UKC

8 hours before the end of the agree ceasefire, Hamas decide to fire some rockets, into a field (presumably not what they were aiming for).

Israel responds by bombing a city, killing a two year old, apparently.

Oh wait a minute, this is actually real. But it does seem to have been taken from the script of a Dr Strangelove for the Middle East.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You're right, it would be hilarious if it was made-up!

In reply to Jon Stewart: I don't get this. Were the people who fired the rockets - trying to kill other people, knowing they probably wouldn't succeed, but knowing for certain they would cause an almost certainly fatal retaliation - more or less culpable than the people who actually retaliated, as they always said they would?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


So in your book the victims are guilty of "bringing it on themselves"*... including a two year old? Sometimes you come over as a pretty weird character.

*PS; Isn't that what nazis used to say about Jews?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you're confusing different levels of moral culpability, and also lower levels of moral culpability with stupidity.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Its not just Hamas who fire rockets out of Gaza. But one of a few. Who knows who did, certainly Hamas are not claimings dibbs on this one. Does make me wonder who controls elements inside Gaza though. No movement at the peace talks, apparently more killing will make things better.

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

these events for me make an utter mockery of both sides, demonstrating their vile dishonesty, and total disregard for the people of Gaza. As for ranking the evil in some kind of order, I'd go for a practical approach and put those doing the killing at the top.

however, if the rockets weren't Hamas, that puts a rather different and sinister spin on it.

In reply to Jon Stewart: The kid and woman were related to a member of Hamas.

Seems like a deliberate hit to me. Not that the Israelis actually give a shit what anyone thinks.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The Israelis are just simply monsters - killing a wife and child of a Hamas militant in reprisal for harmless rockets that just crash in fields:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28862595

Both Israel and the USA have rewritten our moral rules, targeting individuals and anyone nearby without any kind of legal procedure has become standard practice, in the war against terror we have become worse than the terrorists. Who can complain now when the "others" do the same? Present Western policy has turned the whole world into a no holds barred battlefield.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I like the "Spent time in Israeli jail in 1989" that's probably 50% of Palestinians then!!

There are still 1000s in Jail not been charged with anything, which is quite a feat in Israel, when holding a rock in your hand, you can be charge with terrorism.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Don't know who to believe, last night on TV it was stated that drones continued to fire upon Palastinian civilians, and at no time was that stopped, and that Hamas have said the rockets fired were not theirs.

Was there then a 'ceasefire' at all?
A Cease bombing maybemore accurate.

Either way the peace talks were going nowhere apparently, but at least there were fewer deaths during that period.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I had a go at burning that pesky family next door to death last night. Dunno why they got upset about that harmless petrol bomb that just landed in the garden...

In reply to Ridge:

Aye - 10 kilos of high explosive in a harmless Quassam 4 rocket.

E

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Interesting to read hat some American's cancelled a 6 day trip to Glasgow, because the City council had flown a Palastinian Flag.

(The Flag was reportedly flown FOR ONE DAY - not even during the visit which was planned for later )

I have read their explanation for cancelling but still think this was OTT.

Glasgow also got pelters for naming part of Glasgow after Nelson Mandela. Later to be appluaded for it.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184161

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

harmless rocket..

Yes Israel are absolutely out of order but thee rockets Hamas fire are intended to kill.. this pick a side mentality is hardly helping..

In reply to IainRUK:



Most definitely. So perhaps we should begin with a demand that both sides act in accordnance with international law. For example by ending the illegal blockade of an entire population.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


OK but then you suggest only one side should do anything! How about end the blockade and end the rocket attacks? Or something similarly two sided which is acceptable.

In reply to MG:

Yes and that's precisely where the problem lie's.

I also only gave one example of what could be done to conform with international law. Both sides should abide with international law.

But, if we are careful to look at the issue of proportionality, which is a key part of international law, then the facts do tend to speak for themselves.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:

But you cant separate one side from the other.. the rocket attacks have to stop. Until they do there is no chance the borders will open.

In reply to IainRUK:

Read what I said Iain.

If both sides; BOTH sides, were prepared to abide by international law then things would change.

If you don't mind me saying, you appear to be placing prime responsibility on Hamas to initiate the change.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


To you and me, maybe, but not to Israelis. Which is why suggesting, as you did, a one sided solution is never going to work - the other side will always say "what about them". The Israelis, for example, will never lift a blocade while rockets are landing in Israel. (I doubt both sides acting will work either, but there is at least a possibility of success.)

In reply to John Postlethwaite: Do you think that Israel would have fired if the rockets hadn't been fired first?

In reply to John Postlethwaite: You read what I said and stop twisting my words when you are being a hypocrite.

You are the one blaming one side..

"Yes and that's precisely where the problem lie's."

I'm saying the blockades won't end until rocket attacks end..

I've said Israel also need to stop attacks.. only once we have a lasting sustained ceasefire will we see movement on other issues. Right now Hamas are playing right into Isreali hands..

This painting Hamas as guys just firing 'harmless' missiles is absurd.

I've not defended Israel at all, I think the UK should announce sanctions and put enormous pressure on them, even in the US there is now a change in mentality amongst many.. its certainly in the news a lot that Israel are bombarding gaza.

In reply to MG:

I am trying to say not "To you or to me", but in accordance with international law.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Your just missing the point. Not quite sure if your question is serious.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


Which will be interpreted differently by the two sides. You started off agreeing with Iain's rather crucial point that "taking sides" will not help and then immediately and ever since have firmly taken sides! This sort of approach will indeed not help.

In reply to John Postlethwaite: Yes it is, what's your answer? For the avoidance of doubt: I believe that if a cease fire was declared tomorrow, and held, Israel would not be the first to break it. That's not to defend the proportionality or otherwise of their past responses.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Has Israel stopped firing? I've seen reports that they have continued to kill palestinian civilians even after they withdrew ground troops.

In reply to IainRUK:

I am not trying to twist your words and have no sympathy for Hamas. I am merely trying to suggest that an approach which starts from the piont of view of international law surely is the most sensible not to mention just, approach.

The alternative seems to be where we are at the moment - you stop first..or else.

i also agree with what you suggest about economic pressure and the key issue of attitudes in the US.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Without taking sides, let's look at the casualty figures (Non-combatants obviously), Israel 3 Gaza at least 1000 (thee are Israeli figures which clam they have killed 1000 Hamas "terrorists"). considering the UN estimates there have been over 500 children killed I doubt the Israeli figures are very accurate, especially in the light of this mornings killings of Mohammed Deif wife and children while he was away elsewhere.

I think they operative word should be PROPORTIONALITY yet you can still keep blaming Hamas if you need to, in the same way the the apartheid regime blamed Nelson Mandela.

In reply to MG:

If taking sides with international law is taking sides. I'm guilty.

In reply to krikoman: What the Israelis repeatedly fail to see is that you cannot destroy Hamas by conflict. By murdering 1700 people 80% of which are civilian - all they are achieving is another generation of hatred and greater support for Hamas.

Before this war, Hamas was losing support in Gaza.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Totally agree and most people seem to see it this way, yet they continue to subjugate Gaza.

Surely Israel's best ploy would be to say, "We are being fired upon, but we will not retaliate. Let's talk and create a peaceful solution." Yet Is suspect that's not what they want.

There's gas off the coast of Gaza and they are still sponsored by the US so there no real incentive to change.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Israel knows exactly what it is achieving. it's just that peace has never been one of it's aims.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Part (only part) of the reason why we are where we are Rob, is that Israel does not have a good track record of upholding agrements or abiding by the law.

In reply to Jim C:

I am sure that history will judge all concerned in the fullness of time, including all of those who have committed, aided or abetted international crime.

In reply to krikoman: I think this proportionality issues is almost a red herring. What would YOU consider to be 'proportional'? One rocket returned for every one fired? Would that be OK? Or would you prefer some 'gentlemanly' arrangement where one hostage is killed whenever the other side take a hit?

In reply to MG:


Not so sure. With the Palestinians there are very few demands to be made of them. Stop rocket attacks. Ummm. Stop digging tunnels. Promise to like Jews?

Expected a one-for-one arrangement is absurd when on the Israeli side they need to stop the blockade, end settlement building, return occupied territories, extend the right of return, even before we get to the issue of stopping killings.

As an aside, I caught a snippet the other days that was highlighting some of the infrastructure destroyed by the Israelis in this campaign. Apparently desalination plants and power plants have been hit. What possible purpose can that have? Compared to rocket attacks?

Being even-handed isn't really possible on this issue as the scale of destruction and suffering is so heavily weighted against the Palestinians, while Israel holds all the power.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Rob, it's a key part of the law.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Israeli has been attacking with or without rocket attacks. Maybe you don't consider settlement building and its associated crimes an attack though.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I think most normal people have some idea of what proportionate means and it's not Israel's response.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yeah I think too..

It is part of the law but its just because hamas rockets are inaccurate. They do fire many 1000's of rockets per year. I think all this 'only kill as many as Hamas do' is just waste talk and is getting the situation nowhere..

Its not just the deaths, PTSD in the Israeli kids around Gaza, of course the kids in Gaza will also suffer but its not just the odd random rocket hitting a field.. its 10's a week..

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


I think this proportionality issues is almost a red herring.


But it's pretty vague, especially in a case like this, otherwise you'd be able to quote it. Israel responded to 50 rockets, and it's not clear if you mean that attack or others or whatever. what legitimacy you think there may be by citing International Law looks even vaguer.

Especially, if in the case of the OP, you understate Hamas' attacks.

I can't see how International Law is going to stop Hamas, unless a UN force was to take control and prevent more attacks.

Interesting that UNRWA are reporting that in 2 or 3 cases where they've found missile caches on their schools during the present conflict, because they have no technical staff to dispose of them, they have been handing them over to the 'relevant authorities' ie Hamas! So it really is just outsourced storage and the UN are in effect re-arming Hamas, where does that sit in international law?

In reply to IainRUK: Having a rocket land in a field a few miles away is hardly comparable to having your home destroyed by a JDAM, then move to a UN school for shelter, only to be killed there.

In reply to IainRUK:

You really make me laugh, and feel sorry for you.

PTSD in Israeli kids!!! FFS!! how many Israeli kids have witnessed their parents, siblings, friends, neighbours blown to bit's, injured, maimed and killed?

While in Gaza the numbers must be in their tens of , if not hundreds of, thousands.

You are blinded by you devotion to Israel, open your eyes and look at the arguments you are proposing, then view them from the side of a Palestinian in Gaza.

In reply to IainRUK:



Not sure what your point is Iain?

Are you suggesting : 'Yes it's part of the law, but we can ignore it.'?

Or are you suggesting :'Yes it's part of the law, but they only quote it because Hamas rockets are inaccurate'?

Or some other meaning?

Let's be clear, the situation with regards to international law and actions in the Palestine (from all sides) predates, by a long way, Hamas and rockets.

In reply to krikoman:

Eh? How am I devoted to Israel, I'm pretty anti-Israel tbh.. and want sanctions against them.

I just realise that it is a two way process and there are innocent victims on both sides and I did say of course there are those in Gaza.. its just not the odd harmless rocket..

Muppet.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

If the Palestinian territories were an independent country then the rockets would be an act of war, and Israel would have the right to invade. But they are not.

Since they are a part of Israel, then the rocket attacks is a domestic issue and should therefore be a policing issue. Every country bears full responsibility to keep the peace within their own country. In Britain when 3 people are murdered we don't send in the army and kill 1,000 people. Obviously Palestine and Britain (or say Northern Ireland 20 years ago) are worlds apart, but you have to ask why. Essentially the current arrangement, with a 'security fence' and the largest stateless population in the world, restricted from entering the majority of the country, is not an acceptable state of affairs and needs to be dealt with. Nothing the Israelis ever do will be the 'right' thing (either defending their citizens or not) until this is fixed.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:

Basically yes, I think Hamas wants to do as much, if not more damage than israel is doing. Israel can actually ramp this up whenever they want which is why we need a ceasefire asap and one that lasts.. the imbalance of power on this conflict is massive.

But all the border issues, embargo's etc won't change unless hamas rockets stop. We can moan on all you want, but it won't.

DM: of course, but not all rockets do miss..

I think the UK and US have been extremely weak in not already cutting ties with Israel, especially the UK.. opinion is changing in the US but I think thats mainly in the younger generation so I doubt we'll see changes higher up.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:

I think its you and others sending out confusing statements..

You want a proportional response?

So Hamas fire say 2000 rockets a year, whats proportional then? Counting deaths and killing as many? The same tonnage of explosives?

And you think that's how we'll see peace in the area…

TBH I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest only a total ceasefire will see stability in the area and work towards some sort of solution on Gaza/Palestine with its situation as a sovereign state. I can't see how their can be a one state solution with Israel tbh..

In reply to winhill:



Sorry no idea what you are getting at.
My simple point is that the start of a just process should be the law, vague or not. What's your plan b ? - Let one side or the other determine what is fair?

So Hamas is the problem - yes?


Pretty poor taste that. Many innocent children and families have beeen killed in schools. Again, without taking sides (a) the UN repeatedly told the IDF about the location of these AGREED SAFE HAVENS (b) given the geography of Gaza it is most likely impossible to easily separate the 'military' from the 'civilian' and (c) no doubt Hamas will try a use this to their advantage which is appalling, but does that also justify the bombing of children and families.

In reply to krikoman:
then view them from the side of a Palestinian in Gaza.

Choice a) Let Hamas go on firing rockets because Israel won't stop the blockage/bombing/aggression until it does

Choice b)Get Hamas to stop the rockets, tunnels etc in return for Israel stopping the blockade and bombs.

Regardless of the historic rights and wrongs, or "proportionality", I think if I were a Palestinian, I would go for b). Even if it fails ultimately (as in the past) it would at least mean food, medical supplies, schools, stable housing etc. in the medium term.

In reply to IainRUK:

Is was talking about PROPORTIONALITY and you come out with, "Its not just the deaths, PTSD in the Israeli kids ..." as if that is anything even minutely proportional.

I really do despair that you might think these things are even comparable!

In reply to IainRUK:



No,not a propotionate response Iain; a response which is framed in the law.

