UKC

To build 3000 new homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Wonder if Clinton will come out and condemn this? DOUBT IT!

In reply to drunken monkey: A bit harsh.

How can she go on the offesnsive in this respect when there are so many Jewish people in America?

and on top of that, and perhaps even more importantly, how would alienating Isreal help with any peace process?

People seem to think politics is easy, but it's not. The simplest misplaced statements can have wide reaching effects.

And anyway, I fancy the knickers off Hilary, so leave her alone.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


Huh? Is 1.7% of the population "so many"? Plus you are neatly ignoring that many US jews (might even be a majority now) are against the occupation.

In reply to drunken monkey:

US specifically warned Israel not to do anything inflamatory like this, so expect some bland disappoval from Clinton once it is formally announced.

In reply to TobyA:

She's still quite cute though.

In reply to TobyA: To be serious, I didn't know it was 1.7%. But it's a quite powerful 1.7%

The other points still stand. It often isn't just a simple case of condemning an act if that may well cause further problems. Sometimes, better to still have chips on the table than be forced out of the game.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: If all the Jews in America left there would still be good reasons for them to support Israel - whether one agrees with these reasons or not is another matter.

She's a bit old for me, and isn't she a dyke anyway?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


There are also all the loony Christians who support Israel for theological reasons I don't quite grasp. I saw an informertial on it in Wyoming, which was marginally more entertaining than the Weather Channel.

In reply to Steve John B:
I agree.



She is a bit old..... but I fell in love years ago and haven't managed to get a date with her yet. so still a bit smitten.
If she IS a dyke........ which I doubt, no worries, I'm an easygoing bloke. I'll just spectate.

In reply to drunken monkey: And all Israel wants is peace...


piece by piece by piece

In reply to drunken monkey:
I can't understand the obsession that UKC has with this issue. Where are the the protests - not about buildings, but about deaths in the Congo, in Syria, in so many other parts of the world?

I'd commend to you this New York Times programmme about the issue of separating Israel and Palestine, with points of view from both sides plus neutrals. I personally don't agree with much of it. But I'd ask you all to consider these arguments before again splattering UKC with 'I hate Israel' posts.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/24/world/middleeast/lines-in-the...

In reply to MikeTS:

Eh? I'm at a loss as to what posts above could be interpreted as "I hate Israel".

The OP pointed out to us that Israel are planning to build more illegal settlements, some people discussed briefly why the US might not want to tell then not to do so*, and some others discussed the sexual attraction (or not) of the US secretary of state.

In what way does any of that display some sort of hatred from anyone?

* they have in fact told them they shouldn't, but I doubt there'll be any sanctions if Israel carry on anyway:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/01/hillary-clinton-william-hague-i...

In reply to TobyA:


I think you'll find they have a bit more influence than this would suggest, at least that is what most election candidates over there seem to think. As for a majority of US Jews being against the occupation of Palestine, there you are really dreaming - I've hardly ever heard any in the main stream media who didn't claim firmly that "Israel had the right to exist"... If you have then, to turn the tables for once, perhaps you could provide us a reference?

One thing that is interesting this week is the UN vote in favour of the Palestinian state at last gives me a recent confirmation that, despite what you and others claim, the vast majority of the world supports the Palestinian cause, despite the enormous pressure from the worlds bully boy across the Atlantic and the customary threats of the Wicked Witch or the West: to quote the BBC:

"The UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine as a non-member observer state - a move strongly opposed by Israel and the US....

.... The assembly voted 138-9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining"

I'm only ashamed that my own country's government dropped it's trouser at the wish of the yanks once more, although I shouldn't be surprised really.

In reply to MikeTS:

I would guess the protests about Syria and Congo will be on threads about Syria and Congo? This one is about Israel. And probably prompted by it knee-jerk reaction to the UN vote.

And I would have thought that any comments about Israel/Palestine at the moment will not be just about 'buildings' but will also be about deaths.

P.S. I 'hate' what Israel is doing rather than 'Israel'.

