they can get agreement on partition of the land with the rightful owners, fine, but otherwise a multi-ethnic, multi-faith state in Israel-Palestine is the only legitimate solution.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:I don't think it is and I think it's interesting that having asked the question, only one person has answered it with an unambiguous 'yes'.
So it's rather ironic to ask the question about Israel.
quote:I'd say that Marvin has answered this question in his last post.
Anglican't: If this is the case then there is presumably nothing that Israel can say or do that will stop what posters here regard as legitimate violence against Israel, short of Israel deciding to disband herself.
quote:There is the question of what 'original boundaries' means. For most Palestinians I've spoken with, the 1949–1967 boundaries (the third map in this image) would be acceptable.
Marvin the Martian: Yes - but within its original boundaries.
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:Not sure whether that's a 'yes' or a 'no'...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:It (whether it is called Israel or not) certainly has a right to exist.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Not sure whether that's a 'yes' or a 'no'...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
Out of interest, if Palestine was a mistake, where would you have placed it?
quote:The question you are asking, Anglican't, would appear to be: Does the State of Israel have the right to exist as a pseudo-democracy in which one class of people (call it a religion or an ethnicity, it doesn't signify) controls all the shots, and enforces permanent second-class citizenship on all other classes, not even taking into account the people in the "territories" it controls, who are not allowed citizenship at all?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:I would have thought the opposite - when you realize that your land has been stolen, your people atomized, your crops bull-dozed, and you are locked in a prison, guarded by another people, with vast military hardware at their disposal - that's when your rage and despair might become unbearable. What do you do? I suppose the wise ones will flee; some in the ghetto will fight, no doubt.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I should have thought it pretty clear as to why the State of Israel was reinstated in the Middle East . I mean let's face it, Biblical sentimentality aside , you're looking at a pretty fat Western finger pointing at a very juicey oil-filled pie.
I'm not saying Palestinian grievances aren't legitimate, no doubt they are too many . But is it really sensible to be in a constant state of war over an objective that is totally unwinnable ?
quote:But just war theory is just philosophical sleight of hand, rationalism.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
One, you are begging the question. Two, fighting an unwinnable war is in fact immoral according to just war theory.
quote:Would that prison be Auschwitz or Belsen? The land stolen and crops bulldozed... would that be on Kristalnacht?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I would have thought the opposite - when you realize that your land has been stolen, your people atomized, your crops bull-dozed, and you are locked in a prison, guarded by another people, with vast military hardware at their disposal - that's when your rage and despair might become unbearable. What do you do? I suppose the wise ones will flee; some in the ghetto will fight, no doubt.
Originally posted by rolyn:
I should have thought it pretty clear as to why the State of Israel was reinstated in the Middle East . I mean let's face it, Biblical sentimentality aside , you're looking at a pretty fat Western finger pointing at a very juicey oil-filled pie.
I'm not saying Palestinian grievances aren't legitimate, no doubt they are too many . But is it really sensible to be in a constant state of war over an objective that is totally unwinnable ?
quote:I agree, enough with it. I frankly don't care what Israel does to the Palestinians provided Israel survives as a country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, well in that case, enough with the talk of Israel violating the rules of war.
quote:Really? Wow!
Originally posted by deano:
quote:I agree, enough with it. I frankly don't care what Israel does to the Palestinians provided Israel survives as a country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, well in that case, enough with the talk of Israel violating the rules of war.
quote:You don't need a just war theory to have rules of war.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, well in that case, enough with the talk of Israel violating the rules of war.
quote:All rules of war are just philosophical sleight of hand, rationalizing.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:You don't need a just war theory to have rules of war.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, well in that case, enough with the talk of Israel violating the rules of war.
quote:I know the history, but why stop at the convenient 20th Century? Why don't you want to keep going back to before the diaspora? To the first century, or the fifth century BC?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
deano - that is the West's guilt isn't it? That the Jews suffered in the Holocaust, so therefore we have to support Israel?
But Israel is a country that was created in 1948 following settlement of Arab lands by Jewish settlers from 1916 following the Sykes Picot redrawing of Middle Eastern boundaries. And since 1916 and again since 1948 Israel as an entity has been annexing lands, some of which were given back in subsequent treaties, but not all, and not all in a way that can be used. The Gaza strip and West Bank being two such pieces of land that have been begrudgingly returned, but without access to water, the sea, exit and entry points.
And to enforce the boundaries of the West Bank there is a "fence" - not the only "fence" enforcing the Israeli chosen boundary between the two states. That so called fence is a 7-9m tall concrete barrier. And those walls have been built on lines that have continued to encroach to take more land from the Palestinian lands as given by the 1967 agreement.
xpost - that was in response to the comments about Kristallnacht a few posts back.
deano - so determined to give Israel a home that you'll give up part of Britain to give the Jews a homeland? or a part of the USA?
quote:I know people who have been the victims of warring parties not respecting the rules of war. This isn't even something you joke about. I find it inhumane and despicable what you are saying. And what deano is saying here too.
Beeswax Altar: All rules of war are just philosophical sleight of hand, rationalizing.
quote:One, I couldn't care less. Two, I'm just using the same logic Ad Orientem used upthread. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I know people who have been the victims of warring parties not respecting the rules of war. This isn't even something you joke about. I find it inhumane and despicable what you are saying. And what deano is saying here too.
Beeswax Altar: All rules of war are just philosophical sleight of hand, rationalizing.
quote:Here is a possibility that may have worked out if Stalin wasn't..well Stalin.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The UN, having taken over the old League of Nations mandate from Britain, should have looked at where there already were substantial Jewish populations and set the Jewish National Homeland there, allowing for all the Jews in the world.
Who knows, that might just have been Brooklyn.
quote:Sorry, think I jumbled the last paragraph . I meant the objective of 'driving Israel into the sea' is unachievable . Israel will always receive Western support , it also has nukes in the locker so I can't see it going anywhere in a hurry .
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
rolyn, why is Palestine un-winnable? Is that moral and just?
quote:It's a long time since I read up on the subject but my distinct recollection is that parts of the world that were hospitable to Jews fleeing persecution after 1933 were fairly thin on the ground. What were they all supposed to do? Bugger off back to Mitteleuropa and hope for the best?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:deano, I find that a very worrying attitude. To me a human life is a human life, is a human life - we are all equally valuable, no matter where we come from. My prayer is for the fighting to cease, because that will benefit everyone, but maybe Israel most of all. If your enemy feels that they have nothing to lose, that they are so desperate that suicide bombing becomes a realistic option, how can you ever be secure? Given the geography of this conflict it seems to me that a peaceful and prosperous Palestine is necessary for a peaceful and prosperous Israel.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:I agree, enough with it. I frankly don't care what Israel does to the Palestinians provided Israel survives as a country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, well in that case, enough with the talk of Israel violating the rules of war.
quote:I'm particularly concerned that deano seems to think that Palestinian Christians, probably the most ancient Christian community in the world, are disposable. I don't get why Zionist Christians put a Zionist agenda above the actual lives of their siblings in Christ. Obviously, the other Palestinians are just as valuable, but Christians are always going on about how Christians are persecuted in the Middle East - yet strangely Palestinian Christians don't seem to count here...? Why?
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:deano, I find that a very worrying attitude. To me a human life is a human life, is a human life - we are all equally valuable, no matter where we come from. My prayer is for the fighting to cease, because that will benefit everyone, but maybe Israel most of all. If your enemy feels that they have nothing to lose, that they are so desperate that suicide bombing becomes a realistic option, how can you ever be secure? Given the geography of this conflict it seems to me that a peaceful and prosperous Palestine is necessary for a peaceful and prosperous Israel.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:I agree, enough with it. I frankly don't care what Israel does to the Palestinians provided Israel survives as a country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh, well in that case, enough with the talk of Israel violating the rules of war.
quote:First, they don't fit within the religious / political scheme of the Xn Zionists and, second, most of them are Orthodox, which is very foreign to US evangelicals. The Palestinian Xns are inconvenient to many folks' worldview.
Obviously, the other Palestinians are just as valuable, but Christians are always going on about how Christians are persecuted in the Middle East - yet strangely Palestinian Christians don't seem to count here...? Why?
quote:That's a bit misleading. When used as a verb "bombs" implies either ærial bombardment or planted explosives. It would be more accurate to say "Israel shells UN school", since they apparently used an artillery barrage. Wouldn't want you to be accused of biased reporting.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Israel bombs UN school.
quote:We have persecution of Christian threads on Ship of Fools from time to time. Let's see if I can recall some of the reasons for that not being all that big a deal. Oh...how about this one...
originally posted by Jade Constable:
Obviously, the other Palestinians are just as valuable, but Christians are always going on about how Christians are persecuted in the Middle East - yet strangely Palestinian Christians don't seem to count here...? Why?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:And God knows the right wing don't give a fuck about them.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately for the Iraqi Christians, they aren't a left wing cause celebre.
quote:If Israel is "multiethnic" and "multireligious", why does it refuse to allow the Palestinian refugees expelled in the 1948 War to return home?
Israel whose multiethnic multireligious reality is reduced to 'they' and 'them' with mutterings about how 'they' should have learnt from 'their' history. Israel who we expect better of.
quote:Now, who posted that?
Rearrange these words to make a famous saying:
a, don't, make, right, wrongs, two
quote:Pat Buchanan has also written about how America is being destroyed by non-whites for years. While the Iraqi Christians are having a pretty horrible time right now, I'm not sure enlisting the opinion of America's most prominent white supremacist provides any special insight.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pat Buchanan and others have written about the genocide of Iraqi Christians for years.
quote:Actually I am fully-aware of ISIS' ethnic cleansing of Iraqi Christians, and their being targeted as 'Nazarenes'. I wasn't talking about the Ship specifically though, re Christian persecution.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:We have persecution of Christian threads on Ship of Fools from time to time. Let's see if I can recall some of the reasons for that not being all that big a deal. Oh...how about this one...
originally posted by Jade Constable:
Obviously, the other Palestinians are just as valuable, but Christians are always going on about how Christians are persecuted in the Middle East - yet strangely Palestinian Christians don't seem to count here...? Why?
Not a single one of those Palestinian Christians is in danger for acting like Jesus.
The Christians in Iraq are truly in danger of genocide or being ethnically cleansed. I think ISIS killed like 200 Iraqi Christians in a day. And, yet, the eyes of the world are focused on Palestine. Unfortunately for the Iraqi Christians, they aren't a left wing cause celebre.
by 'Palestinians aren't in danger for acting like Jesus'. Are you suggesting they are being un-Christlike? Also, why does it matter that they're not being targeted for being Christians? They're still an ancient Christian community being wiped out, and conveniently forgotten by Zionists. That's quite bad enough.
quote:How exactly is a negotiated sovereign state (which the Palestinians want) analogous to a bantustan?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] @Byron: Expecting those they have expelled and their descendants to accept the Bantustans on offer at Camp David in 2000 is outrageous. [...]
quote:It's not a binary choice between getting Hamas to agree (or getting them out of power) and Fatah setting up shop with a group whose avowed purpose is to drive Israel into the sea.
As for the agreement between Fatah and Hamas, Israel and the international community were saying until recently that there was no point negotiating with Fatah because it wouldn't be binding on Hamas, now they've solved that problem they make up a new one. If the British government can negotiate with Sinn Fein/IRA then Israel can negotiate with Hamas.
quote:Despite what he says about funding, I'm not sure the way forward is a US-brokered peace plan, and I don't think the religious issues are really any more than a pretext for what is essentially a struggle over land (plus lots of other proxy interests).
if the National Council of Churches called together our interfaith partners with a nearly impossible task: to develop a set of principles to bring about peace between Israel and Palestine. Such discussions would have to include, of course, religious leaders from the region. Why take adversarial positions if instead together religious leaders from the United States -- where so much of the aid to both Israel and Palestine comes from -- and Israel and Palestine could come together and forge a peace plan to be presented to government leaders who have thus far failed to come to a diplomatic resolution?
quote:Why ever not? Lots of states based upon the national principle claim to be a national state and a multi-ethnic state. Including those based on population transfers at the end of the Second World War.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:If Israel is "multiethnic" and "multireligious", why does it refuse to allow the Palestinian refugees expelled in the 1948 War to return home?
Israel whose multiethnic multireligious reality is reduced to 'they' and 'them' with mutterings about how 'they' should have learnt from 'their' history. Israel who we expect better of.
Israel cannot claim to be a Jewish State AND a multiethnic State.
quote:It may be insensitive but it is true. It has been for decades now. Ignoring the fact because it is inconvenient or "unhelpful" isn't going to bring peace.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To dismiss the plight of the Palestinians as a left-wing cause-celebre is equally insensitive.
quote:I think the first bit - ignoring the sins of the Palestinians - partly flows from the perception in Europe, that our governments are totally complicit with Israel's crimes, and are barely critical of them. I think Hamas are listed as a terrorist group, so there is not much equivocation there! (But then the Brits did a deal with the IRA, who fired mortars into Downing St and killed Mountbatten (separate occasion)).
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Demas is right. Those who deplore the sins of Israel yet ignore those of the Palestinians are wrong.
Likewise, those who say they don't give a toss about the Palestinians just as long as Israel are ok are equally reprehensible.
To dismiss the plight of the Palestinians as a left-wing cause-celebre is equally insensitive.