In other words a response which holds both sides to account. A response which expects both sides to honour agreements.

The issue of proportionality was only cited as one aspect of the law; although given the facts of what we have all recently witnessed in Gaza quite an important aspect.

Again, I completely agree with you final observations.

In reply to MG:



But the last seven years, doesn't show that this is what will happen.

Gaza has been blockaded for all those years and it could have happened then, but Israel chose not to let that happen. It continued taking land, controlling what was allowed in and out of Gaza, how far their fishermen could fish off the coast for and arresting lots of people without charge.

Collective punishment is not peace!!

In reply to MG:





That's a big part of the problem, the Palestinians don't have option b.

The blockade pre-dates Hamas and the rockets by a long way. Hamas and the rockets are the latest reason for justifying it.

In reply to krikoman:



They don't show that at all because there have been an average of about 2000 rocket attacks by Hamas a year over that peried (that's 5 a day)

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


Hamas were more than likely born out of the blockade and the apartheid system.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:



Wrong. Hamas goes back to the 1980's. Gaza blockade is much more recent.

In reply to nw:

No. Since Hamas came to power. I know that they existed for a long time.

In reply to krikoman:

SO we go you screwed up way..

Hamas kills x.. Israel kills X.. Israel kills X + n.. Hamas Kills X + n..

Great we have a lovely proportional war.. what a fantastic future…

Or we can go for a total ceasefire and work towards a 2 state solution…

I was saying its not just the odd harmless rocket landing in a field.. it's 2000 a year, thats so far… (I think its 2500 so far til august this year) say 5-10 a day.. of course Israel will respond.

There's only a few of us not taking sides in this thread.. but this thread nicely summarises the issue.. X started it.. it goes back to historic claims.. its all pretty much irrelevant. As much as Bruce et al want Israel to disappear, thats not going to happen, no matter how much concern you have with the legitimacy of the state, it's their and its not going away…

The efforts need to be on a two state solution now. The sad thing was there were parts of Israel where arabs and jews co-existed but its always been a racist state with inferior rights to the Israeli arabs.

In reply to IainRUK:



No not at all,like John said above, that's just one of the international laws that Israel has broken.

Along with bulldozing homes, nuclear weapons, imprisonment without trial.......

As the fifth largest army in the world and considering they have had very few causalities, I think it would be possible for them to show some restraint. Israel's sense of restraint seems to be, "well we could kill you all, so think yourself lucky we only killed a couple of thousand of you."

I agree effort do need to be put towards a two state solution or even single state, but when Israel have laws against Israeli people travelling to Gaza and criminalising such travel, then it's difficult to no see them as a state that wants peace, if only it wasn't for those pesky rockets!

In reply to MG:

While that is the blindingly obvious solution to the problem, it' a bit like me saying - 'all I need to do to climb Hubble is go Raven Tor and pull on the holds'

Much easier said than done!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Godwin in 4 must be a record?

In reply to Phil79:

I know, hence by doubts about it ever working above. However, most conflicts do eventually end when the protagonists decide its worth talking to each other rather than killing each other. Israel/Palestine is a bit of record holder for still going after 70 years...

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


The Blockade is usually described as when Egypt took control of the Rafah Crossing, which was after Hamas fought Fatah for control of Gaza.

Egypt and Jordan withdrew support for Hamas when they seized power in 2007.

In 2008 Hamas breached the Crossing in a concerted and systematic attack. They used the cover of Gazans taking the opportunity to buy stuff in Egypt to smuggle in thousands of newer, longer range rockets.

They waited all of 2-3 weeks before firing them at Israel.

Prior to using rockets the preferred weapon of choice was the suicide bomber.

In reply to John Postlethwaite:


I thought so, which actions are you claiming are against which International Law?


The biggest part of the problem, definitely. They will be hoping that the latest war will be their saviour. Prior to this they were a spent force, unable to pay the bills, forced to hand Gaza back to Fatah. It's not clear yet if they'll survive the current crisis except as just another Brigade.


Er, it's on the UNRWA website. Prior to the current conflict, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch made the same judgement back in 2008.

In reply to winhill:
thats why its hard to understand the israeli actions

hamas clearly are more than content to continue the bloodshed of the people they claim to represent. as long as israel keeps going with airstrikes, and civilians are dying, hamas' support appears to grow.

i get that public opinion in israel pushes in the direction of retaliation every time rockets are launched; but hamas' strategy appears to be to provoke israel into taking action so brutal and sustained that even its allies may be forced to limit or withdraw support.

hamas seem intent on continuing to fire the rockets, knowing they are verging on symbolic, but knowing it will bring deadly retaliation. this cant continue forever; israel seem to be indicating they will continue to use the same level of force as before the cease fire, but what happens when the death toll hits 3000? then 4000? then 5000? if hamas dont blink- and there seems no reason for them to- then they force israel either to back down, or engage in what is essentially a massacre.

surely the israeli government are aware of this? though they show no indication of being so

it may not be from the most auspicious source, given the context, but the quote seems relevant:


He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you



why are the israeli govt apparently so happy to play the role hamas are writing for them, when it will be ultimately so damaging?

best wishes
gregor

In reply to winhill:

You missed the bit in 2006 where Israel and (the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia imposed economic sanctions when Hamas did well in the PLC (Palestine Legislative Council)elections, which was also the catalyst for tensions with Fatah.

In reply to winhill:


You really do like to spin the facts to your own benefit don't you?

While I don't disagree that weapons where stored at a school, the school was VACANT at the time.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Monsters eh? What, all Israelis?

What do these Israeli monsters look like? Perhaps you could draw us a picture/cartoon.

Flick through a few back copies of Der Sturmer if you need inspiration eh?

In reply to Ridge, Enty, Ian etc:

How many Israelis have these rockets killed? Once again the figures say it all, Israel has deliberately killed over 2000 Palestinians, 3 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets... Doesn't that mean anything to you?

And that's not even counting the fact that Palestinians are fighting a legitimate war of resistance, a right recognised by the UN and any set of moral values, the Israelis are fighting a war of aggression to take over Palestine for themselves. The Palestinians are the victims, the Israelis are the aggressors.. Doesn't that mean anything to you either?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


They start it every time, quite apart from the initial invasion of Palestine this last series started with the murder of two Palestinians by the IDF.

But going back to the fundamental injustice it has to be the 1948 takeover when the Jewish minority set up Israel by force. The rest follows on from this.

In reply to krikoman:



What spin? In the context of the conversation I made no comment about whether they were vacant or not, but storing weapons in civilian centres can be a war crime and Hamas firing rockets into Israel can be a war crime.

So when someone says let's listen to International Law, it was Hamas who broke the law first, by firing before the end of the ceasefire.

The efficacy of the rockets is not a determining factor, although the random nature of the targeting can itself be evidence of a war crime.

Claiming that Hamas has not committed a war crime because no-one was hit but Israel has committed a war crime because people were hit is not an objective statement about International Law, it is a demonstration of bias.

In reply to IainRUK:

From you that's funny! You systematically support Israel, I find it hard to believe you are not aware of this.

I won't call you a muppet though as this adds nothing to the argument.

In reply to IainRUK:

You say this then claim not to support Israel!

The problem for you and Israel is that it's not just me and a few others, the entire population of Palestine and billions of people throughout the world think that the present state of Israel should not exist, just as they thought the apartheid state of S Africa shouldn't have existed and it is that vastly held viewpoint that is not going to go away. Don't you get that?

Also Hamas and other Palestinians groups are fighting a war of resistance, a pathetically weak war to remind the Israelis that they still exist and "are not going to go away" either, do you accept the right of an oppressed people to fight a war of resistance? A yes or no answer will suffice.

In reply to colin struthers:


Most of them, yes. If you read articles by those who are not it is becoming very difficult for even Jewish Israelis to resist the swing to the right.


No need for a cartoon, just look at the news. Reality is worst than a cartoon.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't.. I want a 2 state solution..

I support both, I think both should exist.. many millions of jews were born their and thats their home, like the palestinians..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




No.

I can never support the killing of innocent people with rockets and suicide bombers..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Depends if you see history as a series of events or a process of relationships. People who like to see things in black and white, so as to enhance their Pattern Recognition, need to reduce things to simple milestone moments. It's much more difficult to move beyond primitive pattern recognition if you want to consider a process of relationships.

The process really starts with Judaic monotheism. when you have a polytheistic religion it's easy to create new gods and feel a very personal connection with them. When you move to a monotheistic religion you lose that personal experience of god, he is looking after everyone and everything now. Jews preserved their personal relationship with God by explaining their historical myths as defining a unique relationship with God as his Chosen People. Various idiots bought the monotheism and the historical myths but wanted a universal god to look after them too. So Jesus and Mo become universalist liberators, freeing God to have a personal relationship with everyone.

So the present problems date not from 1948 but 621 when Mo had his vision of the Night Journey. There was a pre-Islamic Ismailian myth that Mo used to get leverage on the monotheistic schtick. The Night Journey became Mo's attempt to steal Judaism and claim himself King of the World. He created a story that he had met Jewish prophets who told him to go back and tell the Jews they had told them to follow him. Unfortunately the Jews didn't buy the story and rejected Mo. It is this rejection of Mo and their own prophets that leads to the Jews being regarded as being against God and the agents of Satan. If you can believe a man flew to 7 levels of Heaven on a winged horse, the idea that the Jews are Satan's Army is a minor leap.

Just 13 years later muslims have invaded Jerusalem and construct the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, covering the Foundation Stone, supposedly the site of the first temple.

The Dome of the Rock, that edifice to the new Anti-Semitism, becomes such a vital part of the muslim story that, even in 1948, the Jews guaranteed that it would stay in muslim hands.

If there is no Peace without Justice, can you imagine a world in which the Temple is given back to the Jews? Will muslims ever accept that the flying horse story is just an attempted appropriation of someone's culture?

It's interesting that a survey of anti-semitism found an arc from Morocco to Russia, Muslim and Eastern Orthodox Christians where, the middle, Greece and Turkey shared exactly the same levels of anti-semitism, 69%, although their traditions are so very different.

The common factor is the Jewish rejection of the relevant prophets, the orthodox vision of Jews as Christ Killers, the muslim story has Jews rejecting Mo as their leader.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



You've done that thing where you pick random points in time.. Why 70 years ago we need to undo history, yet not support free Tibet?

And what if the Maori want all Pakeha out of NZ?

Or native Indians want the US back?

In reply to winhill:


By leaving out the small fact that the building was vacant, you made it sound like they were firing rockets from a school full of children, you know what you did and it's a bit sick to be honest.


What about the blockade? Isn't that against international law?

I think is you looks at the UN resolutions it's Israel that broken the law first, when it started taking land and bulldozing people houses. Also if you'd like to count the UN resolutions against Israel and then Palestine you might find a bit of a difference there.

And while you're at it you could look at the WMD treaty and Israel's stance on that.

If you need any more evidence look up fleshette bombs and why Israel might be using them in built up areas?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce, you should know by now. A Palestinian life is worth less than an Israeli life.

In reply to krikoman: And thats without even mentioning the West Bank.

In reply to IainRUK:



So when a people is invaded or oppressed it should just lay over and die? The French Resistance was wrong, the ANC in S Africa was wrong, the Vietnamese were wrong, the people of Mozambique, Angola, Algeria etc etc etc were wrong to fight for their freedom?


So all a colonising force has to do is hold out for one generation or so and then they can stay? This would mean that Algeria would still be French, that would be OK then? The UN is wrong to have condemned colonization in your opinion, for those under boot of outside invaders it's just tough luck?

In reply to winhill:

Briefly, there were very few Jews in Palestine at the time of the Muslim invasion, they had already converted to Christianity. In Islam the "religions of the book" are tolerated, they just have to pay a tax, this was the case in the Ottoman Empire which covered the whole area. By the last part of the 19th century, when the zionist movement started colonizing Palestine, Jews made up about 5% of the population, mostly in Jerusalem and a few religious communities. They lived alongside Muslims with no particular problems, all 25000 (approx) of them.

So your "explanation" misses the point totally. Zionism is a result of 19th century European nationalism. 1948 is the year of the UDI, the taking of power, but the preparations were being laid over several decades before.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Two words. China. Tibet.

In reply to IainRUK:

Because that's when a minority, an organised minority, took over the country and called it Israel, against the wishes of the majority.

I think Tibet is a different situation, why not start a thread about it? But it does not help you as if you think the Chinese were wrong to take over, in your analysis, Tibet then why do you not think the same thing about the Jewish minority in Palestine in 1948?

PS. Ditto for Rob (again).

In reply to winhill:

There is another view, and that is to look pragmatically at the present and to agree that everyone has a historical narrative they could use to clobber another over the head with if they so chose. Choosing to fall back on an injustice of history is totally dependent on selfish, current motives, which is what people are *really* concerned with, the religion and history is a weak cover. People want power and resources for themselves and their children. The stories of ancestors are simply part of the toolkit for achieving that.

In the case of Israel, it is imposed on its neighbours and oppressing them. The Palestinians have a severe and genuine grievance, because even by the most favourable definitions one could choose, they have been invaded and they are oppressed currently, by the state of Israel. Israel's grievance can extend no further than a dislike of Hamas' tactics and ideology. The twisted interpretation of the current picture espoused right wing lunatics like Melanie Philips, that looking at the current picture on balance, pure righteous Israel is under attack from evil terrorists simply for being there and being Jewish is a disgusting, pathetic lie that is used to defend the massacre of innocent people.

"I don't like your awful, desperate tactics and your ideology" does not provide justification for bombing innocent people, destroying their homes and killing their children. The Palestinians have a genuine grievance, their lives and their country are being destroyed by an oppressive state which is imposed on them and their land by any definition one can think of. The vile, dishonest trick played over and over again by all those who support Israel is to inflate the issue of Hamas' horrible tactics and ideology - genuine complaints, if insignificant in the scheme of the picture - as greater than the issues of Israel's oppression and destruction of Palestine in general (the cause of Hamas and their tactics of course), and the current campaign to bomb Gaza to dust with total disregard for the lives of the people.