In reply to andyathome:

Which don't exist. My point!

In reply to Ciro:

Didn't you read the UKC postings about the latest conflict in Gaza. I was at that time sheltering from missile attacks from Hamas directed explicitly at Israeli civilians. And what do I see on UKC? Consistent raves about the evil Israelis and the virtuous downtrodden poor Gazans.

What I learned from this was a taste of what it was like to be a Jew in Germany in 1930s. Not only are you suffering, but it's YOUR FAULT and you Jews deserve it.

In reply to MikeTS:Think there have been threads about Syria, and about why war keeps seeming to continue in different parts of Africa, including in the Congo. For Syria it might have been from when a thread has morphed from one subject to another, but I think it's been debated/argued about. Not as many thread though, that's true.

Just out of interest more than anything, what do you think about non zionist Jews?

In reply to MikeTS:


It's not got anything to do with anybody being Jewish though, as far as I gather, more the unfairness of a people losing thier country. I don't agree with anybody targetting civilians by the way.

In reply to drunken monkey:

If you were to watch the link I posted earlier, the UN neutral said quite clearly that the line is not an international border, but a ceasefire line from 1947 in an ongoing war. Hence your own point, about building being illegal, is incorrect.

I could also point out that the are concerned in in an area under Israeli control, and so is not forbidden by the Oslo accord.

So I have to ask, why is it so much more important for people to go on about house building in a country 3000 miles away in a legal grey area than about the multiple human tragedies that are happening elsewhere in the world?

It's obsessive behaviour: and you have to wonder about the roots of such behaviour

In reply to MikeTS:


I can well undertand why you'd wonder about that, given the holocaust, and yourself being Jewish.

What do you think about non zionist Jews by the way?

I've a couple of Jewish friends for what it's worth, Israel never enters my head when I think about them.

I'm genuinely just interested.

In reply to drunken monkey:

A few figures from the UN General Assembly report:

Apart from Israel and the US, those voting against were Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama:

with the following populations:

Israel: 8m
USA: 315m
Canada: 35m
Czech Republic: 11m
Marshall Islands: 54,305
Micronesia: 102,843
Nauru: 10,000
Palau: 21,000
Panama: 3m

372 million... not very many out of a total world population of 7 billions.

Those countries who voted in favour make up the vast majority of the world's population... the full lists of those for and abstaining are given in the annex at the bottom of the UN report on the debate:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm

For anyone who denies the importance of this debate then all I can say is that the representatives of a great many people disagree with you.

The response of the "government" of Occupied Palestine (Israel) which consists of sticking two fingers up at this enormous majority by announcing 3000 extra settlements in the West Bank is the sort of provocation we have grown to expect of them but all it does is show how out of touch they are with age we live in.

In reply to MikeTS: Stop being so thoroughly disingenuous Mike.

Lets get this straight: You were sheltering from ROCKET attacks. The Gazans were sheltering from the MISSILE attacks from the Israeli airstrikes.

If you try to persuade your government to stop stealing their land you might not piss them off so much that they feel the need to keep trying to fight back at you by launching rockets. Announcing 3000 new settler homes a day after a 138-9 vote in the UN is just taking the piss.

Haven't you worked this out yet?

In reply to Timmd:

You jumped to this conclusion. I didn't say this.

>s far as I gather, more the unfairness of a people losing thier country.

Before you go any further, read some bloody history! 65 years ago the Arabs rejected partition and it was Jordan that stole the West Bank from the Palestinians, With the active help of the UK. Maybe a bit of self criticism is in order here


then why are you supporting a Palestinian state that does?

In reply to woolsack:

I'm not being disingenous.

I'm p**sed off with sh*ts like you and Bruce who clearly see events through a hatred of Israel

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

For your information, I supported the UN resolution and argued for it with my friends.
I also supported withdrawal from Gaza and got rocket fire in return!

In reply to Timmd:


But Their choice.
I don't use Zionist as word of abuse, as is done by the Guardian, Arab terrorists, and UKC posters about Israel.