There should certainly be more coverage of the ISIS persecution of Christians in Iraq. Granted.
quote:I'd definitely go for that. Well said.
Originally posted by Demas:
I would have liked to have seen a thread which sought a way for our Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank, and our Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze and atheist brothers and sisters in Israel to move towards productive healthy and prosperous lives of coexistence and dignity.
A thread which treated all our brothers and sisters as individuals worthy of love and capable of moral autonomy, which honestly recognised the complexity of the problem they all face.
Instead we have a thread about Israel, and almost Israel alone. Israel which is portrayed in almost gleeful terms in the worst possible light - illegitimate, genocidal (and if that won't fit, 'culturally genocidal'), stealer of water, deliberate murderer of children. Israel whose multiethnic multireligious reality is reduced to 'they' and 'them' with mutterings about how 'they' should have learnt from 'their' history. Israel who we expect better of.
And the Palestinians are likewise robbed of their humanity, becoming the eternal passive childlike victims. They are mentioned only to highlight how evil Israel is. Nothing they do is wrong, and nothing is praiseworthy. Even Hamas, whose intent is genuinely genocidal and who want a Jew free Palestine from the river to the sea, are treated as though they were children. "They have half a point", "I might fire a rocket myself" - for shame!
This is not a good place to start. This is not a good road to be on. This way leads only to more pain, more violence, more separation, more entrenchment of positions. This is a narrative that binds us in the dark and rules us.
quote:Piecing it together as best I can (few admit to biases, let alone examine them), the left is against Israel 'cause it's viewed as a colonial theocracy, two honking great red flags.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:It may be insensitive but it is true. It has been for decades now. Ignoring the fact because it is inconvenient or "unhelpful" isn't going to bring peace.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To dismiss the plight of the Palestinians as a left-wing cause-celebre is equally insensitive.
Left wing sympathises with Palestine, right wing sympathises with Israel and the right wing as ever has all the power and will prevail.
The Palestinians will have to accept they have lost and will need to come to the best terms they can with Israel and that means not falling for the easy solutions offered by Hamas and the like.
quote:When your supposed state is subject to Israeli roads dividing it up, peppered with Israeli settlements and effectively subject entirely to the whims of the Israeli government it doesn't look very sovereign. The Palestinians were willing to accept the West Bank and Gaza only, and not demand any previously Palestinian land within Israel. Israel not only wanted to keep everything inside the 1948 borders, they wanted to keep a quarter of the West Bank too, as well as the aforementioned control over key roads. The Palestinian state offered in 2000 was also not allowed its own military, nor to make alliances, nor to refuse access to its airspace, nor to refuse access to Israeli troops, nor to control its own borders without Israeli supervision. The offered state was about as "sovereign" as Scotland currently is.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:How exactly is a negotiated sovereign state (which the Palestinians want) analogous to a bantustan?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[...] @Byron: Expecting those they have expelled and their descendants to accept the Bantustans on offer at Camp David in 2000 is outrageous. [...]
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Demas:
I would have liked to have seen a thread which sought a way for our Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank, and our Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze and atheist brothers and sisters in Israel to move towards productive healthy and prosperous lives of coexistence and dignity.
quote:Some of us mourn with those who mourn, praying for peace and security for Jews and Palestinians alike.
Left wing sympathises with Palestine, right wing sympathises with Israel and the right wing as ever has all the power and will prevail.
quote:To give a concrete example, Israel's identity as a Jewish State is its justification for granting any Jew living in the world the right to return and receive citizenship, while denying the right of return to indigneous Palestinians expelled in the 1948 War of Independence.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:Why ever not? Lots of states based upon the national principle claim to be a national state and a multi-ethnic state. Including those based on population transfers at the end of the Second World War.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:If Israel is "multiethnic" and "multireligious", why does it refuse to allow the Palestinian refugees expelled in the 1948 War to return home?
Israel whose multiethnic multireligious reality is reduced to 'they' and 'them' with mutterings about how 'they' should have learnt from 'their' history. Israel who we expect better of.
Israel cannot claim to be a Jewish State AND a multiethnic State.
quote:Bang on the money, a brave and compassionate statement and commitment to the Christian faith in desperately trying circumstances.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And what do people think of this statement from Bethlehem Bible College?
http://bethbc.org/news/statement-bethlehem-bible-college-regarding-current-crisis-gaza
quote:No, so you make a counter-offer, something Arafat failed to do. Any party to a negotiation starts with the most favorable position, expecting to give ground. Arafat instead gave up his place at the table.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
When your supposed state is subject to Israeli roads dividing it up, peppered with Israeli settlements and effectively subject entirely to the whims of the Israeli government it doesn't look very sovereign. [...]
quote:So Israel isn't a theocracy because it's not as theocratic as somebody else? It's a spectrum, and as long as there's somebody more theocratic than you are, you're not a theocracy?
Originally posted by Byron:
Piecing it together as best I can (few admit to biases, let alone examine them), the left is against Israel 'cause it's viewed as a colonial theocracy, two honking great red flags.
This falls down even on left-wing terms: Israel is a good deal more secular than many Arab states, and Arab nationalism every bit as conservative as Jewish nationalism.
quote:It used to be the other way around. One of my academic friends dates the change back to the 1960s, when Frantz Fanon etc were translated into English and became favourite texts in anglophone and western European universities. Pro-Israelism kept on in the older western socialist parties-- followers of Canadian politics can still see the divide ("vigorous and straightforward discussion of foreign policy goals") within the NDP on this.
Left wing sympathises with Palestine, right wing sympathises with Israel and the right wing as ever has all the power and will prevail.
quote:Unlike classic colonialism, Israel has shown no desire to expand its borders: just the opposite, it handed back a chunk of land to Egypt for peace, and is willing to do the same for the Palestinians. It unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, and was thanked by Hamas lobbing rockets at it (the reason for the blockade).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That does seem very crude. I would have thought that many people on the left would say that a Jewish state was imposed, without consulting the Palestinian population. Later, Israel began to grab more and more Palestinian land and farms, so that it now occupies a big chunk of the West Bank.
You could argue that this is classic colonialism, complete with ghettos (Gaza), collective punishment, torture, and I suppose, an ethnocracy. Conventional wisdom opines that colonial powers always suffer terribly for their exertion of power - we shall see.
quote:Simply that nationalism is typically portrayed as a right-wing attribute, while the left bigs up internationalism. If Zionism is "right-wing," so too is Arab nationalism. Sauce for the goose ...
Originally posted by mousethief:
So Israel isn't a theocracy because it's not as theocratic as somebody else? It's a spectrum, and as long as there's somebody more theocratic than you are, you're not a theocracy?
I confess I don't get what point you're making about nationalism -- how that is related to colonialism eludes me.
quote:Any Jew in the world can move to Israel and become an instant citizen. That is not true of any Christian or any Muslim. There are places in Israel where only Jews are allowed to own property. Only Jews can serve in the IDF. Jewish cemeteries do not get dug up to make cultural centers. Certain Jewish sects are granted special privileges and do not have all the laws of the state applied to them. In fact, you are wrong. "Equal rights regardless of belief" does not exist in Israel.
Originally posted by Byron:
Israel isn't a theocracy 'cause it lacks the central hallmark of a theocracy: religious totalitarianism. No state with freedom of religion and equal rights regardless of belief is close to being a theocracy.
Israel is a Jewish state, just as Denmark has a state church. If Denmark were the world's only Christian country, and Christians had been subjected to two millennia of pogrom, I expect they'd have a Law of Return into the bargain.
quote:I assure you, there was no snide intent. Denmark is a valued producer of interior design, pastries, and Nordic Noir.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Any Jew in the world can move to Israel and become an instant citizen. That is not true of any Christian or any Muslim. There are places in Israel where only Jews are allowed to own property. Only Jews can serve in the IDF. Jewish cemeteries do not get dug up to make cultural centers. Certain Jewish sects are granted special privileges and do not have all the laws of the state applied to them. In fact, you are wrong. "Equal rights regardless of belief" does not exist in Israel.
Snide remarks about Denmark notwithstanding.
quote:Really? Two wrongs make a right then, it seems. If I was a Palestinian I'd be pretty pissed off with Jews from Brooklyn or St. Petersburg stealing my land. But never mind, hey! The Holocaust gives them the right to act like dicks.
Originally posted by Byron:
The Law of Return does discriminate in favor of Jews, yes, and given the history of the Jewish people, that discrimination is amply justifiable.
quote:I said no such thing; I said I believe the Law of Return is justifiable of those grounds. There are of course ways in which it could be modified, and residence rights in Israel for the Palestinian people were on the table until Fatah sabotaged the latest round of negotiations by cutting a deal with Hamas.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So the Palestinians can suck it up as far as discrimination goes because of the Shoa? At least you're honest about your reasoning I suppose.
quote:I'm not in favor of oppressing anyone, thanks. And unless you're suggesting that Israel somehow cease to exist, we don't even disagree here.
Tell me, which group of people are you in favour of oppressing to allow the Roma their own state?
quote:You specifically said that discriminating against the Palestinians via the law of return was acceptable. If that's not oppression then I don't know what definition you're using.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:I said no such thing; I said I believe the Law of Return is justifiable of those grounds. There are of course ways in which it could be modified, and residence rights in Israel for the Palestinian people were on the table until Fatah sabotaged the latest round of negotiations by cutting a deal with Hamas.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So the Palestinians can suck it up as far as discrimination goes because of the Shoa? At least you're honest about your reasoning I suppose.
quote:I'm not in favor of oppressing anyone, thanks. And unless you're suggesting that Israel somehow cease to exist, we don't even disagree here.
Tell me, which group of people are you in favour of oppressing to allow the Roma their own state?
quote:I'm confused. Most of the persecution the Jews have faced was caused by Christians in Europe. The Holocaust was performed by European Christians. The partition of Trans-Jordan was solely a European decision - done by a colonial power that ruled over the land for less than 50 years. So why do the Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:The Law of Return does discriminate in favor of Jews, yes, and given the history of the Jewish people, that discrimination is amply justifiable.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Any Jew in the world can move to Israel and become an instant citizen. That is not true of any Christian or any Muslim. There are places in Israel where only Jews are allowed to own property. Only Jews can serve in the IDF. Jewish cemeteries do not get dug up to make cultural centers. Certain Jewish sects are granted special privileges and do not have all the laws of the state applied to them. In fact, you are wrong. "Equal rights regardless of belief" does not exist in Israel.
Snide remarks about Denmark notwithstanding.
quote:Who stole whose land? If you're talking about ownership a personal level, some Jews had been living in the Levant for centuries. With the rise of the Zionist movement, others immigrated and bought land off Arab residents. After Israel declared independence, some Arabs were forced off their land, which was of course wrong, but wasn't Israeli policy, although the failure to punish the culprits is of course a stain.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Really? Two wrongs make a right then, it seems. If I was a Palestinian I'd be pretty pissed off with Jews from Brooklyn or St. Petersburg stealing my land. But never mind, hey! The Holocaust gives them the right to act like dicks.
quote:Actually I said I consider having a Law of Return that discriminates against non-Jews acceptable.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You specifically said that discriminating against the Palestinians via the law of return was acceptable. If that's not oppression then I don't know what definition you're using.
quote:I don't believe Palestinians should "pay for the sins of Europe." The Law of Return isn't a punishment.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm confused. Most of the persecution the Jews have faced was caused by Christians in Europe. The Holocaust was performed by European Christians. The partition of Trans-Jordan was solely a European decision - done by a colonial power that ruled over the land for less than 50 years. So why do the Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe?
quote:What does any of this have to do with the Law of Return? Even if you repealed it, an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty can't allow everyone displaced in 1948 (and, presumably, their descendants) to move back to the same plots of land. There'd have to be painful compromise regardless.
Are the Palestinians simply throw-away people? At which point do they then get awarded for their claim of persecution and get similar benefits?
quote:To be even remotely analogous, we'd have to travel back to before there was a U.S. (or Thirteen Colonies for that matter), as the British Mandate wasn't seizing land from an established nation.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So if the Chinese became the colonial power of California and decided to award LA, San Diego and Riverside County to Native Americans who could settle from from throughout the western Hemisphere without consulting the locals, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded to keep the status quo ante? Really?
quote:Scraping the natives off the land and putting them in camps so Jews from all over the world can take their homes to live in or destroy and build over isn't strictly speaking a "punishment." You're right.
Originally posted by Byron:
I don't believe Palestinians should "pay for the sins of Europe." The Law of Return isn't a punishment.
quote:In other words, they got their mandate by conquest. Sucks to be the conquered, don't it? We'll just squeeze you out by importing a bunch of Europeans who would like your land because their ancestors 1400 or more years ago used to live there.
Originally posted by Byron:
Britain got its mandate from the collapse of an ancient empire. There was a power vacuum. I suppose they could've just left the region to its own devices, but given that they were responsible for collapsing said empire, that hardly seems a responsible alternative.
quote:The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased. Again, if a foreign power came into the U.S., established boundaries and carved up territory that had been unified before, it's not unreasonable for the locals to take matters into their own hands and try to put things back to the way they were.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:To be even remotely analogous, we'd have to travel back to before there was a U.S. (or Thirteen Colonies for that matter), as the British Mandate wasn't seizing land from an established nation.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So if the Chinese became the colonial power of California and decided to award LA, San Diego and Riverside County to Native Americans who could settle from from throughout the western Hemisphere without consulting the locals, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded to keep the status quo ante? Really?