Israel's actions demonstrate to the world that they (the government, IDF and supporters) believe a symbolic risk to the life of an Israeli is justification for bombing homes and killing children, so long as those lives are Palestinian. The depth of this racism is astounding in the context of a "civilised democracy" rather than a tribal conflict in which people are struggling simply for land to farm and water to drink. That fact has to be faced up to by those who argue that Israel holds some kind of moral high ground over Hamas.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:





Going back to the OP



The situation has descended into sick farce. Each side is playing out a caricature designed by the enemy. The world is mad.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Of course it was a mistake.. Many countries started life after wars or invasions.. I just don't think we can go around undoing history

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The most articulate summary of the situation that I have read on here in a long time. Chapeau!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Algeria wasn't the deportation of millions..

Go with your way.. Keep arguing for Israel to be disbanded.. It won't happen..

The only realistic chance of peace now is a 2 state solution.

In reply to IainRUK:


Perhaps, though another possible solution would be for Gaza to be subsumed into Egypt and the West Bank into Jordan. That has huge problems, of course, but then so do other solutions. I'm not saying that this would be just or fair, but it might perhaps be the best option for both peace and the long-term viability of the Palestinian's state(s). Egypt and Jordan would need to be bribed into taking those lands, but then America could transfer its subsidy of Israel into subsidy of Egypt and Jordan.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Never heard of that option.. Does seem harsh on both but a defined border and open access to other areas would still be much better

I always favoured a one state solution but I think that's gone now..

In reply to IainRUK:


So you don't think there was any need to undo the colonialisation of IIRC 90% of the world during the 20th century? MacMillan and others got it wrong, nearly half of Africa should still have been left pink on the map and the other half, approximately, should have been left green, plus a little bit whatever colour was used for Portugal's colonies?

This puts you against the vast majority of the planet, and, of course, the UN, who wholeheartedly support the vast movement of decolonialisation that took place in the second half of the 20th century.... except in Palestine, which is the whole problem at present.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: To which country are you going to forceably deport (in cattle trucks?) people born in Israel? Who had parents born in Israel? Is the plan still for a desert in the US?

In reply to Sir Chasm: Plenty of space in Canada, which was I think Bruce's last 'idea' on this subject. Crying out for citrus farmers in Northern Canada, I hear.

In reply to IainRUK:


No, it was one million, which is not so different, especially as they had been there for longer than Israel has existed.


That's what they said about the British Empire.


But Israel and a large proportion of Palestinians don't want it. Seriously though, after what is happening in Gaza, and has happened before, and giving the present apartheid system in Israel itself, can you see that happening? South Africa isn't an example as the whites are numerically a minority so given two seemingly impossibly "solutions" surely the one that goes in the sense of history ie. decolonisation, self determination and simple morality, is the best and therefore most likely?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Interesting. Does this idea have any serious proponents? A single state is utterly impossible due to the fact that nutters and racists (and their supporters around the world) have dominated the politics for far long enough to embed an intractable hatred into the minds of both peoples. A two state solution is not really viable either due to the geography and the economic impossibility of building a functioning state from the scattered, disected rubble left by Israel and its exploits outside its borders. As you say, the Egypt/Jordan solution is unjust, and things would need to change enormously for that ever to happen, but I could (probably very naively) see a glimmer of hope for the (distant) future in that approach.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Why "cattle trucks", aeroplanes exist? Most Israelis arrived since 1948, there were only about half a million Jewish people there then, the other 5 million or so arrived since or were born of immigrants.

Of these many could simply return to where they came from.. do you think there is an overwhelming climate of anti-semitism in Britain or the USA fore example? Would you be upset to see a Jewish family move in next door? I know I wouln't. Those who came from places like Poland or Russia where we are told such problems still exist, or simply don't find the place attractive could go to the USA or Australia or any of a whole number of attractive countries, who would, of course, receive financial help to facilitate this, but that would be no great problem, the USA, for example could come out gaining financially as they wouldn't have to fork out all the military aid they give to to Israel, Egypt, Jordan etc at present.

Saudi Arabia and the other immensely rich Muslim oil states could put their money where there mouth is and provide finance for the operation, which could quite easily be carried out in an ordered and bloodless way. The main problem I can see is with the extremist zionists, but hopefully they are a minority.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Well, according to wiki http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel about 70% of Israelis were born there. So your plan of sending them home could only apply to 30%. It's a start I suppose.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's nothing like the BE..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


A Jewish family? Fine. West Bank settlers, hmmmm...

In reply to Sir Chasm: I think he's gotcha. Bruce was trying to introduce a bit of satire, in line with the OP's thread title.

Well done Brucie!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Proba

Probably, it's very confusing. Anyway, I've got to go now and tell my neighbour she's got to move out because Bruce's Jews are coming.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It was all going so well until:


which would be electoral suicide for the US President who suggested it.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Bruce's List eh? Not in very good taste, but neither is the original suggestion.

In reply to IainRUK:



Really? Pre-1967 should suit all parties, don't you agree?

In reply to Sir Chasm:



That's just anti-Jewish scare-mongering, you're starting a bit early, aren't you? Why would a family moving back to Britain kick your neighbours out? They could have your house instead. When the French left Algeria that was a million people, including quite a lot Jewish as it happens, there was no enormous problem and that was a million in one country, those who had no right to stay in Palestine, ie. Jewish immigrants and their descendants over a time period that I imagine would be negotiated, those who had been there before the zionist immigration would be allowed to stay, if they wanted, would be spread out over many countries so your neighbours would have nothing to fear at all.

In reality it is by no means certain that the Palestinians would insist on all leaving, it would probably be that the political changes that a free democratic Palestine would make would not be to the taste of many Jewish Israelis, those who would be quite happy to accept living in peace with Arabs, as their ancestors did until the zionists started their evil business, and who had no blood on their hands might be able to stay - Palestinians could find it to their advantage too, but obviously they would loose all their present advantages and those living on stolen lands would have to move so that the people driven off could return.

How it all worked out would be down to all legitimate Palestinians, of whatever race or religion... as I see it and as the programs of most Palestinian movements, including Hamas, call for. It would need careful handling though, there's no doubt about that.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


I think that compromise is a thing of the past, too much Palestinian blood has been shed now. Anyway the parties ruling Israel would never accept it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I always got the impression that Hamas was more of a "death to the Jews" kind of crowd?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think it's a little more complex than that, but anyhow the occupants of Gaza voted for Hamas, it's their decision. Maybe they are nearer the problem than we are? They have seen where negotiations or relying on other Muslim countries has got them, now they think their only hope is fighting. Later on they could be more pragmatic.

The fundamental fact is that it's their land, it's for them to decide. Our role is to decide whether we support them or not, we can't tell them how to fight if we do.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yup, we could all agree to ignore the history of the most hated race in history, 1,500 years of hate, the Holocaust, 5 billion religious enemies.

How we understand Jerusalem without that might be a bit of a problem and the motivations of the current combatants but if it helps a simple narrative evolve I guess that's the main thing.


Yes, Philips and the Daily Mail, fairly right wing but when you justify muslim racism towards Jews by saying that it's sound because muslims are all part of the same in-group, that moves you well to the right of Philips and the Daily Mail.


It really isn't a symbolic risk, although I got the sense from the OP that you were seeking to downgrade the threat to Israel as much as possible, so when the Israelis build a mildly effective defence system, it actually makes their actions less legitimate, despite, as I mentioned above, that Hamas rearmed with bigger, better missiles within days of breaching the Rafah blockade.

It seems important for yourself and a few others to continue to create a narrative that counterbalances the extreme and unique racism that the Jews have suffered with a contrary 'The Jews are the racists' story. But again, Israel isn't an Apartheid State or a racist state, it's a gerrymandered state, created to ensure a self-determinate Jewish homeland.

Not that dissimilar to say Pakistan, created to provide for a particular demographic.

The difference, of course, is that it has never occurred to anyone to call Pakistan an Apartheid State.

The Jews, though, very bad.

In reply to winhill:




'extreme and unique racism'- without wishing to downplay the generations of discrimination and racist violence that Jewish people have suffered, this is not correct. Romany travellers have suffered similar persecution and were targetted for annihilation in the holocaust alongside the Jews. Going back through history, the slave trade- the commodification and forced extraction of half a continent, with estimated 18 million deaths- and the colonisation of the americas, are of similar magnitude of horror and evil, and have consequences that are very much alive today- see the events in Ferguson.

notwithstandng that, i agree an understanding of the past is useful in helping to make sense of the present- but having suffered terribly in the past does not excuse behaving badly now. and undoubtedly the state of israel is behaving in a way that is not justifiable in context of the threat it faces.

and your comparison with Pakistan would be relevant if the ruling class in Pakistan was of european or american descent, had moved there in numbers sufficient to ensure that they outnumbered the indigenous population, went on to steal land belonging to members of the indigenous population who were from a different ethnic background to them, then forced the people who they displaced in the land theft to live under conditions of a military occupation, routinely harassed and persecuted them, and then directed modern weapons and artillery at their homes causing massive casualties when they tried to resist this.

but none of that is true, so its not relevant.

and re the implication that critics of israel are motivated by antisemitism- i dealt with that in detail on the other thread (the one you wouldnt read and then bizarrely claimed i wouldn't address your points). i refer you back to it

but here's another reason that this issue generates debate when the horrors unfolding in iraq dont- Islamic state dont have anyone on here justifying their actions and smearing anyone that criticises then as racists. if they did, i imagine it might cause a bit of a fuss.

your ad hominems may make you feel better, as they de-legitimise the criticism of israel without having to address the substantive points; but when they are repeated in the face of clear explanation over weeks of why they are not relevant, it starts to look like you are just avoiding the substantive points,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to winhill:


I fear you either fail or are unable to recognise the manner in which the Israelis deliberately play the 'unique status' card to obscure the illegitimate and appalling nature of their current behaviour. Behaviour which not only defaces a proud history of Jewish struggle but also and paradoxically places them in the category of oppressor.



Wonderful. What a lovely way of describing one of the world's most expensive and powerful military complexes, which is neither mild nor purely defensive. The idea of the 'plucky Israelis' merely trying to defend what is rightfully theirs is not only fiction but also a key part of the problem.


Try telling that to, amongst others : native Americans, Tasmanian aborigines, 10 million died in the Congo......Sadly genocide has a long and not so illustrious history. To claim unique status in this context is to perhaps slightly miss the point.

"But again, Israel isn't an Apartheid State or a racist state, it's a gerrymandered state, created to ensure a self-determinate Jewish homeland."

Just give your eyes a good rub and look hard again.

In reply to IainRUK:

With clearly defined borders to stop Israel stealing land.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I think 'pogroms' might be more apt than 'programs' when looking at Hamas future plans.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Yes... Is that not blindingly obvious..

In reply to IainRUK: Yes. Yes it is. Someone should maybe point it out to the Israelis. For the 1000th time.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Yes that will help...

The problem is Hamas attacks have made it east for Israel to justify it.. I'm not saying that is right but that's what they do.

In reply to IainRUK:



You really haven't got it yet, have you? Hamas and it's supporters think that armed resistance is their only hope, they also think it is their duty as Muslims, that jihad is a sacred duty and dying while fighting is to die a martyr. You or me don't believe in this sort of thing, or would put it in different words - how much of a slagging of does anyone get who questions poppy day, for example... and I know because I've tried it. Now I just ignore threads on the subject but really, is glorifying our dead in two world wars that different?

So Hamas has no choice but to keep on fighting until victory or death... it's as simple as that for them.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think the poppy thing is different. The message seems to be, let us learn from the past and not let this happen again. The martyr thing seems to be used as recruitment for more of the same.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Well you've declared your hand there a bit Bruce. FWIW we don't glorify our dead, we commemorate them and regret their passing - we don't post videos of them or celebrate the fact they're now in paradise. Just the opposite.

Just because Hamas are bonkers - which they are - doesn't make them right. Conflating jihadists - which is what you rightly identify them as being - with the French resistance or the ANC is just nonsense.

In reply to IainRUK:
Israel has not managed to destroy Hamas yet, despite all of its military invasions of gaza. Maybe it should change tact?

Hamas were a spent force in Gaza before this recent war. Now its got all the support it wants as its seen to be defending the palestinian people from attack.

In reply to drunken monkey: 'Now its got all the support it wants as its seen to be defending the palestinian people from attack.'

I think if you believe that you are perilously close to thinking the majority of Palestinians are truly stupid.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Okay then. So why dont the Israelis open up talks with Fatah and try and remove Hamas?

Surely this a better option than murdering hundreds of civilians.

In reply to drunken monkey: If you recall, Israel was in talks with Fatah until they tried to unite with Hamas. Given that Hamas has only one objective, which precludes any sort of negotiation, that rather put the kybosh on things.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Did Hamas not go begging to Fatah for help? Either way - The Israelis have an opportunity to Isolate Hamas here.

Flatpacking Gaza is not a viable option. they have tried it so many times. And failed.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Didn't Israel and the US demand elections and then when Hamas won they decided it was a bad idea and refused to talk to the newly democratically voted representatives?


Edit: Ooops it was the US that wanted then and Israel not, but still.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2006/02/02/promoting-democracy-after-hamas-vic...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Thanks Brucey…

Of course they have a choice.. what codswallop.. you really are outdoing yourself..

I'm still waiting to hear why its OK that China invaded tibet and doesn't have to give back land yet Israel does?

You are the one who wants to selectively change history when its a side you support..

In reply to drunken monkey:



You seem to be thinking I support Israel?

I think both have played right into the extreme sides hands.. on each side.. hard line Hamas want Israel to keep fighting, if Israel stopped support for Hamas would drop.. hard line israelis the same.. if Hamas stopped firing rockets then even their people would turn on the attacks.. its already getting more and more vocal by US jews opposing their stance.

I do think we are seeing a change in the level of support..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



That's OK for them but they do share Gaza with a lot of other people most of whom didn't vote for them back in 2006. They don't have the mandate to volunteer everyone for martyrdom.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

A 4 year old Israeli child was killed today, does that even things up?

In reply to Lesdavmor:


You f*ckwit, why would that even things up, you're talking about the death of a innocent child, why the f*ck would anyone in their right mind think that's what anyone wants.