In reply to MikeTS:

Okay.


I ment the posters on here.


I don't, it's more I see unfairness happening on both directions as it were. Starting to wish i'd no started posting in a way, i'd want to say 'search me' to anybody asking me what should happen next.

In reply to MikeTS:

Fair enough.

In reply to MikeTS:

To rephrase this, I'm p**sed off with sh*ts like you and Bruce who support people who want to and try to kill me for no reason other than than being Jewish and living in the Middle East

In reply to MikeTS:

Why do you bring religion into it?

I've heard quite a few people saying Israel deserve to get a bloody nose for what they're doing to the Palestenians, but (here in london at any rate, and I suspect in the majority of the UK) nobody is saying "the jews deserve it".

I have every sympathy for *any* innocent civilian caught up in the conflict on either side, but it's an unfortunate fact of life that in an armed struggle between a major military power and a country without a comparable armed force, the side which cannot hope to compete on military terms will resort to such tactics.

We can debate the rights and wrongs of that till the cows come home, but that's the situation you're in, and the fact remains that while Israel might talk about wanting peace in the region, looking from the outside their actions seem consistently contrary to that stated aim.

It's those actions that I, and I suspect most "anti-Israeli" commentators here detest.

If Israel come out tomorrow and start making steps towards peace, giving the Palestinians their land back and lifting the blockades on food, building materials, etc., I will be back on here praising them for it in a heartbeat.

In reply to MikeTS:


The recent rocket fire was a reply to the murder of a 12 year old. After the cease fire it was Israel who broke it by murdering another man who was simply trying to put a flag on the fence... the Palestinians did not reply.

But that was just the recent short term causes, the fundamental problem is the takeover of Palestine by foreign colonists which has been going on for about a century. You have no right to be there and should do the same as all other colonists have done - leave, especially since it is clear that you and your accomplices in crime have absolutely no intention of living in peace with the local population.

Concerning your remark to Tim about reading history I think it is you who should read a little - it's quite depressing to find so many adults who are totally unaware of the history of the land they are living in. I have spent a while reading about French history as I live there, perhaps you should do the same about Palestine?

In reply to MikeTS:
try to kill me for no reason other than than being Jewish and living in the Middle East

I don't agree with Bruce on this but I don't think he has ever suggested he wants to kill you, let alone for being Jewish.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
perhaps you should do the same about Palestine?

I'm an obsessive reader of history. ALmost nothing I've read supports your bizarre views.
I's so much of a problem that I find no point in talking to you: your so called facts are so wrong that I could spend a life time pedantically correcting them.

In reply to MG:

I said (clearly) that he supports people who want to kill me. It's a little different, but in a way much worse. I can understand why Hamas for trying to kill me (but not agree with).
But why someone who lives in France would support them in this endeavour baffles me.

In reply to MikeTS:


For the same reason I support those who fought to save your ancestors from the nazis. Man is not an island etc. Also from a more selfish point of view, the existence of your violent expansionist colonial entity slap bang in the middle of an crucial area of the world is one of the major factors destabilizing both this zone and the world as a whole.

But without arguing with me why not just ask yourself why all those countries have just voted as they did at the UN. I don't think it is my point of view that weird and unusual. Of major countries only the USA and Canada voted against the motion along with the Israeli delegation... don't you even wonder why? Are they all anti-Jewish?

In reply to MikeTS:


And yet you don't seem to be aware of the population breakdown of Palestine over the last 150 years. Just plot a graph of Jewish and non-Jewish populations over the period and you'll see as clear as day why there are people fighting you there.

You can't invade a country and drive out the people nowadays and get away with it - the world has changed as this recent vote demonstrates clearly.

In reply to MikeTS:

OK, apologies.

In reply to Ciro:
I suspect in the majority of the UK) nobody is saying "the jews deserve it".

My point was that I could feel how anti-semitism worked in Germany. Not that it was anti-semitism on UKC. Let me try and explain.