Britain got its mandate from the collapse of an ancient empire. There was a power vacuum. I suppose they could've just left the region to its own devices, but given that they were responsible for collapsing said empire, that hardly seems a responsible alternative.
So many of these analogies don't factor in the situation as it was. And given that this all happened a century ago, I fail to see how rehashing the actions of people long dead helps solve the situation in the present.
quote:The Arabs weren't stealing land. It's not clear that they were going to force the Jewish settlers to give up their personal property. They rejected the establishment of an ethnic-based state by European powers in an area where there had been no ethnic-based state before. That doesn't strike me as an unreasonable response. We probably would do the same thing under similar circumstances.
When the mandate ended, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the region, most of whom would have accepted the borders drawn by a U.N. partition plan, had not multiple Arab state invaded. If anyone tried to steal land, surely they count?
quote:And this differs from the actions of British, French and Spanish colonies in America exactly how?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased.
quote:It differs in that the British, French and Spanish didn't politically neutralize or wipe out altogether the locals in the Trans-Jordan area as effectively as they did in the Americas, Africa and elsewhere, evidently. So enough of them were left and they had enough weapons to try to undo the damage.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:And this differs from the actions of British, French and Spanish colonies in America exactly how?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased.
quote:If people want to go down that road, watch this: Vimeo.com: "This Land is Mine"
Originally posted by HCH:
I may be wrong, but I have not noticed anyone on this thread arguing that Israel is in the right because God awarded ownership of the Holy Land to the Jews a long time ago (and told them the local inhabitants should be slaughtered or enslaved). I believe this claim has been made not only by Israelis but by various right-wing Christians. (They don't usually stress the parenthetical part.)
It is in some ways refreshing to see that most of the discussion is about much more recent history and about right and wrong.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:And nothing is going to convince the Palestinians that they should accept being confined to increasingly smaller and more fragmented pockets of land, subjected to restrictions on travel, commerce, freedom of speech and assembly, and subjected to the authority of a power that they have no say in choosing any more than Americans would accept that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, the Israelis and the US are convinced Israel has a right to exist. Nothing will convince the Israelis they don't have a right to Israel. Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because they all of a sudden decide the Arabs were right to attack in 1948. Wars were fought. The Arabs lost. There are consequences to losing wars. My ancestors wanted to be part of the CSA not the USA. We lost the war. So, here we are.
quote:I wasn't suggesting anything, I was correcting your absurd statement. Try not to put words in my mouth. You're not very good at it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, mousethief, sounds like you are suggesting the Israelis annex all of Palestine and then spend the next four years killing as many Palestinians as it takes to convince them to stop fighting. "War is Hell," William T. Sherman said. The Israelis might as well follow Sherman's example and burn Gaza to the ground.
quote:And then all the surviving Palestinians would get the vote? Yes, the two situations are not going to parallel each other
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, mousethief, sounds like you are suggesting the Israelis annex all of Palestine and then spend the next four years killing as many Palestinians as it takes to convince them to stop fighting. "War is Hell," William T. Sherman said. The Israelis might as well follow Sherman's example and burn Gaza to the ground.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:As corporations merge with other corporations on a regular basis, doesn't that make them gay?
Originally posted by mousethief:
heterosexual corporation.
quote:Like Leorning Cniht (hope I spelled that right) I have trouble with the notion of a corporation having 'sexuality' of any kind. Would your point have been better expressed as "a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, or a corporation run by such people"
a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
quote:Since my point was a sarcastic swipe at several conservative positions, including their restrictions of rights and their contentions that corporations are persons and that corporations can have a religion, no, probably not.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:Like Leorning Cniht (hope I spelled that right) I have trouble with the notion of a corporation having 'sexuality' of any kind. Would your point have been better expressed as "a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, or a corporation run by such people"
a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
quote:Not if a boy corporation merges with a girl corporation.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:As corporations merge with other corporations on a regular basis, doesn't that make them gay?
Originally posted by mousethief:
heterosexual corporation.
quote:Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because the Jews have been persecuted in every country they have tried to settle in for almost two thousand years. Something about being "Christ-killers". It wasn't just World War II.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, the Israelis and the US are convinced Israel has a right to exist. Nothing will convince the Israelis they don't have a right to Israel. Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because they all of a sudden decide the Arabs were right to attack in 1948. Wars were fought. The Arabs lost.
quote:Your spelling is perfect, but you have missed the fact that I was playing with mousethief's riff on "Corporations are People".
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Leorning Cniht (hope I spelled that right)
quote:You said what the Union did was moral. I simply suggested Israel do what the Union did. Nothing about my original statement was absurd.
originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't suggesting anything, I was correcting your absurd statement. Try not to put words in my mouth. You're not very good at it.
quote:Eventually
originally posted by chris stiles:
And then all the surviving Palestinians would get the vote? Yes, the two situations are not going to parallel each other [Roll Eyes]
quote:Oh, please, there are plenty places in the world worse off than Gaza. People are trying to leave those places and fighting deportation back to them. The Jews of Europe were content to live in their ghettos or were else doing their best to assimilate. Not to mention, you left out the obvious difference between the Jews during World War II and the present day Palestinians.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Sounds like the only alternative to the active genocide of Palestinians you propose here, is a passive one through a Warsaw-ghetto style scenario of increasing deprivation leading to the same result.
quote:Or just start negotiating as if they lost instead of won
originally posted by TojoursDan:
They lost the war so they should just disappear. Their lives don't matter. They are a throwaway people who should be ethnically cleansed.
quote:We agree on something!
originally posted by mousethief:
As for the War of Treasonous Succession, we should have just let the fuckers go. Modulo the slavery thing but international pressure would likely have killed that off sooner than later. As it is, the former confederate states are a net drag on the national economy (except Texas) and on the aggregate level of civil rights (including Texas) for anyone who's not a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
quote:Who is they? They haven't even agreed Israel has a right to exist. They haven't even agreed to give up on a right of return. Some of them might have.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They have negotiated as if they lost rather than won. They are negotiating to keep 20% of the west Jordan region rather than 100% and build a viable state on it. It's the Israelis who are expanding settlements, maintaining checkpoints, restricting the free speech and assembly rights of Palestinians, strangling the economy of the Palestinian areas, etc. which makes such a state impossible.
quote:There has been plenty of eliminationist language and support on both sides of the divide. Israel obviously doesn't believe that Palestine has a right to exist else they wouldn't continue to build settlements on Palestinian land.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Who is they? They haven't even agreed Israel has a right to exist. They haven't even agreed to give up on a right of return. Some of them might have.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They have negotiated as if they lost rather than won. They are negotiating to keep 20% of the west Jordan region rather than 100% and build a viable state on it. It's the Israelis who are expanding settlements, maintaining checkpoints, restricting the free speech and assembly rights of Palestinians, strangling the economy of the Palestinian areas, etc. which makes such a state impossible.
quote:I had understood that the first peoples in California had been exterminated along with bears. But:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How do you feel about a Native American homeland in California?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:No, I didn't. I said what they did wasn't occupation. By definition. I gave no opinion whatever on whether Reconstruction was moral.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:You said what the Union did was moral.
originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't suggesting anything, I was correcting your absurd statement. Try not to put words in my mouth. You're not very good at it.
quote:Yep, and then things would have really gotten interesting, as being a democracy and being a Jewish state would be mutually exclusive. No wonder they didn't.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And if Israel did what the Union did then it wouldn't be an occupation either because Israel would have formally annexed all the disputed territory.
quote:Many of the residents (notably the Kurds) want the land carved up along ethnic lines.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased. Again, if a foreign power came into the U.S., established boundaries and carved up territory that had been unified before, it's not unreasonable for the locals to take matters into their own hands and try to put things back to the way they were.
quote:And that would still be better than the current situation had they given the Palestinians full political and economic rights within Israel. Of course, if they didn't then take steps to set up a constitution to ensure a pluralist state they would quickly find that Palestinians outnumbered Jews and had control of the government.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And if Israel did what the Union did then it wouldn't be an occupation either because Israel would have formally annexed all the disputed territory.
quote:That's the only sane response - we could do for sanity to break out.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Meanwhile numerous people from both 'sides' in this situations are saying that they "refuse to be enemies". ]
quote:A happy, prosperous and thriving neighbour would most likely want to wipe Israel off the map.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:That's the only sane response - we could do for sanity to break out.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Meanwhile numerous people from both 'sides' in this situations are saying that they "refuse to be enemies". ]
I remember hearing a report from Uganda about 15 years ago that noted that after 20 years of fighting, peace broke out - everyone got tired of fighting and decided to just do normal stuff instead and get on with each other. Lets wish that for the whole Middle East. Israel will thrive more if it has a happy and prosperous (and thriving) neighbour. However that is arranged in practice.
quote:I'm not sure we are asking you to love us, more just asking you to keep quiet whilst we do your dirty work for you.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We are all the hated enemy of Islam by its definition. How are we to love them? How are we to love those who hate them back?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Practically I think there is a difference, in that there was a Jewish desire (as can be seen by the Zionist movements and the Haggedah-ironically supported by the people who were then pushed into Gaza) for a (peaceful) homeland. As well as the desire to leave peacefully in their adopted countries.
Originally posted by HCH:
I think it is appropriate to point out that WWII was not fought over the issue of the persecution of Jews. The Holocaust started well before the war and included persecution not only of Jews but also of homosexuals, Gypsies, communists, trade unionists, various more or less Christian sects, etc.
quote:Welcome, itsarumdo and I hope you enjoy the Ship.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Spread a little love in the world.
quote:Is not going to happen - which is why your comparison is completely wrong.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Eventually
originally posted by chris stiles:
And then all the surviving Palestinians would get the vote? Yes, the two situations are not going to parallel each other [Roll Eyes]
quote:If Israel annexes Gaza and the West Bank and gives all Palestinians the right to vote, they'll have the majority.
Beeswax Altar: However, if they do, the Palestinians will eventually get the right to vote.
quote:Mousethief is referring to the recent Hobby Lobby debacle in the US, with the corporation being classed as a person.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:Like Leorning Cniht (hope I spelled that right) I have trouble with the notion of a corporation having 'sexuality' of any kind. Would your point have been better expressed as "a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, or a corporation run by such people"
a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
quote:But why is Israel more important? Again, why is Israel wiping out Palestinian Christians (probably the most ancient Christian community in the world) OK? Supporting the modern Israeli state for political reasons yet not caring about the part of the Body of Christ they oppress is Biblically indefensible.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:A happy, prosperous and thriving neighbour would most likely want to wipe Israel off the map.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:That's the only sane response - we could do for sanity to break out.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Meanwhile numerous people from both 'sides' in this situations are saying that they "refuse to be enemies". ]
I remember hearing a report from Uganda about 15 years ago that noted that after 20 years of fighting, peace broke out - everyone got tired of fighting and decided to just do normal stuff instead and get on with each other. Lets wish that for the whole Middle East. Israel will thrive more if it has a happy and prosperous (and thriving) neighbour. However that is arranged in practice.
Israel's very survival depends on keeping their neighbours disunited, weak and poor. Which is fine by me.
quote:I'm afraid I'm a bit late answering this point but, no, I'm afraid that's not the question I'm asking at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The question you are asking, Anglican't, would appear to be: Does the State of Israel have the right to exist as a pseudo-democracy in which one class of people (call it a religion or an ethnicity, it doesn't signify) controls all the shots, and enforces permanent second-class citizenship on all other classes, not even taking into account the people in the "territories" it controls, who are not allowed citizenship at all?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
quote:Like I said before, I believe that Israel has a right to exist in the sense that its existence is a fact, and we have to work with that. Which territories are part of its 'territorial integrity' is highly debatable of course. But I also believe that a modern democracy based on ethnical lines is an oxymoron, and not sustainable in the long run.
Anglican't: The territorial integrity of the state of Israel is discussed by intelligent western people as a debatable point. I cannot think of any other sovereign, UN member state where this is the case. If someone asked 'does North Korea have the right to exist?' I think the answer would be an unqualified 'yes' (though it might prompt some people to call for an end to internal repression and threats to neighbours).
quote:Actually, when you come to think about it, I can't think of any other country where people used the phrase "right to exist."
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm afraid I'm a bit late answering this point but, no, I'm afraid that's not the question I'm asking at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The question you are asking, Anglican't, would appear to be: Does the State of Israel have the right to exist as a pseudo-democracy in which one class of people (call it a religion or an ethnicity, it doesn't signify) controls all the shots, and enforces permanent second-class citizenship on all other classes, not even taking into account the people in the "territories" it controls, who are not allowed citizenship at all?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:For historical reasons a "Jewish national homeland" is essential. Placing it in Palestine and naming it Israel were mistakes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Reading some comments on here I wonder whether a broader question should be asked: do SoF posters think the State of Israel has the right to exist?
The territorial integrity of the state of Israel is discussed by intelligent western people as a debatable point. I cannot think of any other sovereign, UN member state where this is the case. If someone asked 'does North Korea have the right to exist?' I think the answer would be an unqualified 'yes' (though it might prompt some people to call for an end to internal repression and threats to neighbours).