In reply to winhill:

So, when looking at the current picture and discussing the morality and legitimacy of the actions of warring forces, Hamas and the IDF, then no, the hatred Jews have suffered through history has no relevance.


Granted, these things need to be understood in order to find the best solution to certain problems, e.g administration of Jerusalem, which we're not discussing here. But while the religious and historical motivations underlying the actions of Hamas and the IDF may provide context to their insanity (the evidence for insanity is in the OP in case it falls in your blindspot), it doesn't affect how we should judge it. We should judge them on their actions.

You might also guess that I don't believe religion provides justification for anything, outside what an individual might do at home, or why a group might choose to meet to sing a song or mumble some stuff from some old book or other.


Show some evidence of that before you accuse me of "justifying racism". I don't know what you're referring to, it sounds like a twisted interpretation of something vaguely related I wrote weeks ago. Challenge my arguments, not things you make up, please.


I was just stating what I heard on the news. How much more could I downgrade rockets landing in a field, that's what was reported? The trouble you have is that Gaza has been bombed to rubble, and everyone in Israel is fine. You need evidence if you're going to challenge the obvious fact that Hamas' threat to Israel is not credible.

I like the way you downplay the Iron Dome, nice touch! Either it works, or Hamas really are pathetic...


The story is the actions of the IDF. The IDF demonstrate that they consider the lives of innocent Palestinians to be worthless. It doesn't need spinning, it's blindingly f^cking obvious. What amuses me, frankly, is when I say "IDF" you say "Jews", as if they're synonymous. It shows a horribly dishonest tactic in debate (likely) or perhaps a world view in which your "either with us (the Jews) or against us". If it's the latter, god help you.


Then how do you explain the oppression of the Palestinians? That's Israel's actions in the West Bank (let's leave Gaza for this bit) and the denial of equal rights to Arabs in Israel? Israel is quite clearly a racist state, even without the bombing to rubble of Gaza.



I'm not interested in weak comparisons that don't hold or aren't instructive to the debate. We can call Gaza the Warsaw Ghetto and Israel Pakistan 'til the cows come home, it's tedious, because you can choose whatever parallels fit your viewpoint and it adds no value.


Is it cause I is black? Again. No. Do you want a serious response to this drivel?

In reply to krikoman:

Er ... that is exactly what Hamas wants. That's what they say they want. Their entire organisation such as it is predicated on wiping out Israel, every man, woman and child. That's what they believe their religion insists they do. If you don't get that you understand nothing.

In reply to krikoman:

Well sh##head that was exactly my point, you obviously have not bothered to follow this thread from the beginning, or you would understand my point

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The SNP is (was?) totally dedicated to the pursuit of Scottish independence. Doesn't mean they didn't want to pursue 'devo-max' for purely pragmatic reasons, or that (like Plaid Cymru) they might eventually soften to 'mere' devolution...

To bring about peace you have to work with your enemies. You don't have to like them; after all, they are your enemy...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


And if you believe that their nutcase ideology justifies bombing Gaza to rubble, even though the Palestinians are the ones with the genuine grievance, then you understand nothing.

Hamas' ideology is full of bonkers racism and their tactics are disgusting: they are inciting Israel to massacre. We can probably agree on that. Where we depart is that you seem to suggest that this justifies the actions of the IDF: look at what they've done. Ask yourself seriously: in the face of the threat from Hamas, is this justified, or is it wrong?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:





but are they Rob? could you link to where it says that?

fwiw the wiki article doesn't say it, but it doesn't give the whole charter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant#Statements_about_Israel

there is a link to what claims to be a translation of the charter here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

and in the charter, there is the following text, which i assume is the bit people refer to:


Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it


but there is no clarification over whether this is meant to indicate the defeat and removal of the state, or the killing of all its citizens. in light of the following :

article 6


The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.


and article 31



The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

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.


it looks more like the former- if the state of israel is removed, and it is a one-state palestine (on islamic lines) then all other faiths appear to be welcome

its also undoubtedly true that the charter contains all sorts of tinfoil-hatted antisemitic drivel about freemasons, and the Jews being behind the french revolution, so it is clear that racism is written into the heart of the organisation. but it reads like the product of more that one person, at more than one time, with bits being added that seem almost reasonable, interspersed with bits that are pure delusion.

also, the wiki article carries the following quote:


In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."


suggesting that there is potentially more pragmatism in the organisation now than is usually suggested, and that the charter may not be to be taken literally now.

but then, the wiki article itself reads like it is the product of a struggle to paint two very different views of the organisation in the same text, so it should be taken with some caution.

overall though, it doesnt seem to support your contention that the goal of hamas is, in effect, the genocide of the jews. given the boldness of that claim, as i said above, some evidence to support it would be welcome,

cheers
gregor

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>> Show some evidence of that before you accuse me of "justifying racism". I don't know what you're referring to, it sounds like a twisted interpretation of something vaguely related I wrote weeks ago. Challenge my arguments, not things you make up, please.

as far as i can see, winhill's position is that nearly all criticism of israel is driven by racism, either overt or hidden- in a previous thread, he put the figure at 99%.

given this, he argues that criticising israel is effectively being a 'willing idiot', and advancing the agenda of antisemitism. he went as far as implying that people doing so might be committing a criminal offence on one thread.

while not directly accusing posters here of racism, he does repeatedly, across multiple threads, ask why is it that the palestinian issue generates this level of debate, when other larger humanitarian problems don't; his rhetorical answer is, of course, because the palestinian one involves the Jews. the implication is therefore that racism underpins much of the comment here.

this argument- basically a form of ad hominem , as it seeks to negate the other person's views by attributing negative characteristics to them, rather than by engaging with the points they make- has been comprehensively rebutted by several people on a number of threads; but he continues to make it, and does so again in his reply to you in this thread ("the Jews, though, very bad")

which is a shame, because the more it goes on, the more he starts to look like a more eloquent version of dek,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: 'The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).'

Google it. They're mad as frogs. (For balance, so is Netanyahu.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
yes, they're quoting the koran there from what i can see; the fact they chose to quote that bit certainly implies they thought it was telling them something particularly relevant

but thats in direct contradiction to the bits i quoted- and thats what i mean, the whole document reads like it was written by a committee, each of whom took it away and added his own bits, and no-one read each others' contributions. some bits read like the PR department added it, others are full blown bonkers antisemitism (it even namechecks the 'protocols of the elders of zion' in article 32!)

but overall, there is nothing in it that i read to say that the explicit goal of hamas is the genocide of the jewish people, rather than the defeat and removal of the state of Israel. which is still a goal that i can see israelis would legitimately have a problem with; but a very different proposition to another holocaust

and it does offer the prospect of negotiations being possible- as i said on another thread, the goal of the IRA was the obliteration of the British state on the island of Ireland; within a generation, they are in government of the state. i think the view that hamas are all, to a man, religious loons who are outside of motivations we could understand is a dangerous one, and it is that dehumanising of them that helps perpetuate the current situation.

certainly, the reported goals of their negotiations in the recent talks were entirely practical and not based on ideology- opening of borders and the building of an airport!

none of which negates the self evident reality that, ideologues or pragmatists, they are willing to engage in violence of an utterly deplorable nature; the killing of a 4 year old israeli boy is every bit as much of a tragedy and is as unacceptable as the shelling of schools in Gaza by the IDF. this is not a post in support of hamas; but it is a statement of the obvious truth that if there is to be any way out of the current spiral of violence, treating them as real people who have the same motivations as their opponents do, rather than cartoon bogeymen, and engaging them in talks, is going to be needed,

cheers
gregor

In reply to krikoman:


You were the one going on about poor israeli kids for just having PTSD…

In reply to Jon Stewart:

i can't be bothered to read through so apologies if this has been posted but on the subject of IDF/Hamas satire:

https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dog-on-the-moon.png

in the extended Radio National version the IDF call centre consultant asks the potential Palestinian bombee to "please stay on the line to complete a customer experience survey"

In reply to IainRUK:


And I'l still waiting to know why you condemn China for "taking over Tibet" as you see it but don't condemn the zionists for taking over Palestine!

Argue each case for it's own merits.

In reply to IainRUK:


Anyone reading your posts can see that.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I suppose you are right to some extent, the Israelis have treated and are still treating, the Palestinians worse than the Nazis treated the French population (except for Jews who were treated worse) or the white S Africans treated the blacks.

The nazis shot hostages 30 to 100 at a time, they didn't bombard whole civilian areas nor starve 2 million French in a closed area, nor did the whites do this to the blacks. So well done, you've come up with a partially true statement at last.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


It isn't actually, what they want to destroy is the present foul, racist, expansionist, murdering state that Israel is today... just as we destroyed nazi Germany. We didn't kill all the Germans.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Add another 21 Palestinians to your anti-Israel score card. They were shot by Hamas, without due process obviously, but hey, they're the good guys, right? Quite cuddly really.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Your 23:04 Fri post is exactly what I would have posted, well done. I read the Hamas text too, falling asleep several times in the middle, but didn't have the energy to do the post.

Thanks.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Have you read why? It's a messy business, Israel is clearly getting information from somewhere. All wars of independence and resistance movements have led to this sort of thing. I don't know if they were guilty or innocent, but the solution is simple, Israel should top killing Palestinians and agree to negotiate seriously, all Hamas are asking for is for a stop to the blockade and open borders... and this in a tiny bit of their own country.. not much to ask. The Israelis refuse... who is to blame?

As for the Israeli child, surely the blame lies with the parents who took him to a war zone,

In reply to Bruce Hooker:







Guess that means the responsibility all the children killed in Gaza lies with their parents.

It's lucky more Israelis haven't been killed by the thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into their country. Hamas are just a bunch of murderous terrorists happy to launch rockets into civilian areas, deploy suicide bombers or ride roughshod over the lives of the people they purport to be defending. It makes me laugh that the left leaning liberal minded UKCers who are most vocal always have something to rant about capital punishment and here they are offering to boycott Israeli oranges to support bully boy terrorists who are more than happy to summarily execute their own people with not even the pretence of a trial.

PS congratulations to Israel for their precision strike that clinically took out 3 top Hamas commanders.....lights touch paper and stands well back.

In reply to atrendall:

Maybe you should read up the history of Gaza and find out how so many Palestinians ended up there - it wasn't voluntary.

They were driven there by Israeli terrorists, they had no choice, but the same can't be said for the millions of Jewish people who chose to go to Palestine and actively take part in the theft of this poor but peaceful country. You are another who seems to have forgotten, if you ever knew, that the Palestinian people are the victims in all this its the Jewish* invaders who are the aggressors.

PS. *I realise that some people may take offence at the open use of the word "Jewish" but there is no other way to say it, factually this is the case.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



That's not what you or Hamas are asking for..

I still don't understand why the jewish invaders should leave Palestine yet not the Chinese invaders of tibet, nor the pakeha invaders of New Zealand..

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Not sure we can compare the desire for independence with the wiping out of a state…

In reply to IainRUK:


It's what Hamas are asking for at present. It's been in all the press.


I realise you don't. All I can suggest is reading about the different situations, and also thinking a bit about whether one situation effects another.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So it's ok for some countries to be invaded... Not others... Russia into Crimea was ok.. China into Tibet.. Ok.. Yet not Palestine.. Got you....

In reply to IainRUK:


No, you really haven't "got me"!

You haven't much of a grasp about world history either if you think these three situations are similar either.

And for the last time, maybe you'll get me this time but I doubt it, if you condemn the first two why don't you condemn that last? Your own "argument" is self destructing.

Out now for a bit.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I have comdemned Israel..

I just do not think you can undo history..

Not after this long.. its just about trying to co-exist.. you are the one arguing for a country to be wiped out...

In reply to IainRUK:


Many colonies were returned to the native population after much longer. As for the second point you must move in different circles to me! Try going to any demo in support of Palestine and see if they don't want the Palestinians to get their country back, all of it. Compromise solutions are just pissing in the wind of Western intellectuals who feel a little guilty, everyone knows that they would neither work nor correspond to what Israel is really willing to give.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



As soon as you call the Jews, Invaders or Occupiers, you're taking a historical stance, whether you think you are or not. If that stance denies the history of one of the protagonists then it's evidence of bias.


If you can't remember what you've written, that's NMFP.



The problem you've got is that self-determination can over throw majority rule, it's about turning ethnic minorities into ethnic majorities. If you're going to call self-determinate states racist then that's your prerogative but if you are only going to call one racist then it's evidence of bias. If you don't have an informed critique of self-determinate states that includes some developed concept of racism then it's evidence of bias.

There is non-racist criticism of Israel but this isn't it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There's a difference between moving a minority and moving millions...

In reply to winhill:

Stop being a prat. I didn't call the jews anything, I'm talking about Israel. Not all jews are the Israeli government, the IDF nor their supporters. Did you know that?


Pathetic. What did I write, and how did it justify racism? Show what you mean so I can answer, or f*ck off. It really is that is simple.



Equal rights are equal rights. This is the strangest most twisted argument in favour of denying people equal rights I've ever heard. Who cares about the statistics of ethnic majorities or minorities? If the state is not racist, then all ethnic groups have equal rights. You seem to have no understanding of what racism is.

Hamas, and probably many others in Palestine are racist towards the jews. I have never said otherwise, although you construct a fantasy in which I believe only "the jews" (actually the Israeli establishment, but you like to equate them for twisted political reasons, i.e. to pretend, pathetically and deviously that criticism of the Israeli government and military is motivated by anti-Semitism, because that's the only defence you can muster) are the racists in the conflict. It is perfectly obvious to me that both sides are motivated by hatred and nutcase racism of the most despicable kind. The difference is that Israel can act on it, it is Israeli policy domestically in its treatment of arabs, and outside its borders in its actions in the West Bank and in its imprisonment of Gaza, that make it a racist state. It is the evidence that makes Israel a racist state, not a story or spin or politics. The policies of the government are racist. It is not a slur against Jews, it a statement describing the policies of the Israeli government. The policies of the Israeli government are racist. How much more specific do you want me to be?

Were you to propose that both sides were disgusting racists, not just the Israelis, you would certainly have a valid point. Hamas seem pretty racist to me. I'm sure many other Palestinians who aren't Hamas members are also racists who hate jews, rather than aiming their well-justified bitterness at the Israeli state.