Anti-semitism Nazi style. 'Jews are noisy and aggressive, pushing themselves where they shouldn't go. They own the media and the banks. They kill children for their Passover ritual. Those who try to kill them should be supported, and it's all the Jews' fault'

Anti-Israel UKC style. 'Israelis are aggressive, going into land where they shouldn't go. They control the US government through the media. They kill children. Those who try to kill them should be supported, and it's all the Israelis' fault'

In reply to MikeTS: So you're saying the nazis were right??

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

This is a weird post that I don't understand. Should I report it to the Mods?

In reply to MikeTS:

I think it would be the sensible thing to do. I often contact the mods when I don't understand something

In reply to MikeTS:

I don't think that all those on UKC who criticise Israel share a single view, so I don't think it's at all helpful (to put it politely) to categorise "anti Israel" posters on here as believing that "those who try to kill them should be supported".

If you read Ciro's post again, you'll see what is at the heart of much of the criticism of Israel. Even though we do not have a radical pro-Hamas media over here, many of us do not believe that Israel wants peace. And much of my impression of Israel's actions and motivations comes from watching interviews of Israeli politicians on the news.

If we believed the politicians when they say that they are simply acting in self-defense, using the most targeted possible action and avoiding as far as possible any civilian casualties, and that their aim is peace, then you wouldn't encounter the "anti-Israel" views on here. I don't believe them. I think that Israel takes advantage of the appalling, violent strategies of Hamas with the aim of eroding any prospect of a viable Palestinian state. Granted, that aim in itself may be because of a perceived threat from the wider region but that isn't justification for continuing the conflict. I can't pretend to understand the issue to any level of sophistication, but I'm way, way ahead of the line which is fed by the Israeli government: "we are under fire from terrorists and we are only defending ourselves". You would quite simply have to be a moron to believe that that explained Israel's actions and there was no more to it - evil terrorists on one side, morally pure on the other. It's an absurdly simplistic view and it should be no surprise whatsoever that many people over here (people with no axe to grind) will not accept it.

In reply to MikeTS:


Fair enough but there is a vast difference between what was going on in central Europe in the thirties and what is going on in the Middle East. If you had written "Israelis are killing over 10 times as many Palestinians as Palestinians are killing Israelis,..." your statement would be nearer the truth and it this overly aggressive behaviour of the Israeli government and IDF that outrages many people outside the Middle East.

I'm also not sure that there is much support for Hammas on this forum, merely support and sympathy for a group of people who seem to be being subjected to the type of oppression and apartheid that your own people have suffered for many centuries coupled with an understanding that people who are having their land and water stolen from them are likely to resort to violence when they have no real recourse to legal ways of opposing what is happening to them.

I'm sorry that you and other Israelis are being attacked on an almost daily basis by terrorists in gaza and I am sorry that many innocent Palestinians died when your Government recently did something to stop it. In this case I believe your Government behaved in a proportionate manner although do question whether they should have killed a guy (I forget his title) who in the past they have been able to negotiate with. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends.

Their subsequent decision to grant the building of of 3000 more homes on disputed land and against the wishes of the UN ie. the rest of the world, fills me with nothing but dismay.

I ask you a question, is this action likely to result in more or less violence in the near future?

In reply to MikeTS:


Most of the above is just statement of fact, not anti anything.

Israel is aggressive, and is going into land where it shouldn't go.

Palestinian children are dying.

In reply to Ciro:

However, I should point out the difference between "Isreal is aggressive" and "Israelis are aggressive".

I pre-judge no-one on their race, nationality or religion (OK, if you're religious I might think you're deluded, but that's a slightly different matter), it's the actions of the state I deplore.