Not only is this surprising, I think it's also rather worrying.
quote:You are saying that the US, UK, and Canada don't believe they have a right to exist?
originally posted by AnglicanBrat:
Actually, when you come to think about it, I can't think of any other country where people used the phrase "right to exist."
quote:I didn't write that they didn't "believe" they had the right to exist, I simply stated that I never encountered anyone but an Israeli explicitly use the phrase "right to exist" when referring to their own country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:You are saying that the US, UK, and Canada don't believe they have a right to exist?
originally posted by AnglicanBrat:
Actually, when you come to think about it, I can't think of any other country where people used the phrase "right to exist."
quote:I'm not going to be a cheerleader for my country because there are still issues of racism and discrimination, primarily involving indigenous peoples.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...the Israelis are as bigoted as all the other nations in the Middle East. Besides, the US, Canada, and the UK all have a way of life. Each and every one of them works to keep out those who threaten that way of life. Each of them would go to war to protect that way of life. Israel's way of life and sense of identity is based on a rather broad concept of Jewishness. I see no problem with that.
quote:They live down to a very low standard. Doesn't that speak glowingly of them.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...the Israelis are as bigoted as all the other nations in the Middle East.
quote:Perhaps because it's rarely, if ever, an issue?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Actually, when you come to think about it, I can't think of any other country where people used the phrase "right to exist."
quote:The question of "territorial integrity" gets a bit dicey when discussing Israel. Which bits of territory are "Israel"? Green Line Israel? Israel plus the occupied territories? The current Israeli policy seems to be the slow, de facto absorption of the West Bank while maintaining Gaza as a theoretically external polity whose internal affairs are under local control but whose external relations are controlled by Israel. Does assuming the territorial integrity of Israel involve conceding the West Bank is Israeli territory?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The territorial integrity of the state of Israel is discussed by intelligent western people as a debatable point.
quote:If you think the territorial boundaries of North Korea are clearly defined, you obviously haven't been paying attention.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I cannot think of any other sovereign, UN member state where this is the case. If someone asked 'does North Korea have the right to exist?' I think the answer would be an unqualified 'yes' (though it might prompt some people to call for an end to internal repression and threats to neighbours).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question of "territorial integrity" gets a bit dicey when discussing Israel. Which bits of territory are "Israel"? Green Line Israel? Israel plus the occupied territories? The current Israeli policy seems to be the slow, de facto absorption of the West Bank while maintaining Gaza as a theoretically external polity whose internal affairs are under local control but whose external relations are controlled by Israel. Does assuming the territorial integrity of Israel involve conceding the West Bank is Israeli territory?
quote:I'm not sure what point is being made here. Lots of countries have disputed boundaries of one kind or other. But these disputes don't lead to the very existence of the state being called into question.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you think the territorial boundaries of North Korea are clearly defined, you obviously haven't been paying attention.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I cannot think of any other sovereign, UN member state where this is the case. If someone asked 'does North Korea have the right to exist?' I think the answer would be an unqualified 'yes' (though it might prompt some people to call for an end to internal repression and threats to neighbours).
quote:I'm making the fairly obvious point that treating the "territorial integrity" of North Korea (your chosen example) as a "debatable point" is frequently done, despite your assertion that only Israel is singled out in this way.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm not sure what point is being made here. Lots of countries have disputed boundaries of one kind or other. But these disputes don't lead to the very existence of the state being called into question.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you think the territorial boundaries of North Korea are clearly defined, you obviously haven't been paying attention.
quote:There are other examples that come to mind. For example, the question of China was debated heavily for about three decades.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
OK, that's a fair point. Perhaps 'territorial integrity' was the wrong choice of words. I was trying to describe the very existence of a state. This is questioned with Israel (even under limited borders) in a way that doesn't seem to happen with other nations.
quote:What, just now? I think Palestinian statehood has been questioned since it was first proposed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the state whose existence is now seriously called into question is Palestine. Certainly, its territory is being nibbled away by Israel; perhaps it is becoming an ex-state.
quote:No, the Levant used to be part of the Ottoman Empire, and when that collapsed, a Palestinian Mandate was created by the League of Nations.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But has Palestine ever been an independent state?
quote:It's an interesting question from a legal perspective. Given Israeli reluctance to annex or administer Gaza, does that effectively make it stateless territory, despite the fact that it's heavily populated? What level of organization and control does an entity have to exert to be a de facto state, regardless of recognition by other states?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But has Palestine ever been an independent state?
quote:North Korea is a bad example given that the Republic of Korea (aka South Korea) claims that they are the only legitimate government for the peninsula (and North Korea makes the same claim.) When North Korean flee to the South they become Republic of Korean citizens and don't have to get residence permits or jump over immigration hoops.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I cannot think of any other sovereign, UN member state where this is the case. If someone asked 'does North Korea have the right to exist?' I think the answer would be an unqualified 'yes' (though it might prompt some people to call for an end to internal repression and threats to neighbours).
quote:Was this not the same situation as applied with the Germanies for some years? Not to mention the UK and Ireland with their respective complications and equally passport opportunities for the residents of Northern Ireland.... *bureaucratic tangent warning* This sends me back to my peon days in an Immigration back-office, wondering at the poor man whose only papers were an Austro-Hungarian document, his native Ruthenia having been tossed about between a briefly independent Ukraine, then Czechoslovakia, Msgr Tiso's fascist Slovakia, then the USSR-- his Order of Malta laisser-passer finally got him through.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:North Korea is a bad example given that the Republic of Korea (aka South Korea) claims that they are the only legitimate government for the peninsula (and North Korea makes the same claim.) When North Korean flee to the South they become Republic of Korean citizens and don't have to get residence permits or jump over immigration hoops.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I cannot think of any other sovereign, UN member state where this is the case. If someone asked 'does North Korea have the right to exist?' I think the answer would be an unqualified 'yes' (though it might prompt some people to call for an end to internal repression and threats to neighbours).
quote:Do you think that Jews follow Ramadan?
Originally posted by maryjones:
/tangent: Have I missed it or has nobody considered that the general belligerence and blood-letting could be linked to the starvation of Ramadan?\
quote:I don't know, RuthW, for if I had not read the comments section, I would not have realized the influence of Islamists (?) in the White House. This contradicts directly the sentiments of some of my contacts that the White House is under the direction of Likud. How shall they resolve this seeming contradiction? What would we do without the internet?
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, cause a website called unitedwithisrael.org is a reliable source of information about Hamas.
quote:Yes, of course I realise that the website itself is not exactly neutral! But the contents were not made up by the hosts of the website: it is simply a digest of news reports and interviews. These clips all speak for themselves and, to my mind, are pretty damning.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, cause a website called unitedwithisrael.org is a reliable source of information about Hamas.
quote:I'll resolve it for you. While Republicans and Independents overwhelmingly favor Israel, Democrats are split almost evenly between the Israelites and Palestinians. Obama is a Democrat. Walking that political tight rope isn't easy.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I don't know, RuthW, for if I had not read the comments section, I would not have realized the influence of Islamists (?) in the White House. This contradicts directly the sentiments of some of my contacts that the White House is under the direction of Likud. How shall they resolve this seeming contradiction? What would we do without the internet?
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yeah, cause a website called unitedwithisrael.org is a reliable source of information about Hamas.
quote:When the Nazis were close to defeat in April 45 Hitler's henchman, Martin Bormann, called for fanatical Germans to join a band called the 'Werewolves' and continue fighting a guerilla war in the hills and mountains regardless of a general surrender . This call failed to recruit anyone despite Germany's civilian population suffering terribly.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So what's happening is a seemingly endless spiral of violence. The more civilians Israel kills, the more radicalised the Palestinians become and the more they want their revenge. Bloodshed breeds further bloodshed - on both sides.
quote:Typically that only occurs to highly centralized regimes, like your example of Nazi Germany. Heavily factionalized organizations with relatively devolved central power (like Palestine) tend not to collapse after decapitation. Think organized crime or variou, not the Third Reich.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Without seeking to make direct comparisons to what's being discussed here, it is worth noting that history has examples where fanatical regimes are defeated, and the spell under which the populace had previously been held is broken. It does though only come at a terrible price.
quote:Part of the road to a solution involves the world outside of Israel and Palestine not taking sides and by consequence forcing the two parties to look at what they are doing, how they relate to one another and how they will have a future together. What is alarming about this conflict - and others from the past that you mentioned - is how deeply polarized the world becomes over it all, even when it has no direct involvement or investment in it.
Now that the thread is over nine pages long, it is interesting to ask what kind of answers have been given to the question I asked at the end of the original post. I guess the consensus seems to be that people see very little reason for hope.
quote:It reminds me to an extent of Ireland, which witnessed various uprisings and rebellions, some of which were ruthlessly crushed. You could not really say that such movements were 'decapitated', I think they would go underground, and then would surface again.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Typically that only occurs to highly centralized regimes, like your example of Nazi Germany. Heavily factionalized organizations with relatively devolved central power (like Palestine) tend not to collapse after decapitation. Think organized crime or variou, not the Third Reich.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Without seeking to make direct comparisons to what's being discussed here, it is worth noting that history has examples where fanatical regimes are defeated, and the spell under which the populace had previously been held is broken. It does though only come at a terrible price.
Another example would be the various anti-Czarist movements of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Russia. No matter how decisively or brutally you suppressed one movement, it never seemed to truly discourage the next one.
quote:I would like to think that I am one of the (few) optimists. My posts comparing the situation to that in Ireland were intended to show that, no matter how dark it seems (and it was dark, and I thought irredemably so, in the 1970s and 1980s), it is possible for people to communicate to their leaders that it is time for the killing to stop, no matter how difficult it will be in the wake of all of these corpses. As Michael Longley's poem reads: 'I get down on my knees and do what must be done / And kiss Achilles' hand, the killer of my son.' As with Northern Ireland, it requires an admission that both sides have lost, and must live together.
Originally posted by HCH:
Now that the thread is over nine pages long, it is interesting to ask what kind of answers have been given to the question I asked at the end of the original post. I guess the consensus seems to be that people see very little reason for hope.
I notice various shipmates expressing impatience, admiration or contempt for the Israelis, the Palestinians or both. I notice various people want to talk not about this conflict but about the IRA, South Africa, warfare in North America in the 1860s, the Holocaust, etc. I don't notice many suggestions for positive steps.
On the other hand, I recall that at one time, there was a state of war between Israel and Egypt, and that it ended and has not resumed, due to the efforts of the leaders of those countries and of Jimmy Carter. If something as implausible as that can happen, then surely there is some possibility of improving the current situation. I know that cynicism and pessimism can be addictive, feeding upon themselves, but perhaps what is needed is to keep negotiating. People grow tired of war. Sooner or later, Israel may have a leader who can make some version of "land for peace" work, perhaps without calling it that. Sooner or later, maybe we will (as some have suggested) find a Nelson Mandela among the Palestinians.
quote:Lord, in Your mercy ...
Augustine the Aleut: Israelis and Palestinians are so close together, that they may be able to surprise us.
quote:What, exactly, are we hoping for here? That a simple and workable solution to a bloody conflict now in its seventh decade would suddenly pop out of an internet chat discussion between people with no particular special knowledge of the conflict?
Originally posted by HCH:
Now that the thread is over nine pages long, it is interesting to ask what kind of answers have been given to the question I asked at the end of the original post. I guess the consensus seems to be that people see very little reason for hope.
quote:Amen!!!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Lord, in Your mercy ...
Augustine the Aleut: Israelis and Palestinians are so close together, that they may be able to surprise us.
quote:Point of information: do they have rockets that can reach any densely populated sections of Egypt? It was my understanding that the Sinai desert separating Gaza from the populated bits of Egypt is scantily populated, and it's quite a distance from Gaza to Cairo.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My question therefore is why Hamas has not fired nearly 3000 rockets into Egypt.
quote:The towns of Arish and Rafeh would be in range.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Point of information: do they have rockets that can reach any densely populated sections of Egypt? It was my understanding that the Sinai desert separating Gaza from the populated bits of Egypt is scantily populated, and it's quite a distance from Gaza to Cairo.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My question therefore is why Hamas has not fired nearly 3000 rockets into Egypt.
quote:I may be wrong but as I understand it Egypt has closed its border with Gaza. It is not the one actively preventing ships from docking in Gaza, which Israel is.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have been very interested to discover - and there is so much to discover! - that the main justification given by Hamas, its defenders and supporters, for the rocket attacks on Israel is the blockade of Gaza.
What interests me is the discovery that Egypt is also blockading Gaza.
My question therefore is why Hamas has not fired nearly 3000 rockets into Egypt.