Can you understand that people deserve equal rights regardless of race, and thus regardless of whether the majority or the minority race form the government? Your comments above indicate that you have no idea what racism is. Do you believe that if your racial in-group dominate a geographic area statistically/demographically that your racial in-group can take for themselves greater rights than other racial groups?

From what I read above, your views seem so twisted and so racist that I'm struggling to find any common ground to debate on. Unless we can agree that people deserve equal rights regardless of their race and religion, then this discussion cannot continue. You isolate yourself as a racist, on a level with Hamas but supporting the side with bigger guns; if that's where you're happy to stand, we can end the conversation.

Do people deserve equal rights regardless of their race, or not?

In reply to IainRUK:


You keep repeating yourself, forcing me to repeat that in the Algerian case there were a million "pieds noirs" - what the white French colonists were called and they were absorbed by just one medium sized country. Nowadays moving 3, 4 or 5 times more to countries world wide in a massive UN effort to end a problem that has been rotting the world for 50 years would be no problem.

The problem is not technical it's political, and also one of racism, the underlying racism that says a people of white, Western culture is of higher value than a bunch of Arabs... even on these threads people who have been employing whatever poor means they can against one of the strongest and most ruthless army in the world are referred to as "nutters" frequently. So racism coupled with a lack of political will and the power of a very strong pro-zionist lobby.

That's all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

800,000 pieds noir were evacuated.. whats the population of Israell? Over 8 million.. over 6 million of which are jews..

That is a huge amount and it just will not happen..

Plus there is the history which you want to ignore yet accept historic palestinian claims..

Your solution just will not happen..

In reply to IainRUK:

You forget those who left before and after, as well as people who left such as Algerians who fought on the French side and so on, a million is nearer the overall total.

In Israel there are about 6 million Jews of which perhaps between 500 000 and a million have a legitimate claim to form part of the native population and probably a million of so would choose to stay in an Islamic state - all Muslim parties accept the idea of a multi "ethnic"/religious state and specifically state that Jews, Christians and Muslims can live together, even your-hate figure, Hamas. So the maximum number concerned by a transfer is about 4 million.

If little France just coming out of WW2 could do it for 1 million then there is no practical reason preventing 4 million in an operation supported by the whole world. And don't forget there's a strong probability that some pragmatic compromise could be found so the figure would be reduced to those hard-liners who just couldn't stand living in a Arab majority state.

PS. Which country in the Middle East has the largest Jewish minority which despite all is firmly decided to stay put and not move to Israel?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Little france.. they were french algerians.. it was much simpler..

How do you decide the country of origin for people who ant country for country before settling and having 2-3 generations of kids..

Iran..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So Hamas states that Jews, Christians and Muslims can live together. What about its original charter which calls for the obliteration of Israel and justifies the murder of Jews? Let me guess, you think they have toned down their vile rhetoric and would now happily live side by side with Jews?

I don't think so. How about this...

Our belief about fighting you [Jews] is that we will exterminate you, until the last one, and we will not leave of you, even one. For you are the usurpers of the land, foreigners, mercenaries of the present and of all times. Look at history, brothers: Wherever there were Jews, they spread corruption... (Quran): "They spread corruption in the land, and Allah does not like corrupters." Their belief is destructive. Their belief fulfills the prophecy. Our belief is in obtaining our rights on our land, implementing Shari'ah (Islamic law) under Allah's sky.
[Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 25, 2014]

... from July this year.

In reply to atrendall:


It's in the original charter, I read it a few days ago. Why don't you do the same? There's also a lot of other contradictory stuff, the quote you give is from the Koran originally. Try reading the Bible if you want to find blood thirsty quotes. Hamas have said that their original charter is like the Bible, it exists as a historical document but is not to be taken literally.

The fact is that in established Muslim states there was an organised cohabitation between Jews, Christians and Muslims - in the conquest of Spain Jews actually fought with Muslims against Christians because they got a better deal under Muslim rule. In the Ottoman empire it was all codified with separate legal systems. Generally Muslims had fiscal advantages but for centuries Muslim states were less anti-Jew than Christian ones - anti-semitism is a Christian invention and the much earlier anti-Judaism based on the notion that the Jews killed the son of god is christian.

Don't forget who tried to wipe out the Jews and who invented the gas chambers, it wasn't the Palestinians, now why do you want to make them pay?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I have read it hence my mentioning it. Surely there is a big difference between the bible written thousands of years ago and Hamas charter written in the 1980s. They only say it is not to be taken literally as they attempt to portray themselves as something other than a terrorist organisation spouting race hatred and violence. The bible is a blood thirsty document but how many mainstream political parties today use it to produce their election manifesto?

Let's look at some of the charter points;

"Israel will exit until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

So called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.... there is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.

The day of judgement will not come about until Moslem will fight Jews and kill them."

Hamas then blames Jews for a whole litany of things that read like a rejected script for a Dan Brown novel. Jews were not only responsible for 2 world wars, the French revolution, the Rusian revolution, the birth of freemasonry, Rotary Clubs and Lions etc etc.

Maybe in the pat there have been muslim states where other religions coexisted but you don't see too much nowadays; fancy being a religious minority under IS.

I don't quite follow the logic that I am trying to make the Palestinians pay because the Nazis invented gas chambers.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think you're a bit out of date here Bruce, they mostly left after the 1979 Revolution, down to a few thousand now according to official figures.

Of course muslim and Shia muslim eschatology in particular needs some Jews alive in order for them to fight them in the end times. If we run out of Jews the prophecy won't be fulfilled.

But largest jewish minority across the MENA states is not saying much, Morocco's next isn't it? 5,000 which still makes Morocco 99.999% muslim.

In reply to atrendall:

But in article 31 it says;

"It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect."

It's full of contradictions.


It was Europeans who massacred the Jews and it was the feeling of sympathy caused by that which enabled the Israelis to get away with the takeover, basically Palestinians lost their country because Europeans felt guilty about what they had done to the Jews and yet the Palestinians were in no way responsible for the gas chambers.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce seeing you are so fond of suggesting other people do some reading, I suggest you read a bit about Arab-Nazi collaboration 1933-45.

It may have been Europeans who murdered the Jews but there was a lot of support in the Arab world, many Arabic papers likening Hitler to the prophet. One Arab poster stated "In heaven God is your ruler, on earth, Hitler."

The Palestinian representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grand mufti of Jerusalem was a vocal supporter of the3rd Reich and visited concentration camps including Oranienburgh, hung out with Heinrich Himmler and was vocal in encouraging Muslims to enlist in the various SS divisions such as SS Hanjar. The latter were some of the vilest, most anti semitic units within an organisation not noted for its friendly treatment of Jews.

Ironically Arab support for Hitler backfired because Jews fleeing from Germany went to Palestine and the number of Jews there doubled 1933-38.

In reply to atrendall:

That's a bit of a myth, zionist spin, it comes up every time in these threads, one mufti doesn't make a country... you might also be aware that some Jewish terrorist organisation got in touch with the nazis, offering support by increasing their anti-British efforts. I can't remember what they asked for in return but they didn't get a reply.

What is absolutely certain is that the average Palestinian did nothing at all to help the nazi extermination of Jews whereas many Europeans, and not just Germans, did.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's not a bit of a myth, it's a historical fact. Agree with you that many Europeans, certainly not just Germans , were involved in the final solution.

In reply to atrendall:

It's a fact, as is the attempt by Jewish terrorists to work with the nazis, incredible as this may seem, but it's also just one man trying to find help for his fight. During the Ist World War both sides tried to get the Muslims to fight for them, with some success, in WW2 in reality it was less successful AFAIK. On the other hand I believe the French colonial authorities in the Middle East tried to remain Petainist.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Tel Aviv was founded in 1909, Balfour 1917, so the idea of a jewish state wasn't exactly new, it was being widely debated before and during WWII, Hannah Arendt, Einstein, writing against the jewish state well before the war had started.

Egypt had previously over run the area, and did so again, not to stop the Jews but to stop the Jordanians. So there are inter-Arab politics involved, much more important because neither side regarded Palestine as anything other than a means to an end.

Palestinian Nationalism didn't start until after Britain got the mandate and Turkey signed over the citizenry, so the Israeli state ended up getting proposed decades before a Palestinian one and before a Palestinian identity had emerged. Prior to that the anti-Ottoman movements were aimed at a wider Syrian identity.

Literally dozens of places were suggested for the jewish homeland but the problem was jerusalem. It was never a huge city but it had a significant jewish population, nearly 50% of the regular inhabitants in the mid-19th century, if a homeland was created elsewhere then it would deny the jews of jerusalem an opportunity for self-determination.

So Palestine was the favoured destination, not just amongst jews but the US, Russia, France,Britain well before WWII and before the holocaust was widely known about.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


If you deny the history then you deny the history of the Jews, not that of Israel, there isn't enough history of Israel and the prior history only refers to the Jews. Attempting some bizarre contrivance that the history isn't the history of the jews ain't working.

If you're claiming some mechanism for separating the two then go for it but you haven't demonstrated anything yet.

BTW You did realise that the IDF is a conscript army, yes?


This isn't phpBB with a useful quote function and it may have been In the Pub and deleted by now, so what?


I think this is probably the problem, self-determination raises all these questions but you haven't really had to think about them before. A gerrymandered state is designed to take power away from a majority class and give to a minority, who are now designated a majority. This removes the previous majority from power and frequently leaves them powerless. They may well have equal rights to vote but their new minority status leaves them with a vote that is worthless. This is exactly what happened in Northern Ireland.

They may well achieve representation, as the Arabs who have managed even to have Knesset (Cabinet) members in Israel, or you can allocate minority groups a quota of representatives (like in India) but it doesn't offer any power if the new ethnic majority maintains sufficient numbers.

You could look at the break up of the Yugoslav Republic to see the impact of borders on self-determination and equal rights.

If you look at most of the indices on human rights Israel scores pretty well, way better than any of the Arab states around it and less racist. The Palestinian territories, less so.

I happy to debate racism with you but I really don't think this debate is about racism. One example you gave, that because the Israelis value Gazan life as less than their own, as evidenced by the military action is just ridiculous.

The history of war is pretty much attacking what the other guy has whilst defending what you have. So you value what you have above what the other guy have.

Using this as proof of Israel as a racist nation just redefines what we consider racist action to be and what we consider war to be.

So this isn't a question of what really constitutes racism, it's just a desperately contrived redefinition to attack Israel.

And this is why I can dismiss so much of the current hot air as anti-semitism (it doesn't have to be raving supremacist anti-semitism). It's not sophisticated political theorising, it's just a wave of over-emotionalism. Like people crying over Princess Diana insisting on the death penalty for drunk driving.

Hamas' best chance of success is attracting as much Israeli fire as possible. It will commit war crimes to do this and accept the civilian casualties that go with it, although it's worth reading the BBCs piece on interpreting the conflict figures. (It's noteworthy here that I haven't attempted to justify any of Israel's war crimes but yourself and others have done the same for Hamas).

Hamas has achieved some success by pushing the political barometer over to the Right, especially in Europe and especially on UKC. All we are seeing is contrived attempts to justify anti-semitic sentiment and a sudden leap in anti-semitism.

The problem for the Left is twofold, how to resist the shift to the Right that Hamas has taken advantage of, (and in some sense generated) and how to restrain Israel without getting drawn into anti-semitic rhetoric.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Kind of a catch all..

ISIS have been the US's dream..

In reply to winhill:


Let's remind ourselves what we're talking about here. I said:


And that's what I meant. It's a simple principle, and a positive one that would help the world if people were to follow it: past wrongs do not justify present wrongs. So, yes, the history of the views is relevant in an explanatory sense, but if you read carefully, what I'm talking about is "the morality and legitimacy of the actions of warring forces". And the history of Jews has no relevance to this, because past wrongs do not justify present wrongs.

You appear to be arguing that the crimes committed against the Jews legitimise the crimes committed by Israel. They don't. If the world worked like that, the planet would be one massive bloodbath and we would all be dead.


No mechanism is required. See above. But you also need to appreciate that many Jews are as disgusted as I am by the Zionist movement and the behaviour of the Israeli state. So your referring to the "the Jews" and the Israeli state as synonymous is deeply dishonest, and a complete betrayal and smearing of many jews, who are not racist, zionist extremists like the right-wing Israelis.


Yes I did, but those conscripts aren't giving the orders (although of course many of them do appear to be racist thugs, the explanation for which is obvious).


You accused me of justifying racism but are unable to back that up with anything. It's a horrible accusation and it's manifestly false. Back it up, or retract it.



You're confusing equal rights with representation. In the UK, minorities don't have representation, but they have by and large equal rights. That means no laws that discriminate against them, and systems to address discrimination if it is or has been a problem. In the UK, the state treats its citizens equally regardless of race, and attempts to address areas where there are problems in doing so. In contrast, in Israel, discrimination against Arabs is deliberate and rife. A very serious piece of evidence for this is the education system, which is "future-proofing" the racial divide, ensuring that opportunities are denied to the next generation of arab Israelis. Here's what Human Rights Watch had to say:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm


Human rights indices don't measure the policies that make the Israeli state a racist one ASAIK. People can vote, access health and education, etc. The problem within Israel is how different ethnic groups are treated, not that the citizens in general are denied human rights.


As evidenced by the enormous gulf in the scale of military action, actually: that a symbolic threat to the life of one or two Israelis was responded to by bombing cities to rubble. So no, it isn't just like any other war; Israel is not under threat, but pretends to be, chiefly by moulding its enemy into caricature of evil, in order to justify carrying out periodic racist massacres.


If we go back to what I said:

[If is Israel isn't a racist state]



No, as I left aside Gaza for precisely this reason, the actions in West Bank and towards Israeli Arabs are common or garden racism by the old fashioned definition.


But you've completely failed to counter the argument that Israel is a racist state, and the evidence is everywhere for everyone to see. So the anti-Semitism guff just looks more devious, and more pathetic than ever.


I have said that I believe (because it's bloody obvious, hence the OP) that Hamas' tactic is to incite Israeli into massacre, and I have condemned that disgusting tactic.


No. If you're going to make that accusation again, you have to back it up. Your accusation that I justify Hamas' crimes is false. Back it up or retract it.