Noam Chomsky's latest on Gaza:

http://chomsky.info/articles/20121201.htm

Well worth a read by everyone.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You haven't really answered my question. I can see that you believe the Palestinians deserve better. Actually I agree: they certainly deserved and deserve better leaders.
And you argue that there was a major historical injustice.
But I cannot see how you move from this position to one where you appear to support them, from a comfortable distance, in trying to kill me and other Israelis?
Why is this conflict so important to you, compared to other contemporary world conflicts with orders of magnitude more deaths? Or other historical injustices, such as dispossession of American Indian or Australian Aborigine land. Or, to take examples that also happened 65 years ago, the millions of Germans who fled from East Prussia, or the millions of Muslims thrown out of India?

In reply to MikeTS:

I don't think anyone is supporting killing anyone. What they may well be saying is that they can understand WHY Palestinians do what they do, given Isreal's behaviour.
And certainly, of all the peoples in the world to be suppressing another, Isreal should be the LAST people doing it.




Who says this is more important? It just is the one being discussed right now.
It's also more in our news than any other because of the power one of the players wields.

In reply to MikeTS: Some Israel stays in people's minds are

-Relative proximity
-Being right is a strategic hotspot
-Nuclear weapons on both sides, or at least close to
-The disparity in resources between sides
-The fact it is still going on after 50+ years
-The complete lack of interest in seriously wanting a comprise from the Israeli side.
- Historical associations to the region and origins of the war.

In reply to MikeTS:


We've been through this so many times before, with Toby too, but one last time:

1) it is irrelevant as just because there are problems elsewhere is absolutely no logical reason not to object to this injustice, and anyway I do express my opinions on other similar issues too.

2) Having said that and apart from what I said above, the question of Palestine, through it's history, the relation to our Western culture, for 2000 years means we are all more aware of this part of the world than many others.

Secondly the relationship between the Jewish people and Western countries. Jews have lived in Western countries as long as our present historical period has been recorded, Jewish people, whether practising the religion or not, are an important part of our world, when I say "our", Jews are part of "us", for all but a minority a British or French person who thinks of him or herself as Jewish would not be seen as a foreigner.. What "you" are doing in Palestine is the same "us" doing it, we can't really separate the two. Sorry if this is poorly expressed but I think you can see what I mean.

Thirdly our governments, the British in particular, had an important historical responsibility in the setting up of the whole mess - a zig-zag policy since before WW1 in which both the Palestinian native population was promised independence in their own land and Zionists were promised a "Jewish homeland" in the same, identical bit of land. They tooed and froed until WW2, under pressure of both Arab and ever growing Jewish colonisation, both of whom used violence to further their aims until they washed their hands of Palestine just at a time when world opinion, shuddering under the horror of what they, Europeans, had done to the Jews, allowed the Palestinian people to pick up the tab of European guilt.

Fourthly, since then, the Western world, even the Communist block for a brief period after WW2, have armed and helped the Jewish colonisation of Palestine, as they are to this day, materially and morally by the sea of biased propaganda that their media swamp us all with... the strategic and military value of a bridgehead in the oil rich Middle East is more important to our countries than the poor, suffering Palestinian people.

There are other reasons certainly but can you really point to another conflict which comes even near to giving so many reasons for Europeans to feel concerned with than this?

In reply to Skyhook:

That's very interesting reading, thanks for the link.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I have not heard a single word of regret on this or other UKC threads for the killed, injured and traumatised Israelis in the latest conflict. I've just heard a few generic platitudes




Then where are threads on other conflicts? As far as I can see, there have been many threads on Israel; and they have been the only foreign conflict topic raised in 2 months.

In reply to MG:


None of your points are valid.



Western Sahara, where the locals have been marginalised by Morocco who have built a gigantic wall right through the middle of their country, is much closer



The wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have taken many more lives.


India - Pakistan? North Korea - South Korea + USA? Both are closer to a nuclear war.


USA and the Taliban?


Dispossesion of American Indians - 200+ years


There is an open invitation by Israe. It is Abbas that is refusing to come to the table. Amd Hamas have said that the only solution is armed struggle, that negotiation is pointless (see their charter)


Again, India and Pakistan have a much stronger case

In reply to MikeTS:



2 months in which there has been heightened conflict in Israel/Palestine. What do you expect!? Over the last year there have significant threads on Syria, Afghanistan and the Falklands and I am sure others.