I'm actually wondering whether the blockade by Israel is not the real reason for the rocket attacks...
quote:Under what possible scenario can the rise of of ISIS be part of any reason for becoming more optimistic?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I agree with that; I have become more optimistic, ironically. There are so many political shifts going on in the background, e.g. the Fatah/Hamas coalition, the tectonic plates shifting in surrounding countries, the rise of ISIS; Israeli intelligence must be working double shifts at the moment, and I am expecting something to come out of it, and not just the trashing of Gazan infrastructure.
quote:Whoa, is that possibly an exercise in quote-mining that you have undertaken there?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Under what possible scenario can the rise of of ISIS be part of any reason for becoming more optimistic?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I agree with that; I have become more optimistic, ironically. There are so many political shifts going on in the background, e.g. the Fatah/Hamas coalition, the tectonic plates shifting in surrounding countries, the rise of ISIS; Israeli intelligence must be working double shifts at the moment, and I am expecting something to come out of it, and not just the trashing of Gazan infrastructure.
quote:That was likely part of why it started, but they've offered a 10 year cease fire in return for lifting the blockade, which suggests that the blockade is the major issue.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that Hamas attacks Israel partly because of the blockade, but also the occupation of Palestinian land.
quote:Yes, but I would say that the blockade is the tactical issue, whereas occupation is the strategic one, since it defines Palestine as a colonized land.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:That was likely part of why it started, but they've offered a 10 year cease fire in return for lifting the blockade, which suggests that the blockade is the major issue.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that Hamas attacks Israel partly because of the blockade, but also the occupation of Palestinian land.
quote:Nope, but a quick google suggests strongly that it's batshit quackery of the highest order, so of course the nutjob elements of the Christian Zionist movement are all over it.
Originally posted by vw man:
I have not been on the ship for some time about a year so don't know what is happening.but my point is has anyone read about the 4 blood red moons if it is correct we might see problems for the next year or so .All I do is pray for wisdom for the leaders but as those in Gazza don't want Isrel to exisit Help
quote:You will have to wait for a name change amnesty. The place to plead for this is in the Styx. It may happen before the eschaton, or not.
Originally posted by vw man:
I know this has nothing about the topic but as I no longer drive a vw may be I should change my name Rav4.may be
quote:Yes, but Israel has only existed for the first 70 and the last 70 of those 2000 years. The pieces have all got to be in place.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's happened 62 times in the last 2000 years. Forgive me if I don't get overexcited.
quote:Come on, Mudfrog, John Hagee?!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yes, but Israel has only existed for the first 70 and the last 70 of those 2000 years. The pieces have all got to be in place.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's happened 62 times in the last 2000 years. Forgive me if I don't get overexcited.
quote:Er...As far as I recall, historic Palestine was under Roman occupation for the first 70 years.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yes, but Israel has only existed for the first 70 and the last 70 of those 2000 years. The pieces have all got to be in place.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's happened 62 times in the last 2000 years. Forgive me if I don't get overexcited.
quote:Hamas may not be that bright, but even they know better than to be at war with both Israel and Egypt simultaneously.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have been very interested to discover - and there is so much to discover! - that the main justification given by Hamas, its defenders and supporters, for the rocket attacks on Israel is the blockade of Gaza.
What interests me is the discovery that Egypt is also blockading Gaza.
My question therefore is why Hamas has not fired nearly 3000 rockets into Egypt.
I'm actually wondering whether the blockade by Israel is not the real reason for the rocket attacks...
quote:Sometimes Martin, you come up with paste and sometimes with gems. This one is lovely gem in the context of the thread.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What?!
Huxley was right. Religion: man's attempt to communicate with the weather.
quote:Well I know, I've not read the books, seen the videos or heard the sermons. I was just pointing out the possible reason why the other blood moons may not be seen as significant. The existence of Israel is seen as the crux of the matter. With Israel in place the other prophecies become relevant.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Come on, Mudfrog, John Hagee?!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yes, but Israel has only existed for the first 70 and the last 70 of those 2000 years. The pieces have all got to be in place.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's happened 62 times in the last 2000 years. Forgive me if I don't get overexcited.
Really?
quote:What credibility does that article have? Both sides, and their supporters, are putting out versions that are highly slanted in favour of their friend and against their enemy. A website one has never heard of has no inherent credibility at all, and the level of the other stories on it don't encourage one to respect it.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Who started the this round of fighting?
It is not whom you think.
Here is a summary of who did what, when:
http://www.alternet.org/world/debunked-mendacious-propaganda-israel-pushing-justify-its-war-gaza
quote:Will you accept an Israeli source?
Originally posted by Enoch:
What credibility does that article have? Both sides, and their supporters, are putting out versions that are highly slanted in favour of their friend and against their enemy.
quote:My objection is that Gramps49's description of it being what, when, was most inaccurate. There were a number of whats, but no dates, so I was into a second read to try to establish a chronology when I wondered if I had other things to do. Like many other surces on the topic, it was slanted, but it provided no new perspective or information, and certainly no what, when.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:What credibility does that article have? Both sides, and their supporters, are putting out versions that are highly slanted in favour of their friend and against their enemy. A website one has never heard of has no inherent credibility at all, and the level of the other stories on it don't encourage one to respect it.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Who started the this round of fighting?
It is not whom you think.
Here is a summary of who did what, when:
http://www.alternet.org/world/debunked-mendacious-propaganda-israel-pushing-justify-its-war-gaza
quote:I would angle that a bit differently; I think that the Israeli cabinet and its supporters has the solution it thinks it wants-- what it needs is very different and the gap between the two serves only to underline the incompetence of the Israeli leadership. It does not have a stable society; a huge proportion of its GDP is dedicated to defence; while the Arab Israeli citizens are doing very well financially and professionally, the Palestinian Arabs needed to keep the place running are being kept as an underclass; the nation cannot effectively trade with any of its neighbours; and a chunk of the Jewish population is not interested in even bearing its part of the burden; its neighbours are responding rationally only in an intermittent fashion, and this cannot be seriously addressed until the Palestinian refugee situation is addressed. This is not a situation which is sustainable in the long term.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Augustine
I think Israel has the solution that it wants, so why would it change? It is gradually grabbing more and more of the West Bank, it has penned the Gazans into a ghetto, and periodically punishes them, it can easily defy any 'international opinion' that might criticize them. It is probably concerned about the instability of the whole region now, but that is even more reason to seize most of the land from the Jordan to the sea. Result.
quote:Yes - I was shocked a few years ago when I found out that Australian aborigines weren't even classified as human beings in Australia until the 1970's. But that is the issue, isn't it? It only takes a small amount of vilification to start to view "them" (whoever they might be) as having lives less valuable than "us". And I didn't get the connection to animal welfare until quite recently, but any society that treats animals or the Earth or any kind of natural resource with cruelty or contempt or as an economic asset is also perfectly capable of viewing other humans to be in the same category - we degrade one life form and it opens the whole barrel of worms.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are always groups of people who are treated like dirt - I suppose you could loosely call them niggers. Many indigenous people have fallen into this category, and still do, e.g. native Americans, Amazonian tribes. There might be some liberal concern about them, but after all, there is usually something better on TV to watch than telegenic dead kids.
One irony is that Jews have often been treated like this, via ghettos, pogroms, and so on.
quote:As if this thread wasn't bad enough I know have "Bad Moon Rising" running through my head on a loop.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yes, but Israel has only existed for the first 70 and the last 70 of those 2000 years. The pieces have all got to be in place.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's happened 62 times in the last 2000 years. Forgive me if I don't get overexcited.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Nelson Mandela...who was...branded a terrorist...by our own David Cameron.
quote:Link
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Nelson Mandela...who was...branded a terrorist...by our own David Cameron.
quote:To be fair that article seems to be talking about him apologizing as his hat (or his party) not himself. (Similarly to any apology for slavery.)
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Link
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Nelson Mandela...who was...branded a terrorist...by our own David Cameron.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Actually, I don't think it leads there at all in and of itself. I can say that (barring miracles) there will likely be ... about 30 gun deaths in the US within the next 24 hours. It doesn't mean the victims don't matter. Heck, there's even that passage in Matthew: "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" These things will happen--it doesn't mean that our response should be "oh well, doesn't matter," either regarding the victims or those who kill them.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But that's where this sort of thinking leads. Never mind, folks, it's all in the prophecies!
quote:And of course, I agree with you.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, but the Early Church effectively 'Christianised' those OT prophecies, of course.
That doesn't mean that I don't believe in the Virgin Birth - I do. Nor does it mean that I don't believe these things to have been fulfilled in Christ.
But neither do I take all these OT prophecies in a 'woodenly literal' way. They had a contemporary application in their own day as well as one which was discerned and recognised by the first Christians.
It does seem to me, though, that the Early Christians could be a bit 'naughty' in the way they handled some of these OT prophecies ... they do push the envelope a bit ...
That doesn't mean that I believe them all to be convenient redactions either. I think there's something a lot more complex going on than simply, 'This is going to happen and you'd better watch out for it so that you recognise it when it does ...'
quote:Yes. I think the NT use of the OT Is fascinating, in part because it breaks all the "rules" we have today about how to read texts in context, etc. I do think we see in the NT a "rereading" of the OT text "thru the lens of Christ" which I do think is appropriate for Christians-- that the incarnation changes everything we thought we knew about what these texts mean.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, but the Early Church effectively 'Christianised' those OT prophecies, of course.
That doesn't mean that I don't believe in the Virgin Birth - I do. Nor does it mean that I don't believe these things to have been fulfilled in Christ.
But neither do I take all these OT prophecies in a 'woodenly literal' way. They had a contemporary application in their own day as well as one which was discerned and recognised by the first Christians.
It does seem to me, though, that the Early Christians could be a bit 'naughty' in the way they handled some of these OT prophecies ... they do push the envelope a bit ...
That doesn't mean that I believe them all to be convenient redactions either. I think there's something a lot more complex going on than simply, 'This is going to happen and you'd better watch out for it so that you recognise it when it does ...'
quote:They'll keep going because a large part of Israel's defence costs are paid by the U.S. taxpayer. If/when the U.S. gets tired of giving huge amounts of foreign and defence aid to another developed nation, things will change quickly. (That day seems to be coming though.)
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I would angle that a bit differently; I think that the Israeli cabinet and its supporters has the solution it thinks it wants-- what it needs is very different and the gap between the two serves only to underline the incompetence of the Israeli leadership. It does not have a stable society; a huge proportion of its GDP is dedicated to defence; while the Arab Israeli citizens are doing very well financially and professionally, the Palestinian Arabs needed to keep the place running are being kept as an underclass; the nation cannot effectively trade with any of its neighbours; and a chunk of the Jewish population is not interested in even bearing its part of the burden; its neighbours are responding rationally only in an intermittent fashion, and this cannot be seriously addressed until the Palestinian refugee situation is addressed. This is not a situation which is sustainable in the long term.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Augustine
I think Israel has the solution that it wants, so why would it change? It is gradually grabbing more and more of the West Bank, it has penned the Gazans into a ghetto, and periodically punishes them, it can easily defy any 'international opinion' that might criticize them. It is probably concerned about the instability of the whole region now, but that is even more reason to seize most of the land from the Jordan to the sea. Result.
quote:Indeed, the United States is not a neutral party in this conflict.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:They'll keep going because a large part of Israel's defence costs are paid by the U.S. taxpayer. If/when the U.S. gets tired of giving huge amounts of foreign and defence aid to another developed nation, things will change quickly. (That day seems to be coming though.)
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I would angle that a bit differently; I think that the Israeli cabinet and its supporters has the solution it thinks it wants-- what it needs is very different and the gap between the two serves only to underline the incompetence of the Israeli leadership. It does not have a stable society; a huge proportion of its GDP is dedicated to defence; while the Arab Israeli citizens are doing very well financially and professionally, the Palestinian Arabs needed to keep the place running are being kept as an underclass; the nation cannot effectively trade with any of its neighbours; and a chunk of the Jewish population is not interested in even bearing its part of the burden; its neighbours are responding rationally only in an intermittent fashion, and this cannot be seriously addressed until the Palestinian refugee situation is addressed. This is not a situation which is sustainable in the long term.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Augustine
I think Israel has the solution that it wants, so why would it change? It is gradually grabbing more and more of the West Bank, it has penned the Gazans into a ghetto, and periodically punishes them, it can easily defy any 'international opinion' that might criticize them. It is probably concerned about the instability of the whole region now, but that is even more reason to seize most of the land from the Jordan to the sea. Result.
As far as the Arab Israeli population is concerned, the calls to expel them from Israel, South African style are growing. 2/3rds of the Arab citizens of Israel believe that Israel has become a racist state. This doesn't bode well for the future.
quote:And they would be again if Hamas had its way: its intent is explicitly genocidal.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are always groups of people who are treated like dirt - I suppose you could loosely call them niggers. Many indigenous people have fallen into this category, and still do, e.g. native Americans, Amazonian tribes. There might be some liberal concern about them, but after all, there is usually something better on TV to watch than telegenic dead kids.
One irony is that Jews have often been treated like this, via ghettos, pogroms, and so on.
quote:I thought they just wanted Israel gone, at least as far as their publically stated policy goes (I'm more than prepared to accept that a fair few individuals within Hamas are anti-Semitic genocidal bastards). In that sense they are symmetric to the Israelis who want no Palestine (i.e. everyone from Likud rightwards).