I fully accept that there has been an increase in anti-Semitism. But that you accuse me (the son of a Jew, btw) of being part of that because I'm disgusted by a) the racist policies of the Isreali state and b) the bombing to rubble of Gaza (I separate them here for your benefit, but let's face it, they're not unrelated, are they?) is pathetic and devious and vile.


Getting drawn into anti-Semitic rhetoric is not a problem. Why would anyone who is disgusted by Israel's racist policies, be drawn into it? Just because you vehemently state over and over again without the slightest suggestion of evidence, logic or justification that condemnation of Israel is anti-Semitism doesn't make it in the slightest bit true. It isn't true, it's pathetic, devious rubbish. The accusation that you're so happy to bandy about to people who disagree with the racist massacre committed by the state you support is a serious one, and I will not accept it.

In reply to winhill:


They've actually moved on from calling it anti-Semitism, I think they finally realise it was like the boy crying wolf.

Not to forget that there are a great number of Jews and Jewish organisations, especially in America protesting against the killing, that it just doesn't make sense any more.

In reply to krikoman:



Like I said on the other thread, you just come across as a total noob if you think that the involvement of jewish criticism makes much difference here.

You're not familiar with Gilad Atzmon who's been cheerleading for the PSM (and BDS) for a decade now? Was the darling of the SWP until he went into full on holocaust denial mode a few years ago and they dropped him like a hot falafel, just before his really anti-semitic book came out in 2011 (jokey chapter titles like 'Swindler's List' not helping his cause too much).

Mostly regarded as a liability now, his cachet lies in muslim circles where he 'proves' that rampant holocaust denial is not anti-semitic because the jews say so too (Even Erdogan quoted him as a source!).

But it proves nothing, the fact there is non-racist criticism of israel doesn't mean that all criticism of israel is non-racial.

This isn't too difficult to grasp, Rio Ferdinand was fined £45,000 by the FA for calling Ashley Cole a choc ice. The FA found that Rio wasn't a racist but that his behaviour was racist. It's because racism can be a function rather than a quality.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



I can't be bothered to entertain you by searching but what you actually said was that 'we've all got some history', which minimises and trivialises the unique and thoroughly desperate history of the Jewish race. This is no small thing, Belgium, Germany, a proposal from the EU, all attempt to outlaw minimising and trivialising (their words) the Holocaust, or Genocide of particular races.

Contriving arguments to ignore history or restricting yourself to particularly hagiographic interpretations (like Bruce does) in order to stack the deck against particular racial groups is racist. If the group is the Jews then it's anti-semitism.


It's not manifestly false because it's what you said. If it was in The Pub then it's now deleted. You're insisting that posts that may be deleted are subsequently citable. That means you're expecting people to take screenshots or some other mechanism to be able to prove what's been said. That isn't sustainable or workable. Or we never mention anything we've seen in The Pub. This is just wholly unreasonable and ridiculous and I've already explained what you said.


Not at all, I'm explaining how the principle of self-determination removes rights to majority rule



2001 is a tad ancient now but by coincidence I was reading a bit about school funding in Israel the other night and a problem identified was that funding for disadvantaged pupils, not just Arabs was that the funding was allocated by size of school, not the number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, which left the Arabs worse off. Similar to the situation in the UK before the Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011. Except we don't call the UK a racist state, even though it has policies that disadvantage certain racial groups.


You constantly, even in this post refer to Hamas' attacks as symbolic, you've said it represents 'no threat'. But the point which seems to have escaped you is that there a 3 elements to Hamas' war crimes. The storage of munitions in civilian areas, the use of munitions in civilian areas and the random targeting of civilians. This is according to AI, HRW, UNRWA. So Hamas are committing war crimes without even firing a rocket.

You've said that Israel is the cause of these war crimes, not Hamas.


It rather is.

In reply to winhill:


Count the number of UN resolutions against Israel then count the ones against Hamas + Palestine and then tell me Israel isn't responsible.


The trouble is, that until recently ANY criticism of Israel was classed as anti-Semitism and they've shot themselves in the foot. The tricycle theatre was a perfect example, the issue was Israeli government money NOT Jewish film makers. Yet this was, at first , labelled anti-Semitic.

In reply to krikoman:



Because it was, it really is that simple.

The Israeli government and the Israeli state are not one and the same thing. You clearly don't like this but the vast majority of Jewish people are Zionist and strongly support Jewish self-determination in the shape of the Israeli state.

Run around enough and you will find Jewish people protesting against the invasion of Gaza but, for the most part, their support of Israel is unwavering. For sure some have made comments like the invasion makes it hard to be Jewish at the moment but, do you know what? It is their Zionism that underpins that statement.

So where does that leave the Tricycle? The Israeli state takes seriously its role in supporting Jewish cultural activities in the Diaspora. It does this because it is a Jewish state and, for many, yes the majority, the normative focus for Jewish life; something that it recognises in and of itself. This means that it makes token financial contributions to all kinds of Jewish activities, because the events are Jewish or about Israel.

Ignore or misunderstand that and you are unlikely to grasp what it means to be a Diaspora Jew. Interpret the actions of the Tricycle in a way in which separates the Israeli Embassy from its function of supporting Jewish activities and cultural representations of Israel and you swim with the antisemites because its £1500 has absolutely nothing to do with Protective Edge.

In reply to winhill:



No. My argument is not to trivialise the past treatment of jews, it is that no matter how appalling, it doesn't justify Israel's behaviour. There is nothing anti-Semitic about it.


*What* is what I said? This is no good.


And to be honest, I don't really understand it.


Well, that's all the evidence of Israeli Arabs not being treated equally refuted then, isn't it? Let me get this straight, Arabs are treated equally to Jews in Israel, right?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/world/la-fg-israel-arab-laws-201103...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-aids-its-needy-jewish-stud...

http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/arab-spouses-face-israeli-legal-purge-1-...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3969831,00.html


Your argument makes no sense again. You accused me of justifying Hamas' crimes. I've said that their threat is not credible, puny, symbolic - in the context of Israel, its defences and its aggression. I stand by this. I've said that their tactics are disgusting and I have condemned them. You cannot show that I justified Hamas' crimes, because I haven't, so retract the accusation.


Yes, I've said that it is very convenient for Israel to have a "perfect enemy", that the power of Hamas (a turn to the tactics of despair) is a result Israeli oppression.


Well one can't really argue that the cause of Hamas' actions is not Hamas. You want me to take a big step back to pre-Israel and see the bigger picture with respect to Jewish history (and then agree that this justifies oppression of the Palestinians?), but you won't take a tiny step back yourself and see the bigger picture of how come Hamas has the support they do.

Your idea that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is a fantasy.

Your idea that Israel treats its citizens equally is a fantasy.

Your idea that persecution of the Jews justifies Israel's actions in Palestine is offensive and wrong.

In reply to Mike Highbury:



Here' your token contributions!!

http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

wish someone would give me tokens like that.

In reply to krikoman:



What on Earth has that got to do with Israel?

I didn't realise until now but you really are blinded by hate.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

How can you talk about self determination for a group of people that has taken over a place that was already inhabited by another people? Self-determination only applies to native peoples, usually when ruled by a colonising minority. When the colonised have been reduced by murder and chasing them out and the colonising people has been boosted by bringing more colonisers in this is no longer a case of self determination. These two factors - displacing natives and moving in colonisers are specifically ruled out by the Geneva Convention.

Otherwise any conquest followed by extermination, displacement and colonisation could be legalised in this way... sorry, it's not on and hasn't been for many decades.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


It shows that huge sums of money are given to politicians to bribe them into voting measures in favour of Israel and blocking any (unlikely it's true) which could conceivable go against it's interests.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So you are basically saying that the Israelis have no right of self determination despite having lived there for generations?

You talk about the rights of native people but perhaps you ought to read a bit more about the history of the area in question.

The oldest recorded mention of Israel is on the Merneptah Stele dating from about 1200 BC and the kingdoms of Israel existed until its conquest by the Neo Assyrian empire 722 BC. The area of ancient Israel was predominantly Jewish until the Jewish Roman wars when the Jews became a minority except in Galilee. The area became increasingly Christian from the 3rd century and only predominantly Muslim from the 7th century conquest. At the time of this Arab conquest the majority of the population was Jewish or Samaritan.

So using your argument of the predominant rights of native peoples it would seem that the Jews have as much if not more rights than most to be the ones self determining.

In reply to atrendall:

I'm not sure kicking people off their land, bulldozing their homes and then rebuilding them for those who are of a particular religion, in the 21st century at least, qualifies as "self determination".

There is genuine anti-semitism, based on nothing more than centuries old unfounded prejudice, out there. But it would be a lot easier to combat if it wasn't lumped in with anyone expressing disgust at the obscene actions of the Israel, its expansion and subjugation of the Palestinians.

"Anti-Palestiniansim" on the other hand seems rife in Israel and is apparently totally acceptable. It also appears to have existed since at least the day of Israel's inception, backed up with overwhelming firepower, death and destruction. If it came as a result of Palestinian attack then it might be understandable. But given the disproportionate casualty rates between the two sides, if anti-Palestinianism is permissible on account largely ineffective rocket attacks, then surely anti-semitism would be if not equally permissable, but many times more justifiable.

In reply to krikoman:


FFS the whole point of war crimes is responsibility, that one party's crimes don't justify anothers. You are (undoubtedly out of utter ignorance) reclassifying the meaning of War Crime to punish Israel. This is anti-semitism.


You're a noob, you have no idea what went on 5 minutes ago let alone a few years ago. People have been boycotting Israeli produce for 40 years and criticising Israel for longer. If anything the more sophisticated definitions of racism that we understand today have led to an increase in actions that are described as anti-semitic.

The reason the Tricycle Theatre backed down was precisely because people understood it was being anti-semitic in its' claims of 'non-involvement'. It's own funding of over £750,000 from the British Government, combined with the fact that it hadn't put similar restrictions on other groups who receive government funding exposed it as hypocritcal and unworkable going forwards because it would have to start banning a whole bunch of government funded artists.

But this illustrates the reason that so much noobish criticism of israel is so easily dismissed as anti-semitic, there's no background knowledge to be able to judge criticisms of Israel in context and no understanding of the wider political issues (like what constitutes a war crime) for noobs to fall back on.

Without this noobs just repeat racist tropes and arguments that most experienced anti-zionist campaigners have learnt to avoid. It's a shallow learning curve and anti-semitism rises the longer it goes on.

In reply to winhill:

its a shame, some weeks into this debate, that you still don't seem capable of conducting a debate on this without resorting to ad hominem and specious comparisons (the one about princess di was particularly irrelevant)

since your style of engagement in this is now clearly established over many threads as ignoring the substance of arguments (sometimes even explicitly stating that is what you are doing, a bizarre thing to boast about, but there you go) while attacking the character of those that disagree with you, it seems reasonable to draw inferences about why you would do this.

and its hard to come up with an explanation other than dealing with the substance of criticisms of the israeli govts current approach to the conflict with the palestinians is too difficult for you, as you dont have any response to the content of the criticism.

best wishes
gregor

In reply to David Martin:


What about Yugoslavia?


If we go back to 1950s, yes, but Stokely Carmichael changed all that in the 1960s. Now we've got a much more sophisticated notion of racism.

A good example is Mortgage acceptance figures in the US. The banks naturally want to lower their risk profile and accept better risk customers. The problem is that this automatically exposes certain racial groups to much lower acceptance figures. So those groups which are at the bottom of the financial pile are condemned to stay there for longer.

That's institutionalised racism, actions though not motivated or structured as disadvantaging one group, end up doing exactly that. Hence the complications of the sub-prime crash and the criticism HSBC is currently facing. Although they were fined $1.9 billion, their risk aversion strategy has resulted, for example, in the closure of some high profile muslim accounts in the UK, the muslim brotherhoods' Cordoba Foundation, Abu Hamza's alma mater Finsbury Park mosque among others. Allegations of racism follow and although HSBC can point to a large number of accounts closed worldwide (in order to meet regulator demands) that prove no overt racism, the end result can be the same (in HSBC's case they can probably avoid racism because they haven't disproportionately affected one or more racial groups).

Similarly anti-semitism isn't just the outright enmity you mention, it's actions or behaviour that is deliberately or accidently disproportionately anti-jewish.

In reply to winhill:



Refusing someone a loan because of the risk they present, without any regard to their race, is not institutionalised racism. Taking their race into account, which might be seen for example in cases where discretionary decisions rather than policy/algorithm decisions are made and there is a correlation between race and outcome, would be institutional racism.

In reply to winhill:



so where does that leave criticism of Israel, in your view. is it possible to make non-racist criticism of Israel's actions, given it is a self-declared Jewish state?

if so, what would that criticism look like?

where does that leave criticism of other states where there is a preponderance of one ethnicity. it it possible to criticise the actions of china, for example, without being guilty of racism towards chinese people?

cheers
gregor

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Look it up.

In reply to winhill:


I just did.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes it is, you said we've all got some history, which is making an equivalence. If you wanted to make a point about other things you wouldn't have made the pointless, minimising, trivialising, anti-semitic equivalence.


A bit of a logic fail, how would I refute all the evidence for the existence of unicorns?


Did you actually read this? It notes exactly the point I made, it's probably the same story.


Again, you didn't say that, you said that Israel was the cause of Hamas' strategy, which removes responsibility for war crimes from Hamas. War crimes are not usually excused by the actions of your opponent, the whole point being that they are standards that are not breached, no matter what the provocation or military advantage of so doing. Changing this (widely accepted) meaning of war crime to disadvantage israel is anti-semitic. It's the shifting of responsibility, the exculpation that provides the justification.


Rubbish, people constantly manage to produce anti-semitic arguments when attempting to criticise israel, you're one of them.


And I've said that where exactly?


And I've said that where exactly?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Your travails didn't extend to the Wiki page, then?