Regarding expressions of regret for deaths, are you seriously asking why people might forget to mention explicitly the odd death in Israel when hundreds are dying in Palestine?

In reply to MikeTS:

They all are and Israel is only one to tick all the boxes.

Not strategic, much less imbalance of power, not as old, few cultural and historical links.




And are also widely reported and discussed, probably more so than Israel. Not as old.


Ditto




Ditto




Largely resolved for those remaining. Serious negotiating from US government means most tribes self-govern on their land (note lack of air strikes from US military).




And the endless settlement building and land grabs?

In reply to MG:


>are you seriously asking why people might forget to mention explicitly the odd death in Israel

I think this comment just about encapsulates my disgust with UKC postesr on UKC. These are not odd deaths,. these are personal tragedies and you are dehumanising them.

In reply to MikeTS:


Why don't you post expressing regret for the 2000 road deaths annually in the UK. Its disgusting you ignore and dehumanise them in this way.

My basic view is that both Israeli and Palestinians, as groups, have themselves to blame equally for the situation. Then, whenever I hear either an Israeli or Palestinian supporters making their case, I instantly feel much more sympathy for the other lot. Honestly, that you can whine about a couple of deaths, that are less than statistical noise, while being unable to see what provokes them is stunning.

In reply to MG:

You disgust me even more with this reply. If there was a thread about road deaths in the UK, and I chose to respond, I would not sneer that a couple of deaths in Birmingham was just less than statistical noise.

In reply to MikeTS:

Not really listening, are you?

I've seen several threads on various conflicts over the past year.

In reply to MikeTS: do you think the views of UKC posters on this issue are not representative of the general UK population? For me they seem very much the same.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: In the US views of American Jews are changing with time, the younger the generation the more critical they are and the less attached to Israel emotionally they are. Not very surprising I wouldn't have thought. The rise of J-Street is pretty indicative to this. And I presume you understood perfectly well that by occupation I meant the occupation of the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza. The PLO under Arafat accepted the existence of Israel within the 67 borders, so beyond those anti-Zionist ultra orthodox sects I doubt you'll find many Jews anywhere who support what you seem to be suggesting.

Anyway, some quick links http://ideas.time.com/2011/09/29/why-fewer-young-american-jews-share-their-...

"A 2007 poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis found that although the majority of American Jews of all ages continue to identify as “pro-Israel,” those under 35 are less likely to identify as “Zionist.” Over 40% of American Jews under 35 believe that “Israel occupies land belonging to someone else,” and over 30% report sometimes feeling “ashamed” of Israel’s actions.

You can see the whole report at www.acbp.net/About/PDF/Beyond%20Distancing.pdf

I haven't read it myself, but the discussion around the publication of Peter Beinart's book The Crisis of Zionism this year went over a lot of these issues and was seen as indicative of younger, more critical voices from American Jews. See a typically critical review of it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/books/review/the-crisis-of-zionism-by-pet...

In reply to MikeTS:

If you wanted to actually do something about road deaths, you should view them that way. Being sentimental about the odd one would lead to poor decisions.

Anyway, go on being disgusted if you think it will help matters. Since you seem to want people to be indifferent to Isreal, you will be pleased to know I know longer really care if go on killing each other as long it doesn't affect me. A pox on all your houses, so to speak.

In reply to drunken monkey: Let me put it to you this way Mike. If I went up to a bloke, stole his wallet and punched him in the nose, I'd expect he'd probably punch me back.

I certainly wouldn't then go around expecting people to be outraged at him hitting me, though of course, he'd be the bigger person if he didn't.