Originally posted by Byron:
And they would be again if Hamas had its way: its intent is explicitly genocidal.
quote:Not according to their founding charter, which they've never renounced.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought [Hamas] just wanted Israel gone, at least as far as their publically stated policy goes (I'm more than prepared to accept that a fair few individuals within Hamas are anti-Semitic genocidal bastards). In that sense they are symmetric to the Israelis who want no Palestine (i.e. everyone from Likud rightwards).
quote:I'm missing any references to killing Jews for the sake of it in there. In fact it says:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Not according to their founding charter, which they've never renounced.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought [Hamas] just wanted Israel gone, at least as far as their publically stated policy goes (I'm more than prepared to accept that a fair few individuals within Hamas are anti-Semitic genocidal bastards). In that sense they are symmetric to the Israelis who want no Palestine (i.e. everyone from Likud rightwards).
quote:Their ideology is pretty vile and seeks to impose an Islamic state wherever there has been Muslim rule in the past (including Spain if I'm understanding it right) but the strong implication is that they an Islamic state and aren't fussed if there are Jews in it, so long as the Muslims are in charge.
Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
quote:This is astonishing!
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Not according to their founding charter, which they've never renounced.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought [Hamas] just wanted Israel gone, at least as far as their publically stated policy goes (I'm more than prepared to accept that a fair few individuals within Hamas are anti-Semitic genocidal bastards). In that sense they are symmetric to the Israelis who want no Palestine (i.e. everyone from Likud rightwards).
quote:Try this from Article 7:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I'm missing any references to killing Jews for the sake of it in there.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Not according to their founding charter, which they've never renounced.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought [Hamas] just wanted Israel gone, at least as far as their publically stated policy goes (I'm more than prepared to accept that a fair few individuals within Hamas are anti-Semitic genocidal bastards). In that sense they are symmetric to the Israelis who want no Palestine (i.e. everyone from Likud rightwards).
quote:Is that clear enough?
the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:In addition to Article Seven, just quoted, Article Fifteen calls for Holy War against "the Jews' usurpation of Palestine," and Article Thirty-Two cites Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence of a Zionist plan for world domination.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm missing any references to killing Jews for the sake of it in there. [...] If you can point me to something more obviously genocidal I've missed I'm happy to be corrected.
quote:It's a part of New Haven Community College, so yes, it is.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
From the "Lillian Goldman Law Library"? I'm sure that's a reliable source.
quote:It's a bit like the kerfuffle in Ukraine, where another country has also intervened militarily, except that the West objects to Russia but not to Israel.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There are plenty of political parties in the world that I find abhorrent. The GOP in the United States, for example, whose support of the Second Amendment, arguable is a vote for more violence and more death of innocent civilians.
Yet, I think it is wrong to invade a country simply because it elects a political party we don't like.
quote:Fair enough. I missed the reference to the protocols on my read through. I would say that thinking Jew=Israeli is slightly more forgivable when the people blowing up your house are Israeli Jews than it is when your thousands of miles away and the two are obviously distinct.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:In addition to Article Seven, just quoted, Article Fifteen calls for Holy War against "the Jews' usurpation of Palestine," and Article Thirty-Two cites Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence of a Zionist plan for world domination.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm missing any references to killing Jews for the sake of it in there. [...] If you can point me to something more obviously genocidal I've missed I'm happy to be corrected.
quote:I didn't say it was good. I said it wasn't genocidal.
"Under the wing of Islam" refers to Dhimmi, which, at best, reduces non-Muslims to second-class status. At worst, well, how d'you think a group which claims divine warrant to murder Jews, compares them to Nazis (Article Twenty), and cites the forgery used by the Nazi Party as justification for the Holocaust is likely to behave?
quote:Agreed. It's the Hamas charter, no doubt about it. A lot of it stinks. All we're arguing about is precisely how much, and how relevant it is to Hamas's current agenda.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:It's a part of New Haven Community College, so yes, it is.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
From the "Lillian Goldman Law Library"? I'm sure that's a reliable source.
The suggestion that having a Jewish benefactor is automatically grounds to suspect a university of forgery is, well, there's no non-hellish way to say it, so I won't.
quote:...and how offensive the policies of a supposedly civilised and democratic neighbour are.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Agreed. It's the Hamas charter, no doubt about it. A lot of it stinks.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:It's a part of New Haven Community College, so yes, it is.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
From the "Lillian Goldman Law Library"? I'm sure that's a reliable source.
The suggestion that having a Jewish benefactor is automatically grounds to suspect a university of forgery is, well, there's no non-hellish way to say it, so I won't.
quote:Whether we like it or not Hamas governs Gaza. Why shouldn't that place be allowed to defend itself?
All we're arguing about is precisely how much, and how relevant it is to Hamas's current agenda.
quote:Bollocks. Gaza has been blockaded by Israel for years. All the rockets show is that Hamas are trying to at least give appearance of resistance, however ineffective. If Palestine was free and sovereign and they were still firing rockets you'd have a point. It's the difference between the IRA and the Provisional IRA. The IRA wanted a free, united Ireland but ultimately accepted partition. The Provos didn't.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The fact that Hamas has fired over 3000 rockets into Israel shows what they think of the charter. It still stands.
quote:I wonder how many shells, mortar rounds and bombs have come the other way?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The fact that Hamas has fired over 3000 rockets into Israel shows what they think of the charter. It still stands.
quote:You're comparing the right to carry a sidearm for self-defense (which hasn't stopped American homicide rates dropping for several decades) to incitement to genocide? Well, that's your prerogative.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There are plenty of political parties in the world that I find abhorrent. The GOP in the United States, for example, whose support of the Second Amendment, arguable is a vote for more violence and more death of innocent civilians.
Yet, I think it is wrong to invade a country simply because it elects a political party we don't like.
quote:Even if we put aside its "ambiguous" nukes, Israel's more than capable of flattening Gaza. It hasn't, or anything close to it. That alone proves restraint. Warning civilians that you're about to attack, shows a genuine desire to minimize innocent deaths.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[...] Israel disregards the principles of reasonable force and restraint completely. [...]
quote:So what do you then make of reports of Israel mistreatment of Palestinians during peace-time?
Originally posted by Byron:
That's the fundamental difference between Israel and many Palestinian Arabs. So long as its survival is guaranteed, Israel's willing to live side-by-side with a Palestinian state...
quote:That's two flat out lies in quick succession. It was Israel who refused to budge, and Hamas leaders have said that recognition of Israel is a decision for the Palestinian people. There are conflicting statements, but this article records the public views of one Hamas leader in Gaza:
Originally posted by Byron:
You're comparing the right to carry a sidearm for self-defense (which hasn't stopped American homicide rates dropping for several decades) to incitement to genocide? Well, that's your prerogative.
The latest invasion may be unjustified. The wider point is that no "peace process" can work so long as Hamas enjoys widespread support amongst Palestinians, because they reject peaceful coexistence under any terms. Denying this leads to Oslo Syndrome, where ideology is ignored, and peace is just another concession away.
quote:"We are about to turn your family home into a pile of rubble. Run!"
Originally posted by Byron:
Warning civilians that you're about to attack shows a genuine desire to minimize innocent deaths.
quote:It shows a genuine desire to have a fig leaf cover so that the useful idiots in the west will still defend them. A warning doesn't do a lot of good if there is nowhere to go that they're not shelling. Like schools or hospitals. Also, the IRA often gave warnings before bomb attacks. Didn't make them any less terrorist murderers.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Even if we put aside its "ambiguous" nukes, Israel's more than capable of flattening Gaza. It hasn't, or anything close to it. That alone proves restraint. Warning civilians that you're about to attack, shows a genuine desire to minimize innocent deaths.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[...] Israel disregards the principles of reasonable force and restraint completely. [...]
quote:This works on the assumption that groups like Hamas are a reaction to Israeli mistreatment, and not a consequence of ideology.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Fair enough. I missed the reference to the protocols on my read through. I would say that thinking Jew=Israeli is slightly more forgivable when the people blowing up your house are Israeli Jews than it is when your thousands of miles away and the two are obviously distinct.
quote:Hamas refuses to renounce its charter. Even if it did, given the document's genocidal antisemitism, it'd need to offer compelling evidence of its sincerity.
I didn't say [Dhimmi] was good. I said it wasn't genocidal.
It's also worth pointing out that quite a few of Hamas leaders have made it clear that the charter is not relevant and that the Palestinian people could negotiate a peace based on the 1967 borders. It's a little bit like using the Westminster Confession to claim that the Church of Scotland is anti-Catholic.
quote:You're claiming that Israel routinely cuts of escape routes with shelling? Could we get some evidence of that?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It shows a genuine desire to have a fig leaf cover so that the useful idiots in the west will still defend them. A warning doesn't do a lot of good if there is nowhere to go that they're not shelling. Like schools or hospitals. Also, the IRA often gave warnings before bomb attacks. Didn't make them any less terrorist murderers.
quote:Depends on the reports. Many are obviously reliable. Israel is an occupying power, and no occupying power comes out clean.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
So what do you then make of reports of Israel mistreatment of Palestinians during peace-time?
quote:Israel and Egypt's blockade. Why does Gaza's southern neighbor so often get omitted?
Do you believe that if Hamas were eliminated that Israel would lift it's blockade of Gaza?
quote:Yes, of course, and if there wasn't a long history of antisemitism, combined with efforts to driven Israel into the sea, I'd buy this explanation.
Can you understand how your average Palestinian might see joining up with Hamas to be his only option for a better life, one that might include adequate volumes of drinking water for him and his family and maybe some land to grow crops?
quote:Ditto. Problem is, many Arabs in Palestine don't, and their belief isn't tied to Israel's behavior, but an ideology that says Israel has no right to exist.
Let me reiterate that I think Hamas is an evil, terrorist organization.
quote:It's more than we gave the Germans...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"We are about to turn your family home into a pile of rubble. Run!"
Originally posted by Byron:
Warning civilians that you're about to attack shows a genuine desire to minimize innocent deaths.
It's a tricky one, isn't it?
quote:Let me also reiterate that Egypt is also blockading Gaza - no condemnation there...
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Do you believe that if Hamas were eliminated that Israel would lift it's blockade of Gaza?
Can you understand how your average Palestinian might see joining up with Hamas to be his only option for a better life, one that might include adequate volumes of drinking water for him and his family and maybe some land to grow crops?
Let me reiterate that I think Hamas is an evil, terrorist organization.
quote:I'll ask you to withdraw accusations of lying. I have no intention to deceive anyone. I couldn't even if I wanted to. This is all on record.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That's two flat out lies in quick succession.
quote:
It was Israel who refused to budge, and Hamas leaders have said that recognition of Israel is a decision for the Palestinian people. There are conflicting statements, but this article records the public views of one Hamas leader in Gaza:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915
quote:You have hit on something there. If you live in Gaza you or your family has probably lost property to some Israeli incomer and there's every chance you don't have a job or much of a future. You might have a cabbage patch to tend but probably no water. The democratic alternatives to Hamas haven't achieved much for you, so why not give them a go?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Ditto. Problem is, many Arabs in Palestine don't, and their belief isn't tied to Israel's behavior, but an ideology that says Israel has no right to exist.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Let me reiterate that I think Hamas is an evil, terrorist organization.
quote:Yes there is...
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Let me also reiterate that Egypt is also blockading Gaza - no condemnation there...
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Do you believe that if Hamas were eliminated that Israel would lift it's blockade of Gaza?
Can you understand how your average Palestinian might see joining up with Hamas to be his only option for a better life, one that might include adequate volumes of drinking water for him and his family and maybe some land to grow crops?
Let me reiterate that I think Hamas is an evil, terrorist organization.
quote:And more than the Germans gave us.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:It's more than we gave the Germans...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:"We are about to turn your family home into a pile of rubble. Run!"
Originally posted by Byron:
Warning civilians that you're about to attack shows a genuine desire to minimize innocent deaths.
It's a tricky one, isn't it?
quote:I must've missed the anti-Egyptian demos that took place around the world.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Yes there is...
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Let me also reiterate that Egypt is also blockading Gaza - no condemnation there...
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Do you believe that if Hamas were eliminated that Israel would lift it's blockade of Gaza?
Can you understand how your average Palestinian might see joining up with Hamas to be his only option for a better life, one that might include adequate volumes of drinking water for him and his family and maybe some land to grow crops?
Let me reiterate that I think Hamas is an evil, terrorist organization.
quote:Paley's got an illustrated Who's Who on her blog. It's a great video, and thankfully, there are many in the region, on both sides of the divide, who don't buy into the God-gave-it-to-me! narrative.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Doesn't history have a lot to do with present day decisions in some cultures? It's not just about today's battles but just as much about how your great great great great grandfather dissed mine.
Someone sent me this again (it's been around for a while); intriguing to see how lacking my own historical knowledge of the area is, I couldn't recognize all the changing claimants to the land. This Land Is Mine
quote:I must have missed where the Egyptians built settlements on the West Bank and bombed civilians in Gaza.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I must've missed the anti-Egyptian demos that took place around the world.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Yes there is...
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Let me also reiterate that Egypt is also blockading Gaza - no condemnation there...
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Do you believe that if Hamas were eliminated that Israel would lift it's blockade of Gaza?
Can you understand how your average Palestinian might see joining up with Hamas to be his only option for a better life, one that might include adequate volumes of drinking water for him and his family and maybe some land to grow crops?
Let me reiterate that I think Hamas is an evil, terrorist organization.
quote:So having a sizeable and frightening far right hovering threateningly in the background excludes a state from being entitled to claim to be a progressive democracy?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... I just read Max Blumenthal's "Goliath: Fear and Loathing in Greater Israel." Blumenthal opened my eyes in that the idea of Israel being a multi-ethnic, inclusive democracy is a myth and that Israel has a sizable and frightening far right that would expel the Arabs and the African immigrants out if given the chance.