Institutional racism is distinguished from racial bigotry by the existence of institutional systemic policies, practices and economic and political structures which place minority racial and ethnic groups at a disadvantage in relation to an institution’s racial or ethnic majority. One example is public school budgets (including local levies and bonds) and the quality of teachers, which in the U.S. are often correlated with property values: rich neighborhoods are more likely to be more 'white' and to have better teachers and more money for education, even in public schools.

http://bit.ly/1pa4PQ2

In reply to atrendall:

I see you adopt the zionist version of history! There are others, even Israeli historians no longer accept your version. It's as if Saxons wanted to return to Saxony and claim it as theirs!

Those who call themselves Jewish in the world are rarely descendent from those who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, the majority are descendants of converts to Judaism, some are mixed blood and perhaps some are "pure" Jewish stock, but very very few. All we can say is that you have the same, or similar, religion and culture. This is not a justification for taking over a country.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So the Saxons were the subject of pogroms, vilification, genocide etc throughout their history?

Not at all pro Israel but you need a better analogy here!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

so if the jews are to leave Israel, where should they go?

maybe I'm being naïve, but perhaps if hamas stopped firing rockets in to Israel, then Israel wouldn't fire back

In reply to redsonja:



Not naive at all. Between 8th July and 26 August Hamas fired 4,564 rockets towards Israel and Israel hit 5,263 targets in Gaza. Just because Hamas' rockets are either inaccurate or being intercepted by the Iron Dome etc and there have been fewer Israeli casualties doesn't mean Hamas are the innocent party in all this.

In reply to atrendall: No-one said they were. The Palestinian people are the victim in all this. They are living in a modern day concentration camp.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



There might be historians who don't accept this but then there are historians who deny the holocaust. Every one has their own slant on history and can twist facts to suit their case. How would you describe your slant on history since you resort to describing mine as Zionist?

A quick google search reveals as usual your post is big on emotive language but short on facts. 61% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi Jews who are descended from local Jewish communities in the Middle East (as opposed to Europe, Africa etc).

As for justification for taking over a country... the partition was recommended by the UN General Assembly in 1947.

In reply to redsonja:



No condoning any of it, but maybe if they weren't living in a massive open air prison and could get on with normal daily lives free from restrictions, shortages and interference from Israeli, they might not feel that firing rockets is their only way to get their voices heard.

No one was listening, everyone turning a blind eye while offering platitudes, but no substance, maybe it's this that turn an ordinary bloke into a freedom fighter / terrorist. Luckily I'm unlikely to find out living here in England, but my empathic feeling tell me I just might to the road of maximum resistance ( if I was brave enough )

In reply to atrendall:


You got to love it, really.

What about all the other UN resolutions against Israel? Which they have ignored or had the US veto for them, but they really love this one don't they?

The number of times I hear about the UN and it favouritism for the terrorist and then even now and again, this. Oh! and 1949 too, when the state of Israel was recognised.

What since? WMD, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bulldozers, imprisonment without trial,..... etc.

In reply to krikoman:





Funny isn't it that all the anti Israel lobby love to cite the UN when it condemns Israel and yet the same body which they quote ad nauseum actually recoomended the initial partition. How ironic.

In reply to krikoman:

no one listens to me but I am not going to become a terrorist. would Israel really not stop firing back if hamas stopped first? maybe they wouldn't, but unless they give it a try we wont know.

In reply to redsonja:


You've got the wrong man, I don't believe that the jews should leave Israel. I think Israel should get back in its borders and grant the Palestinians equal human rights.


Do you think that Israel would then get back in its borders and allow the Palestinians to live free, dignified lives in their own state? No, I don't either. Israel's aggression (that is, the actions in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza) leaves Palestine in a "nothing to lose" situation, hence the support for Hamas and their appalling tactics. Israel is responsible for the despair of the Palestinian people. Hamas deciding not to fire rockets leaves Palestine in the same position of despair, with less bloodshed and therefore less of the world's attention. What is their incentive to stop? They have proven that the bombing of homes, schools, shelters and hospitals does not put them off: it plays into their hands.

In reply to atrendall:


While no one would say Hamas are "innocent", the figures above are simply meaningless.

A single Israeli "hit" destroys an entire apartment block, city blocks are reduced to rubble and a quarter of the population ends up as refugee-refugees.

A single Hamas rocket causes emotional scarring, forces many to temporarily run to shelters and one in several hundred results in death.

It is utterly disproportionate and in terms of like-for-like impact, if a response was necessary, multiple rocket attacks would surely elicit little more than a single Israeli hit.

If this is not disproportionate then I can quite understand why many in the ME feel 9/11 was a proportionate response to their anger with America. Idiotic reasoning on both sides.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
sorry I sent it to the wrong person. some people on here are saying that Israel shouldn't be there in the first place, so I wondered where they should go?
you say that you think Israel should get back its borders and grant Palestinians equal human rights but then say you don't believe it will happen. so what is the answer? when Israel stop firing, hamas start again. peace has to come from both sides. if they are not capable of living next door to each other in peace then whats to be done?

In reply to David Martin:

The figures aren't meaningless, they mean exactly what they say.
The response may be argued to be disproportionate. It is only Hamas' bad luck/ lack of skill etc and Israeli defensive systems that have reduced Israeli casualties to a minimum. These rockets are launched at Israel with every intention of causing death and destruction. If each Hamas rocket killed only one or two Israelis then you are talking about huge numbers of casualties.

The results of Hamas' rocket attacks show that they are totally indiscriminate with no intention of just hitting military targets. Israel's return fire might be argued to be disproportionate but they are a military response to a real threat. It's interesting how facts are now emerging to confirm Hamas' positioning of rockets near to UN buildings etc as a shield.

In reply to winhill:

Well perhaps what I had in mind when I said that was that as a gay man, "my people" if I choose to see it that way, have been murdered by states all over the world, were gassed by the Nazis, etc, with the murder and oppression continuing around the world today. I don't see how this is trivialising the history of the jews, and yet again, it is ludicrous to make the accusation of anti-Semitism. I am not interested in a game of "whose oppression is worse", but I won't be told that nobody's history can be compared to that of the Jews, and anyone who makes any comparison is anti-Semitic. There is no ring-fence around the abuse and murder of Jews. It is not quite as special as you think.


You make no sense. There is abundant evidence that Israel is a racist state: it does not treat its citizens equally with respect to their race.


It was an attempt to illustrate the point about indirect discrimination which you've raised with respect to antisemitism. That Israel practices both direct discrimination such as fines for commemorating Nakba Day and indirect discrimination through policies which channel resources to Jews in favour of Arabs.


And Israel is the cause of Hamas' strategy. Palestine has a genuine grievance, Israel is imprisoning Gaza and it is imposed upon the West Bank, destroying its communities. The balance of power in the conflict is that Israel is brutally oppressing the Palestinians and the tactics of resistance to this oppression are the tactics of despair, of having nothing to lose. Those tactics are appalling and I condemn in particular the way Hamas incites Israel into the massacre of innocent Palestinian civilians. But I will not ignore the balance of power in the conflict: Israel is the violent oppressor, and Hamas is resistance, employing tactics that are both immoral and criminal.



You have failed over and over again to back up your revolting and cowardly accusation that I am anti-Semitic. The reason I am disgusted by the actions of Israel is purely because of what those actions are: brutal oppression of people of another race. The actual races of the oppressors and the oppressed in Israel and Palestine is of no interest to me. Their actions are all that is required for me to form my views.

I have no views at all on Jews who don't support Israel's actions or the zionist agenda. Their race is of no interest me. I am disgusted by Israel's actions and by the zionist agenda on the basis that they are racist and thus immoral. No other motivation is required to hold those views. Governments are judged on their policies, not on their race, and I am judging Israel on its policies. This is so obvious, it's soul-destroying to have to explain it over and over again in response to pathetic unjustified accusations of anti-Semitism that have absolutely no substance, and which have been shown to have absolutely no substance over and over again.

[> Your idea that Israel treats its citizens equally is a fantasy]


You said that Israel is not a racist state. Yet you haven't said that Israel treats its citizens equally. Can you reconcile this for me? Racist or equal rights? Which one?

[> Your idea that persecution of the Jews justifies Israel's actions in Palestine is offensive and wrong.]


I thought this was what you were trying to get at by emphasizing the point of the Jews' history. No? So what were you getting at? Why is it that I need to have at the forefront of my mind the persecution of the Jews when discussing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians? Please explain.

In reply to redsonja:

There is no solution. That's why it's been going on since Israel has existed.

There is a massive movement of extremist zionist racists in positions of power in Israel, and they win votes. In Palestine, people have turned to the violent, religious, racist nutters too. Seems intractable to me, without anyone rational having any power or influence. And there is no incentive for people to vote for rational leaders, with the chilling level of hatred on both sides.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

so they are just going to carry on killing each other (innocent citizens to be more exact)? my own (again naïve) suggestion is that Israel is offered land somewhere else, but where? would they go? hatred and religion and two evil things

In reply to redsonja:


Yes, I should think so.


Bruce on here has some ideas, but the land of Palestine and Israel is pretty special to a lot of people, featuring heavily as it does in their special myths.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Jon, there's no point. winhill has made it clear on previous threads, he believes that 99% of all criticism of israel is driven by antisemitism; and that the other 1% is made by 'useful idiots', unwittingly furthering the cause of antisemitism.

I've invited him to clarify what a non-antisemitic criticism of israel would look like, but he has not engaged with the point. given that all criticism advanced here, even the carefully constructed and self-evidently true criticism that you make, is antisemitic in his view, i'm am left wondering whether there is any way of criticising Israel that he would not find was racist, in his view

when everything anyone says is dismissed as being racist, it becomes just a way of stifling debate. and it works; look at the progress of these threads. instead of focussing on the unacceptable actions of the israeli govt, your effort is being directed at defending yourself night after night against spurious accusations of racism. the focus is moved, the critics are placed on the defensive.

its a deplorable tactic, and clearly deployed because engaging with the facts of the matter is impossible; it would be defending the indefensible. you are not going to get a retraction or apology, because that would mean accepting defeat in the discussion; unless your arguments are racist, he has no case to argue

so best to turn the attention back to what is happening, and in response to sonja, as to why hamas keep firing rockets rather than negotiating: fatah have been trying that in the west bank, and here's what its got them-

this is a map of illegal israeli settlements in palestinian territory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#mediaviewer/File:Palestine_...

the triangles are settlements. that was in 2007, there are many more now.

how can a viable palestinian state be created given the situation on the ground? fatah have negotiated, and all the while the possibility of their state every coming to be vanished into the dust.

hamas' actions are wrong, and are war crimes, if such a definition can apply to non-state actors. they have no regard for the safety of their own people, and are willing to goad israel into action which will slaughter palestinians.

but the other road just leads to eventual obliteration, as their land is steadily stolen from beneath their feet. google 'palestinian territory over time', and look at the maps showing the ground disappearing beneath their feet. faced with that, and the indifference of policy makers around the world, it should be no surprise that nihilism takes hold in some palestinian minds, and some choose violent resistance, even if it is futile.

only the people with the power in the relationship can change the situation, and that is israel. but as the map shows, they have little incentive to,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


You're absolutely right, thanks. I have spent far too much time defending myself from the tedious, baseless accusations, and will call it quits here.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

gregor- do you think if both sides stopped firing at each other they would be able to come to some sort of peace agreement? what might that be? and if not, whats to be done? in 10 years time we will still be discussing it and in that time how many more people will be killed? people who just want to get on with their lives. its an awful prospect

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What you did to the history, now you do to the science!

Most of the research says that the male line has been well traced, some new research suggests that this is because Jewish men had relationships with a large amount of convert women. But obviously, as the tribes have expanded it dilutes the original, otherwise you'd have to have a ban on exogamy.

You seem to ignore that in many of these cases you're talking about very small numbers of people. The Ashkenazi jews may well have grown from a population of just 20,000, 19th century Jerusalem had only 10,000 inhabitants (although still majority jewish at times) and Jaffa, in the middle of the 19th century had a population of just 2,500 when jews started moving there.

All these numbers have grown substantially since then but so what?

In reply to redsonja:

grim, as you say. i dont know what the answer is. but as i said, the power is with israel, and they have to want to change the outcome

hamas can only win support for a population faced with having no hope. if that were to change, and there was a genuine prospect of a future different from the current realities of life in the occupied territories, support for them would rapidly dry up.

that would involve a genuine move to reestablish previous accepted borders and remove settlements, so creating a viable piece of land that a palestinian state could exist in; and helping with economic reconstruction.

there will always be zealots on both sides, but my guess is most people in both places just want the opportunity to have food on the table, a decent job, access to some of the trappings of modern life, and not to have rockets/shells landing around them. give them the chance of this, and dodging incoming shell fire while trying to fire off rocket will lose its appeal pretty quickly.

but that seems a long way off now, and doesnt seem to be on either sides' agenda,

cheers
gregor

In reply to redsonja:


It's chicken and egg though, this last bloodbath was caused by Israel killing two Palestinians, so we could use your question with Hamas replaced by Israel.

But the original chicken was when the zionists took over Palestine by force, ever since the local population has been fighting back, resistance by an oppressed people is a right recognised even by the United Nations.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Just as a matter of interest, would a legitimate solution to the problem of N Ireland be solved by sending back all the Prots who were imposed on the indigenous Catholics back in the C17?

1) Imposed on a native population from a foreign country. Check. 2) Discriminated against the indigenous population and excluded them from power. Check. 3) Maintained their position by disproportionate force. Check.

Are they excluded by the somewhat selective Hooker statute of limitations?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Another blatant misrepresentation by Bruce.

Even a top Hamas official said members of his militant group kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers whose deaths in June provoked a spiral of violence that led to the war in Gaza. This was on June 12. Nearly 3 weeks later a Palestinian was abducted and murdered....never let the truth get in the way of a good story, Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Ironic isn't it that the UN is always cited as the fount of all knowledge when castigating Israel but remember it was that same organisation that recommended the partition of Palestine and recognised the creation of the state of Israel.

In reply to atrendall:


How is this proof they are directly descended from Jews who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago? Those most likely descended from the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in those days are the ones who stayed on their land, as peasants do, changing religion as they were forced to, first to Christian, then to Muslim ... in other words the Palestinian population of the area under the Ottoman Empire, taken under mandate by the Brits after WW1. The same ones you are murdering today.

In reply to atrendall:



So if Hamas was more effective in killing Israelis then presumably an even more disproportionate response would be acceptable?