Many western liberals have been conned by the Israeli media machine promoting Israel as a progressive democracy.
quote:"Hovering in the background"? You think Israel's far right is merely hovering in the background? Netanyahu is some kind of moderate, maybe?
Originally posted by Enoch:
So having a sizeable and frightening far right hovering threateningly in the background excludes a state from being entitled to claim to be a progressive democracy?
quote:Problem with this is that, prior to Israel, there was no identifiable ethnic group called Palestinians. There were many ethnicities (Christian Arabs, Old Yishuv, European immigrants, Muslim Arabs, Druze) who lived in the Levant. Arabs also immigrated to the area in the early 20th century.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Which ethnic groups deserve their own nation-state and which don't? [...]
quote:Any nation besides Alpine microstates has blood on its hands.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] Both sides have blood all over their hands. Sure, Israel has a right to defend itself but it is by no means a liberal, cuddly state. It supported Apartheid in South Africa, it stood by while the warring factions massacred one another in Lebanon - in fact it actually engineered some of those massacres. [...]
quote:Also the Fatah/Hamas coalition seriously pissed off Israel, as they want Fatah as a kind of willing partner, seen by some Palestinians as uncle toms.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The real cause of the attacks could be to do with the change of power in Egypt. The current Egyptian Government is not going to back Hamas and in fact are upping the blockade from the Egyptian side, which leaves Hamas unsupported in any peace talks. Israel could overrun Gaza and leave Hamas with no gains and no way out of this until Israel has succeeded in whatever it is trying to do now and then unilaterally enforces peace.
quote:One could make the same argument with Israelis. There isn't a single ethnicity there either. There are Ashkenazim from central and Eastern Europe, Sephardim from Iberia, Temanim from Yemen, Karaim from Turkey and Falashim and Abayudaya Jews from Ethiopia and Uganda respectively. None of them had an Israeli identity until 1948.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Problem with this is that, prior to Israel, there was no identifiable ethnic group called Palestinians. There were many ethnicities (Christian Arabs, Old Yishuv, European immigrants, Muslim Arabs, Druze) who lived in the Levant.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Which ethnic groups deserve their own nation-state and which don't? [...]
quote:So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:One could make the same argument with Israelis. There isn't a single ethnicity there either. There are Ashkenazim from central and Eastern Europe, Sephardim from Iberia, Temanim from Yemen, Karaim from Turkey and Falashim and Abayudaya Jews from Ethiopia and Uganda respectively. None of them had an Israeli identity until 1948.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Problem with this is that, prior to Israel, there was no identifiable ethnic group called Palestinians. There were many ethnicities (Christian Arabs, Old Yishuv, European immigrants, Muslim Arabs, Druze) who lived in the Levant.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...] Which ethnic groups deserve their own nation-state and which don't? [...]
quote:Who is advocating that? All that is being suggested, at most, is that Palestinians be allowed to go and live as full citizens with equal rights in what is now Israel (i.e. the right of return). Nobody I know is suggesting deporting the Israeli population. Israel should never have been imposed on the Palestinians in 1948 but that's 66 years ago and trying to totally reverse that injustice would just create a new one.
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
quote:No one is seriously suggesting that now. Though the rhetoric comes up because most Israelis came from somewhere else in recent history. In many ways the issues Israel faces comes from the fact that it's a colonial state stuck in a time warp.
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
quote:If by "right of return" you're referring to the surviving 1948 refugees, that might be possible.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Who is advocating that? All that is being suggested, at most, is that Palestinians be allowed to go and live as full citizens with equal rights in what is now Israel (i.e. the right of return). Nobody I know is suggesting deporting the Israeli population. Israel should never have been imposed on the Palestinians in 1948 but that's 66 years ago and trying to totally reverse that injustice would just create a new one.
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
quote:If it were divided along lines of existing settlement then the Zionist terrorist groups wouldn't have spent considerable time and effort expelling Palestinians from their homes at the point of a gun to get their "Jewish state". No ethnic group has the right to ethnically cleanse an area of its population to establish an ethnically pure state. Israel shouldn't be a specifically Jewish state, it should be a plural state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:If by "right of return" you're referring to the surviving 1948 refugees, that might be possible.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Who is advocating that? All that is being suggested, at most, is that Palestinians be allowed to go and live as full citizens with equal rights in what is now Israel (i.e. the right of return). Nobody I know is suggesting deporting the Israeli population. Israel should never have been imposed on the Palestinians in 1948 but that's 66 years ago and trying to totally reverse that injustice would just create a new one.
Originally posted by deano:
So why not do for Palestine what pro-Palestinians are constantly advocating for Israel; create a new country called Palestine in say Canada, or the US southwestern desert region? What is advocated for the Israeli's as fair and just must be equally fair and just for the Palestinians, surely?
Or is it only Israel that needs to be relocated to another part of the globe?
By contrast, a Palestinian right of return that includes all their descendants (some five million) is a non-starter. Israel's population's around eight million. If it granted citizenship to five million Palestinian Arabs, so say nothing of the economic and demographic chaos, it would cease to be a Jewish state overnight.
No other nation is expected to naturalize the descendants of refugees. The real scandal is that the surrounding states in which they're born haven't granted them citizenship.
Israel was no more "imposed" on Arabs living in Palestine than the proposed Arab state was "imposed" on Jewish settlers. Zionists had been immigrating to Israel since the late 19th century. They bought land, just as the Arabs who moved there in the early 20th century bought land. Dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, divided along existing patterns of settlement, was a fair compromise.
quote:If you're expecting me to defend the Stern Gang, you'll be waiting a long time. Civil wars are invariably a nasty business. The cycle of reprisals did neither side any credit.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If it were divided along lines of existing settlement then the Zionist terrorist groups wouldn't have spent considerable time and effort expelling Palestinians from their homes at the point of a gun to get their "Jewish state".
quote:Israel isn't an "ethnically pure state." It has substantial Arab and Druze minorities, and has offered Israeli citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights. It is, unapologetically, a Jewish state, just as several European nations (Norway, Denmark, England) have Christian state churches.
No ethnic group has the right to ethnically cleanse an area of its population to establish an ethnically pure state. Israel shouldn't be a specifically Jewish state, it should be a plural state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.
quote:There's a mile of difference between a state religion and a state ethnicity, and it's Jewish ethnicity that's at issue here. The Israeli state doesn't much care if you're an atheist, so long as you're a Jewish atheist. The presence of a minority that Zionist terrorists didn't manage to exclude in 1948 does mean they weren't trying to create an ethnically pure state. Apartheid South Africa didn't quite manage to make all black and coloured South Africans citizens of the Bantustans but they had a damn good go at it.
Originally posted by Byron:
Israel isn't an "ethnically pure state." It has substantial Arab and Druze minorities, and has offered Israeli citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights. It is, unapologetically, a Jewish state, just as several European nations (Norway, Denmark, England) have Christian state churches.
quote:No analogy is exact. Judaism's long been recognized as an ethnicity as well as a religion. Given that the persecutors of the Jewish people didn't make any distinction, I see no reason to, either.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There's a mile of difference between a state religion and a state ethnicity, and it's Jewish ethnicity that's at issue here. The Israeli state doesn't much care if you're an atheist, so long as you're a Jewish atheist.
quote:If Israel wanted to be an "ethnically pure state," it would make conversion to Judaism a prerequisite to naturalization, and denaturalize and expel all non-Jewish citizens; not grant them equality under the law, and offer citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights.
The presence of a minority that Zionist terrorists didn't manage to exclude in 1948 does mean they weren't trying to create an ethnically pure state. Apartheid South Africa didn't quite manage to make all black and coloured South Africans citizens of the Bantustans but they had a damn good go at it.
quote:As noted in many links on this thread, very high government officials are advocating just that.
If Israel wanted to be an "ethnically pure state," it would make conversion to Judaism a prerequisite to naturalization, and denaturalize and expel all non-Jewish citizens; not grant them equality under the law, and offer citizenship to every Druze in the Golan Heights.
quote:Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
As noted in many links on this thread, very high government officials are advocating just that.
quote:Again, these have been posted by several on this thread. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
As noted in many links on this thread, very high government officials are advocating just that.
quote:The way I heard it, the Christian and Muslim land owners fled the shooting - wouldn't you? - and the new arrivals declared the land and houses abandoned.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Muslim and Christian owners in most cases were not compensated for the loss of their land. After the war 1948 these lands were considered abandoned and the owners did not even have a right to claim compensation.
quote:I couldn't agree more, and it really would have been helpful if this had been accepted by both sides in the 1940s, but while many Israelis were open(ish) for this, the Palestinian leadership was not.
Israel shouldn't be a specifically Jewish state, it should be a plural state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side.
quote:Indeed. If an area of land only counted as a place when it had its own independent borders, then vast tracts of Europe should forever remain part of either the Austro-Hungarian empire or the Ottoman empire. By the logic being used here, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montnegro and... look, I can't even figure out the Ottoman half of this equation right now... are all just fanciful recent inventions that didn't exist a century ago.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There isn't a separate country called Wales at the moment (and arguably never has been). That doesn't mean the Welsh don't exist.
quote:British Mandated Palestine existed from 1916 when the Sykes Picot lines were drawn, carving up the Middle East as part of the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Until the 1860s there were no Jewish settlements in Jerusalem - the Ottomans had driven them out in the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by Lynnk:
From what I understand from Wikipedia and other sources there was no country called Palestine in 1967.So I wonder where the Palestinians came from?
The West Bank was controlled by Jordan who along with three other local country's and nine supporting muslum country's tried again to destroy Israel.Jordan lost control of the West Bank( not Palestine which didn't exist)when they attacked Israel even though they were offered a treaty by Israel.Palestine seems to have been invented by a terrorist group called the PLO and the machinations of the United Nations.
And so I wonder why Israel should give back a piece of land that they captured from an aggressive neighbor who fought with those who would drive the Israelis into the sea.
quote:There are actually 8 deputy speakers in the Knesset, Feiglin is notable because he also speaks for a very organised group of right wing politicians in Likud. He opposes the two state solution, proposes Israel annex most of the occupied territories - so you could argue that what he states above is just a logical extension of that.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This news story, if accurate, sickens me. The Deputy Speaker in the Knesset is proposing concentration camps for Palestinians.
quote:It's not as if Gaza is full of wide open space as it is.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
This news story, if accurate, sickens me. The Deputy Speaker in the Knesset is proposing concentration camps for Palestinians.
quote:Yes, the much-publicised reports of radio broadcasts urging arabs to flee are not true. But what did happen is that letters were read out in mosques during Friday prayers from the Grand Mufti, from the council of the Al-Azhar in Cairo, and from senior muslims in Damascus and Baghdad.
The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce; they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did.
quote:The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Why does Israel enjoy such enormous support from the States? (This has been asked before on the Ship, but I'm afraid I've forgotten the answer.) No President of any stripe seems to criticise her publicly. Certainly, if the USA cut its funding I think Israel would be forced into realistic peace talks very quickly.
quote:You got it backwards: it ain't my work, 'cause claimant bears the burden.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Again, these have been posted by several on this thread. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Originally posted by Byron:
Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
quote:Then there's the realpolitik behind the rhetoric: Israel's a stable democracy in a strategically vial piece of real estate. Of course Washington backs Israel, just as it backs the far more unlovely House of Saud.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
quote:The claimants have done the work already.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:You got it backwards: it ain't my work, 'cause claimant bears the burden.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Again, these have been posted by several on this thread. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Originally posted by Byron:
Which officials, and what specific policies? How much support do they have? Are any laws likely to pass the Knesset and survive a challenge in the Supreme Court?
quote:Fair enough so far as it goes, links have been posted. If they're repeated, with specific claims, onus ain't on me to go a-huntin'.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The claimants have done the work already.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic). Additionally almost everyone in that population votes which makes them extremely influential in the election circle.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
quote:You err. When Jesus comes back it will get rid of the good conservatives, and the evil liberals will be Left Behind to face the tribulation, which will feature a particularly nasty war between Gog and Magog in the middle east.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
quote:Making 'the Jews' out to be a monolithic voting bloc is going to do a grave disservice to the actual opinions of Jewish Americans.
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic). Additionally almost everyone in that population votes which makes them extremely influential in the election circle.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
quote:I'm not suggesting that they are one single voting block. However fact is that quite a lot of them live in states which are heavily contested between Republicans and Democrats, where sometimes every vote counts. Additionally I believe that Jewish population as a whole gives more political contributions than the average.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Making 'the Jews' out to be a monolithic voting bloc is going to do a grave disservice to the actual opinions of Jewish Americans.
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic). Additionally almost everyone in that population votes which makes them extremely influential in the election circle.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
quote:I thought Gog was Soviet Russia?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You err. When Jesus comes back it will get rid of the good conservatives, and the evil liberals will be Left Behind to face the tribulation, which will feature a particularly nasty war between Gog and Magog in the middle east.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the evangelicals who believe that Israel needs to rebuild the Temple in order to force Jesus to come back, to get rid of all them evil liberals.
quote:How certain are you of this "fact"? And do you really think "quite a lot" is anywhere near 95%?