Simply saying Hamas would kill more people if they were capable of it, and therefore the current response is justified, seems a red herring as well and as a rationale could be applied to any situation. Its exactly the kind of mentality the led to calls for making a first strike against the Soviets in the cold war.


...and in full knowledge that they won't. The rockets are a pathetic, token attempt at fighting back and all that Hamas are capable of.

Palestinian youths throw rocks at Israeli soldiers and tanks, with every intention of taking the eye out and no doubt in many cases hopeful of killing their target. If I was in their shoes I'm sure I would too. It doesn't make shooting them a proportionate response...its like locking a child up for stealing chocolate from the corner store.

I really find it strange when you consider that if the Palestinians were French and Israelis German, go back 60 years and we would be unified in our support of them taking up arms and attacking, killing and generally resisting as much as they possibly could. We would look on Palestinian casualties, and near suicide, in this effort as heroic. Instead its simply labelled as anti-semitism.


I'd argue the opposite. Hamas only has non-precision weapons at its disposal. These are the only weapons at their disposal, with pitiful warheads and as likely to hit a home as a military target. They are essentially untargeted. Looking at the photos of Gaza, where entire blocks have been wiped out, water supplies and electricity knocked out...how can that be argued a "military response to a real threat"? The only justification is they are Hamas targets. Well of course they are Hamas targets - Hamas is the elected government. By that same line of reasoning hospitals and schools are Hamas targets.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas did place its weapons in populated areas in full knowledge there will be civilian casualties. They have a disregard for life and given the conditions people live under in Gaza that's hardly surprising. The futility of life under occupation (and Gaza is and has been to all intents and purposes occupied) will only encourage that. Still, if Israel chooses to target these ineffective sites in full knowledge of the result then they show an equal disregard for civilian life - as the death toll shows.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Where has this repeated use of "you" come from....

"....All we can say is that you have the same, or similar, religion"

"The same ones you are murdering today."

Emotive stuff and hardly wise words to use about someone who you know nothing of, let alone their ethnicity or religion.... and as to calling someone a murderer...not exactly the words of a skilled debate rather seem to be tools of the last resort.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


The odd thing is, that is exactly the existence already in Israel. Most Israelis are utterly unimpacted by Gaza and rocket attacks and they continue to live a life with all the trappings of a rich first world country. No doubt they feel insecure, but from those I know their insecurity is not from the occupied territories but the threat from nations outside their borders. Yet they still seem only too happy to support daily sorties of F-16s and troops.

Those they are most scared of are only emboldened and justified by Israeli's continued behaviour. And the cold hard reality is Israel is never going to accord Palestinians the rights and freedoms they deserve, even if Hamas vanishes of the face of the earth. They simply want to push them in to ever smaller territories to the point where they have no meaningful existence.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


3 1/2 centuries ago things were done differently, people could be hung for steeling a bit of cloth. Since the setting up of the UN, or some similar recent date, the countries of the world decided that things were different.

Taking you question, if boatloads of "Scottish prods" took it upon themselves to go to Ireland in the middle of the 20th century and take it over by force and generally massacre and drive out the existing Irish population then yes, I do think the solution would be to send them back to where they came from.

I realise that you have difficulty in coming to grips with it but we are no longer living in the 17th century.

In reply to atrendall:



No, the truth is that even the IDF admit that the murders were not done by Hamas, the two Palestinians were killed prior to this anyway.

In reply to atrendall:


Given the "fait accompli" the UN did present a "peace plan", in quite extraordinary conditions, the way the vote was pushed through is well documented, but this was only a suggestion after the zionist land grab and military take over. The suggestion was only accepted by "Israel" for obvious reasons, it was totally disproportionate in favouring the Jewish side, but refused by the other parties and therefore, like all such UN suggestions, it has absolutely no binding value. You are repeating a standard Israeli lie here.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I apologise if I have the facts wrong. Apparently The Independent must also have been wrong with the following quoted from its article;

A top Hamas official admitted the three Israeli teenagers whose deaths in June caused the current spiral of violence were taken by the military arm of the organisation.

Hamas has until now refused to respond to Israeli accusations it planned the abduction and murder of the three boys, one a joint US-Israeli citizen, in Hebron.

According to a recording of a meeting posted online, Saleh al-Arouri said: "The popular will was exercised throughout our occupied land, and culminated in the heroic operation by the Qassam Brigades in imprisoning the three settlers in Hebron".

The Qassam Brigades is the military wing of Hamas.

Jewish seminary students Eyal Yifrach, 19, and Gilad Shaer and Naftali Fraenkel, both 16, were abducted while hitchiking in the Israeli occupied West Bank on 12 June and killed.

Their deaths were the final spark for the current violence

In reply to atrendall:





Well you are an Israeli, aren't you?

It stands out a mile by the arguments you use. If you weren't you would have said it by now.

In reply to atrendall:

Maybe the IDF don't read the Independent?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No,Bruce, I'm not an Israeli nor am I Jewish.


What kind of convoluted deduction is it to say "If you weren't you would have said it by now".
With logic like that it's hard to really take you seriously.
If you'd started this post I'd be calling "Troll" but instead I'll just carry on laughing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Perhaps they don't but it is reported in a whole range of papers from The Guardian to The Times Of Israel and I'm sure they probably read the later and I wouldn't be surprised if you read the former.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well I'm off to bed, Bruce. Not sure how much sleep I'll get because I'm still laughing.
Goodnight, Bruce or Laila Tov" which is pronounced "Lai-luh Toh-v".

In reply to redsonja:


well, it worked on the west bank despite Fatah having a record of suicide attacks and also firing rockets.

But the reason Hamas and Fatah fell out was that Fatah was hoping to end violent attacks, as a step towards statehood.

In reply to atrendall:





When Bruce calls you an Israeli agent you know you've arrived.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


oh FFS, pathetic.


Clearly


How would you know?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander....


Pretty much the whole world is stacked against hamas, the quartet, the EU, most Arab states all introduced sanctions in protest of their takeover of the PA.

Egypt has repeatedly taken steps to close tunnels but in the last year they're claiming to have closed over 1,000. This is economically crippling for Hamas, it's driven them back to the Fatah, it's the incentive for the current crisis.

This is a pretty good article on the tunnels, uncomfortable reading for the 160 child deaths the author claims Hamas admits to, but in depth (ho!) on the importance of the tunnels.

http://palestine-studies.org/jps/fulltext/42605


You still don't get the difference between being an anti-semite and anti-semitic behaviour. Jon Snow's reporting was anti-semitic behaviour but it doesn't make him an anti-semite. He does do a bit of anti-israel campaigning though so perhaps he is. Similarly your behaviour is racist but it doesn't make you a racist. You've repeatedly made different racist statements, whether you agree if there racist or not might depend on you changing you understanding or what racism is, who cares.

But you don't seem to have clear idea of what constitutes racist behaviour so I'm not sure how you judge if you behaviour is racist or not?

You'll notice now have people have worked themselves into such a state, by insisting that it's all down to Israel, that you've positioned yourselves to the right of Fatah, to the right of a faction, that although still fairly murderous of it's opponents, has agreed to cease attacking jewish civilians.

No wonder wankers are protesting outside mosques and andyathome is fantasising about blowing up jews in London. It's all driven by Israel, not Hamas.

In reply to winhill:

Boker Tov,Bruce if you are still there. I'm still laughing. Hope I haven't scared you off but the forum seems awfully quiet without you. Guess you've just been sleeping after all that tiring intellectual detective work with its erroneous conclusions

"When Bruce calls you an Israeli agent you know you've arrived." Exactly.

In reply to atrendall:



arrived where though?

at being thought of a one-eyed defender of the oppression of a people?

you must be very proud. enjoy your triumph,

cheers
gregor

In reply to winhill:

as predicted, 'racism' is still the only show in town for you when it comes to defending the actions of israel. alongside sneering at jon's disclosure about his private life, nice.

so i'll ask again, for clarity, for the third day running: is it possible to make a criticism of israel that is not racist? and since everyone here is finding that so hard to do in your eyes, could you let us know what such a criticism would look like?

because in the end, if its is not possible, and all criticism of israel is in fact antisemitism, that's just a clear tactic to shut down the debate.

cheers
gregor

In reply to winhill:


it didnt though, did it? the harrassement at checkpoints continued, and the settlement building continued, along with demolition of palestinian private dwelling places

from the geneva convention, section III

Article 53 - Destruction of property [hide]
Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.


Israel's action appears to be outside of the geneva convention regarding the conduct of occupying powers. is criticism of israel's action in this regard legitimate? or is it antisemitic?

what is your view of the settlement building programme? are you prepared to condemn it?

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Not so much proud as still laughing.
As for "one-eyed defender of the oppression of a people"...well.. sticks and stones....your standards of debate are slipping, Gregor.

In reply to redsonja:


But I doubt you're living in an open prison when you haven't committed any crime. You seemed to miss that point, that Gaza has been blockaded for the past seven years. so the people aren't free are they?

Besides you are 1 person not 1.5 million.

What about South African apartheid? Were you a supporter of that?

How do you think people become terrorists / freedom fighters? It's not something usually born out of affluence and equal rights, apart from the odd nutter.

In reply to krikoman: Not quite sure how you can conflate 'freedom fighters' with militants who acknowledge that their motivation comes from a religion whose name means 'submission'.

In reply to krikoman:

And what is the main reason that Gaza has been blockaded for the last 7 years?
Answer; to try and stop the rocket attacks on Israel. These attacks have obviously continued but imagine how many more there would have been without the blockade and Hamas didn't have to resort to smuggling weapons in. Not only the number but also the chances are Hamas would have been supplied with more powerful and accurate weapons.

NB In January 2008 the border between Gaza and Egypt was breached by Hamas. It allowed them to bring in Russian and Iranian made rockets with a larger range.

In the first half of 2008, the number of attacks rose sharply, consistently totaling several hundred per month. In addition, Ashkelon was hit many times during this period by Grad rockets.

On February 26, 2008 a Grad rocket hit the hospital grounds of the Barzilai Medical Center, approximately 200 meters away from the neonatal intensive-care unit. As it is only 6 miles away from the Gaza border, it is the frequently the target of rocket attacks, with 140 rockets fired at it over the course of one weekend.
After reports of shells with white phosphorus[60] launched against southern parts of Israel on 14 January 2009, Israeli medical emergency forces are now taught how to treat white phosphorus victims and are ordered to have equipment to handle white phosphorus.

Interesting report this since not only does it show the increased attacks following the border being breached but it shows Hamas etc doing all those things that people are attacking Israel for; civilian areas being hit, hospitals being hit, the use of phosphorus etc.

In reply to atrendall:


I love this, pro Israeli government lunatics quoting the UN!! you only like two UN resolutions 1947 and 1949, the rest is ignored the 47 resolutions that have vetoed by the US don't count I suppose. Talk about disproportionate.

Is this you ? http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs

In reply to krikoman:


I think you tend to confuse Hamas with the Palestinian population as a whole.

In reply to atrendall:


Perhaps the inverse is true though? That living under a blockade and essentially under Israeli rule (which far pre-dates these events) gives Palestinians little incentive not to lob rockets.

Israel holds all the cards here yet acts as though it is the one being oppressed. And for their part the Palestinians should presumably be happy to simply no longer have the crap bombed out of them every few years, and in response stop throwing rocks at Israelis...while Israel will continue its settlement building and bulldozing and never return the occupied territories.


How many injuries and deaths resulted from those attacks? "Hamas etc doing all those things that people are attacking Israel for"...except for the killing and maiming of people. There is a huge difference between the actions of both sides.

You keep talking about Israel and Palestine as if the two sides are on equal footing, suffering equal harm and distress. That couldn't be further from the truth.

In reply to winhill:


Can you articulate this argument a little more clearly?

Why is it trivialising the suffering of Jews to make comparisons to another group who have been murdered and abused? Does slavery provide a sufficiently painful historical narrative, or would that be trivialising too? How about the genocide of native Americans?

I genuinely don't understand the argument behind your bald value judgements that the past suffering of Jews is more severe, or in some otherway more appalling than the oppression of other groups. What are the reasons? Why are the comparisons trivialising and offensive.

Do you have an argument to justify your comments, or is it like the accusations of racism, just blurting out unsupported nonsense over and over again, in which case I'd be better off not engaging?

In reply to krikoman:




Sticks and stones.... the lowest form of debate.
Seems that you too are cherry picking which Un resolutions to sing the praises of.

In reply to atrendall:


dragged down by those around me...

ok then, what is your view on the point i made about settlements? these seem to be clearly in breach of the Geneva convention. its hard for me to support israel's actions when the ongoing settlement building programme appears to be a de facto policy of denying the possibility of there ever being a two-state solution. they also, to my mind, serve to undermine moderate voices among palestinians- whats the point of negotiating or seeing a peaceful solution when you get bulldozed all the same- and to drive people towards extreme actions and to support hamas.

every pro-Israeli voice on these threads seems to duck the issue; what is your take on it?

best wishes
gregor

In reply to atrendall:


That would be to treat people from Gaza wounded by Israeli white phosphorous and who couldn't be treated in Gaza because the hospitals there were full of blown up by other Israeli "hits" I suppose.

So you're not an Israeli, that's surprising as you use all their standard arguments, where did you pick them up from?

If you want a few alternative views try reading the Gush Shalom web site, their "Truth against Truth" pdf will set you rights, it compares Israeli Jewish vision of the situation with that of the Palestinians. It's written by Jews so you don't have to fear anti-semitism.

Concerning the origins of the Jewish people and the myths that you appear to believe try "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand. It is full of references if you want to verify. He's just written another book "The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland" but I haven't read it yet.

Both are available on Amazon for the price of a few machine gun bullets.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Err, no I don't.

I aware that all Palestinians are not Hamas, like all Jews are not the Israeli government.

I was trying to make the point that terrorism / freedom fighters are usually born out of inequality like South Africa and the ANC. Originally branded terrorists they became freedom fighters when people realised what they were fighting for. After it's all over then suddenly Nelson Mandela is the darling of the world (rightly so) but it wasn't that long ago when most governments, including ours, were condemning him.