Originally posted by mrWaters:
However fact is that quite a lot of them live in states which are heavily contested between Republicans and Democrats [...][
quote:That was the clear meaning of Revelation in 1987. Obviously it's changed now. Get with the programme, dude.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I thought Gog was Soviet Russia?
quote:Gog has varied over the years. Since 1776 Gog has various been Britain, Spain, Mexico, Native Americans, Japan (with a side order of Nazi Germany) then Soviet Russia and Libya. Right now it's North Korea, although Iran was up there until just a few months ago.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:I thought Gog was Soviet Russia?
Originally posted by mousethief:
You err. When Jesus comes back it will get rid of the good conservatives, and the evil liberals will be Left Behind to face the tribulation, which will feature a particularly nasty war between Gog and Magog in the middle east.
quote:The rest of the interview mentions concerns about a Jewish backlash in the UK
“The British public has a strong sense that the situation of the civilian population in Gaza is simply intolerable and must be addressed – and we agree with them.
“There must be a humanitarian ceasefire that is without conditions,” Mr Hammond says. “We have to get the killing to stop.”
quote:Baroness Warsi's ego?
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
When I saw that Baronness Warsi had resigned over the UK government position on Gaza it led me to try to work out what the UK government position was other than "what is happening is a bad thing and ought to stop". Have I missed something?
quote:It's one of the few things she has said or done which I feel respect for. She has some principles, anyway.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My take on Baroness Warsi's resignation from the UK government is that it is a symptom of deeper and wider misgivings. Nick Clegg (who?) has said that there are differing opinions in government, which is against cabinet government protocol, while Osborne reckons her resignation is "disappointing and unnecessary", which is an uncannily accurate assessment of George Osborne.
quote:That's what I was querying. How important is "the Jewish vote" in America? Is it monolithic? And is it so strong that no President dare criticise Israel?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Regarding the location of the Jewish population of America...
I don't believe New York is a swing state.
Also note the distinct lack of Jews in Ohio.
(One bit of googling. One.)
quote:Ask how important is the Jewish AND Israel-supporting conservative Christian vote. Pretty darned.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
That's what I was querying. How important is "the Jewish vote" in America? Is it monolithic? And is it so strong that no President dare criticise Israel?
quote:We've got that unquestioning support of Israel amongst the more conservative British Christians too. No point confusing them with facts, their minds are made up.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ask how important is the Jewish AND Israel-supporting conservative Christian vote. Pretty darned.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
That's what I was querying. How important is "the Jewish vote" in America? Is it monolithic? And is it so strong that no President dare criticise Israel?
quote:My experience is the same. Die-hards will still continue to argue that whatever Israel does is just. But it becomes increasingly difficult to do so, and their numbers grow less and less.
OddJob: Views expressed towards 'Israel' amongst British doctrinal conservatives in the infancy of online fora about a decade ago suggested a more or less even split between support and scepticism. On this and other fora nowadays, I'd estimate only about 20% support for 'Israel' amongst doctrinal conservatives (or radicals, as I've always viewed us). This corresponds to the rate of change in attitudes I've heard face to face.
quote:And in fact New York, California, and Massachusetts alone account for nearly 50%, and only 23% live in the 2012 swing states in Wikipedia's map - and 9.5% of those are in Florida.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Regarding the location of the Jewish population of America...
I don't believe New York is a swing state.
Also note the distinct lack of Jews in Ohio.
(One bit of googling. One.)
quote:Those values aren't that different from those of the fundie evangelicals either.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Israel in return cultivates this relationship by emphasizing how much they are like us, even though the religious values of the growing, influential Orthodox movement isn't all that different than their right-wing Muslim neighbours.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:I presume that if you're dealing with a Hamas-type organisation on a day-to-day basis you're limited on what you're able to say about events? Criticising the regime could presumably mean getting kicked out, or worse?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... or is the UN in Gaza actually made up of Palestinians who either actively support or merely fail to condemn Hamas' activities and policies?
quote:Might one suggest a third: that of largely a-political decent people reacting to the images of devastation, particularly the severe injuries to children, in Gaza?
It seems to me that we have 2 sources of criticism of Israel - Hamas and the UN.
quote:Equally from here http://www.timesofisrael.com/3-idf-soldiers-killed-in-booby-trapped-unrwa-clinic/
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From France24
And I know you'll just reject the source out of hand but THIS may be worth posting
quote:So, basically the UN are totally cool with the Israelis dropping ordnance on Class 4B but dare not mention the fact in case they upset Hamas? Glad we sorted that one out.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I presume that if you're dealing with a Hamas-type organisation on a day-to-day basis you're limited on what you're able to say about events? Criticising the regime could presumably mean getting kicked out, or worse?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... or is the UN in Gaza actually made up of Palestinians who either actively support or merely fail to condemn Hamas' activities and policies?
quote:Erm, no. I was responding to Mudfrog's point about the apparently muted criticism of Hamas by the UN.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:So, basically the UN are totally cool with the Israelis dropping ordnance on Class 4B but dare not mention the fact in case they upset Hamas? Glad we sorted that one out.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I presume that if you're dealing with a Hamas-type organisation on a day-to-day basis you're limited on what you're able to say about events? Criticising the regime could presumably mean getting kicked out, or worse?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... or is the UN in Gaza actually made up of Palestinians who either actively support or merely fail to condemn Hamas' activities and policies?
quote:How important are those groups for Obama in particular, and Democrats in general? I can see them mattering to groups like the Tea-Baggers, but not to other groups (however, I am an ignorant Brit). As far as I know Obama has been reticent about condemning Israel for recent events.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ask how important is the Jewish AND Israel-supporting conservative Christian vote. Pretty darned.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
That's what I was querying. How important is "the Jewish vote" in America? Is it monolithic? And is it so strong that no President dare criticise Israel?
quote:It doesn't, actually. There's no point having an ally whose main action is to make themselves international pariahs, particularly hated by their neighbours who you kind of need to be on good terms with because of the oil. Plus the IDF are only as good as they because the US keeps flogging them state of the art military kit and giving them cash to buy it with.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The thing is that it makes a great deal of sense from a realpolitik point of view for the US to support Israel.
quote:This is somewhat true of the Egyptians too, isn't it?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Plus the IDF are only as good as they because the US keeps flogging them state of the art military kit and giving them cash to buy it with.
quote:Sorry for late replies but this topic is developing very rapidly.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:And in fact New York, California, and Massachusetts alone account for nearly 50%, and only 23% live in the 2012 swing states in Wikipedia's map - and 9.5% of those are in Florida.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Regarding the location of the Jewish population of America...
I don't believe New York is a swing state.
Also note the distinct lack of Jews in Ohio.
(One bit of googling. One.)
quote:That isn't swing states though. Thirteen key electoral college states just means thirteen BIG states. Which is entirely different. Read what he's actually said, not what you think he's said (and without whatever slant he's trying to put on it to make it sound far more significant than it actually is).
Originally posted by mrWaters:
My claim of 95% is based upon Mitchell Bard's book (2009) "The Israeli and Arab Lobbies" in which he claims that "Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor. (...) Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group" and that "roughly 94 percent live in thirteen key electoral college states" which alone "are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president."
quote:I claim that number of American Jews living in Florida alone constitutes them as a key demographic since only once in the US presidential elections history (since 1976)the candidate that won Florida did not win the whole country. Additionally Florida is always an important battleground. I admit that for example New York stopped being a swing state in the recent history (one can most likely attribute that towards the new Republicans, ever since the end of Regan).
Originally posted by mrWaters:
A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic).
quote:You may not realize this, but not everyone agrees that insults are made instantly acceptable by the liberal use of smiley faces. If you find yourself compelled to instantly withdraw your slurs, perhaps you could instead try to avoid them altogether.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
American Thinker?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
No, of course it isn't...
quote:Florida is one swing state, yes. That hardly proves that 95% of Jews live in swing states. They clearly don't. It doesn't make the 13 states cited into swing states. They clearly aren't.
Originally posted by mrWaters:
quote:I claim that number of American Jews living in Florida alone constitutes them as a key demographic since only once in the US presidential elections history (since 1976)the candidate that won Florida did not win the whole country. Additionally Florida is always an important battleground. I admit that for example New York stopped being a swing state in the recent history (one can most likely attribute that towards the new Republicans, ever since the end of Regan).
Originally posted by mrWaters:
A while ago I heard a theory that 95% of Jews live in swing states in the US (I use figure 95% as a symbol, meaning that they are an important. key demographic).
I would like to also remind that apart from the federal elections, there are state elections in which the republicans won the New York senate (at least if one discounts the independent votes, if not then there is a small advantage towards the democrats.). However the American Jews have a big influence because of the campaign donations and the Super PACs money. Which means world to the politicians.
Can we at least agree that the American Jews are very influential in the election process? If not alone for their location, then for their fundraising capabilities.
quote:Nice to know the attempt to conflate Israel with Jews is alive and well.
Originally posted by Demas:
Y'all have managed to obsess about Jews for 14 pages now. Well done! Keep going and who knows what great conclusions you might end up reaching.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Nice to know the attempt to conflate Israel with Jews is alive and well.
Originally posted by Demas:
Y'all have managed to obsess about Jews for 14 pages now. Well done! Keep going and who knows what great conclusions you might end up reaching.
quote:Apart from the Gulf States most of the regimes that don't recognise Israel are either pariah regimes themselves (North Korea, Iran) not that important in the scheme of things (Chad, Guinea) or have more important local concerns to worry about (Libya, Iraq). The Gulf states haven't, since the Yom Kippur War, shown any reluctance to sell oil to the US over the issue of Israel. So I'd say that Israel's unpopularity in the Arab world is pretty much priced into US calculations as whether or not support for Israel works for the US or not. Opponents of Israel tend to overstate Israel's unpopularity in the world at large.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:It doesn't, actually. There's no point having an ally whose main action is to make themselves international pariahs, particularly hated by their neighbours who you kind of need to be on good terms with because of the oil.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The thing is that it makes a great deal of sense from a realpolitik point of view for the US to support Israel. ]
quote:Well, the Saudis buy rather a lot of kit but I notice that when the Iraqis were getting a bit frisky in the early 1990s the US thought it prudent to stick a few tank divisions on Saudi soil just to be on the safe side. There has never been any need to do that where the Israelis are concerned. In any event, so what? The IOC is hardly going to revise the outcome of the various conflicts in which Israel has been involved on the grounds that they were using American kit.
Plus the IDF are only as good as they because the US keeps flogging them state of the art military kit and giving them cash to buy it with.
quote:I would have thought Putin's Russia would make a good Gog, but the American Religious Right thinks Putin is a Manly Man, so maybe not.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:That was the clear meaning of Revelation in 1987. Obviously it's changed now. Get with the programme, dude.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I thought Gog was Soviet Russia?
quote:Well, "if it's not on Fox News it isn't real."
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The "Israel can do no wrong" sentiment is alive and well in American conservatism...
When I tried to explain to them the conditions Israel imposes on the Palestinians at peace time, all I got was a confused stare. It was completely and totally original information to them, no doubt they figure its a lie spun up by the 'liberal, main-stream media.'
quote:So very much this.
Originally posted by Gildas:
The thing is that it makes a great deal of sense from a realpolitik point of view for the US to support Israel. It is a stable democracy and, therefore, a reliable ally, it has a massive vested interest in doing down groups that the US tends to regard as undesirable (Moscow backed one party states prior to the end of the Cold War, Radical Islamists subsequently). And, let's be brutally frank, if things did get unpleasant would you rather have the IDF on your side or the other lot. The Israelis may be a bit naughty when it comes to collateral damage but they can, at least, mix it up when it comes to a proper scrap. The Israelis know this, of course.
quote:He was probably referring to the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As to USA absolute support, I asked a savvy friend a few years ago. He said Eisenhower refused to give Israel what they wanted, they vowed "never again" and set up a powerful lobby machine to make sure they will get whatever they want. (I'd ask him for more details but he unkindly dropped dead two years ago. I hate when friends do that!)
quote:That's an interesting thought.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
He was probably referring to the Suez Crisis of 1956.
quote:The Jewish vote is a substantial voting block within the Democratic Party. Many Jews are "Progressive in all things except Palestine", meaning that they support the moderate-to-liberal ideology of the Democratic Party but strongly support Israel's policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Loopy Christian groups clearly affect the far right of American politics. What I still don't understand is why they have any influence on what passes for left wing thought (or Presidents) in the States.
quote:Yes. What I'd like to ask is his theory just how did the Jewish leaders go about making sure the USA never again fails to give whatever they want. What does their political strength come from that even in these extremely polarized days where anything one party wants is automatically opposed by the other, we suddenly see unanimous votes about backing Israel in whatever that state is doing.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:He was probably referring to the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As to USA absolute support, I asked a savvy friend a few years ago. He said Eisenhower refused to give Israel what they wanted, they vowed "never again" and set up a powerful lobby machine to make sure they will get whatever they want. (I'd ask him for more details but he unkindly dropped dead two years ago. I hate when friends do that!)
quote:That's because the American Religious Right is Magog.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would have thought Putin's Russia would make a good Gog, but the American Religious Right thinks Putin is a Manly Man, so maybe not.
quote:...
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Hollywood.
...
quote:Personally, I'm all for maximum restraint.
It's time to take the gloves off, time to see this through