In reply to TobyA:

The occupation of Palestine is the process that has been going on for about 100 years, a little longer in a less numerous fashion. I realise that you use the use of the term that pro-Israeli propaganda tries to impose - ie. That all we are talking about today is the problem of new settlements in the West Bank and around Jerusalem etc. but this is simply abusive spin - the problem for Palestinians is the overall occupation of their land, not just a few bits of it. Some are prepared to talk about a two state solution, either through lassitude from suffering and dying or as a tactical step but if you listed to Abbas at the UN the other day he specifically said that this was the last chance for a two state solution, in other words even he was starting to give up on such a compromise solution.

As for your remarks about a change of Jewish opinion in the USA, it only confirmls what I said - a mere 30% are "sometimes ashamed" about Israel's actions!!! After the massacres over the years seems pretty damning. Only 40% think "Israel occupies land belonging to someone else", but as you say this does not mean they don't think Israel as an entity presents a problem, only what are called "settlements" in areas "allowed" for native Palestinians.... What percentage actually challenge the setting up of a "Jewish state" in Palestine? Having read the article, in which one daring writer thinks it's a big deal to even challenge Israels violent acts it pretty clear that the figure will be tiny.

The quotations also demonstrate just how brain-washed young US Jews are - they admit they simply knew nothing of what was going on there. They had been brought up on myths which had little relation with historical reality - despite the mother who had "a master’s degree in Jewish history"! Reading Mike's remarks it is clear that he too believes in the same myths, he sees himself as a victim, whereas for most of the world it is the Palestinians who have this unenviable role.

One quote from your article, the student who has seen the light says:

"A lump of guilt and sadness rises in my throat. I've written harshly of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and assault on Gaza in 2009, and on civil rights issues in Israel. But speaking my mind on these topics — a very Jewish thing to do — has never been easy."

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well, more to the point, I use it to mean what international law says it means.

In reply to MikeTS:


youtube.com/watch?v=XfLQopBb5Q0&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20464176

In reply to Ciro:
Were you linking to the video or the comments below?

Whatever, good work soldier.

In reply to TobyA:

So "international law" says that the Germans didn't occupy France, the Brits and French didn't occupy the Suez Canal zone, Nato forces are not occupying Afghanistan etc etc? The word occupy is clearly defined in any dictionary... why not look it up if you have a doubt?

I'm afraid that you, like many others, try to use word to manipulate reality when all they are really meant for is to describe reality. It is not because you and your acolytes try to distract people from noticing the occupation of Palestine by Jewish settlers throughout the 19th century and onwards that this occupation is not a reality - before they weren't there, now they are, and inverse fashion for Palestinians. You can play with words and fib about the legalities to your heart's content, knowing that most will not check to see if your exotic claims are true, but it does not change reality.

But you know that anyway.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Yawn. I'm sure you know that Israel was accepted into the UN in 1949, being recognized as a state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel International law says it is a sovereign state within the green line, in the same way the Timorese are not occupying part of Indonesia or the Kosovars are not occupying part of Serbia. You can deny this if you wish, or more sensibly argue the UN was wrong, but that doesn't actually change anything.

Israel is the occupying power over the West Bank and in the Golan Heights. I'm not sure of the legal situation vis a vis Gaza - as it doesn't actually "occupy" it, but blockading it might have some similar legal position.

In reply to TobyA:


Serbians say they are... occupying means "being in", and in geopolitical terms "being in control of", usually physically present. This is what colonisers or invaders do. Whether you or others consider it to be legitimate changes nothing. The Jewish immigrants to Palestine occupied the land until they took control of the whole of Palestine by force of arms in 1948. They were numerically a minority but their armed force enabled them to take over and occupy Palestine. That is still the case today.

Really weird that you deny it - Who do you think those blokes in uniforms are we see shooting people throwing stones are day after day? Americans, Chinese? Eskimos?

In reply to TobyA:

Isn't the Green Line just a load of bollocks, and keeps moving to whatever the Israelis want it to be? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In reply to drunken monkey:

There are enough people in the UK who are on the internet arguing against Israeli action, that if they bothered to get together they could actually change UK Govt policy. Their voice could be much bigger than it is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Again blah blah blah. I told you that when I said occupation I was using it in the sense that it is used in international law, by the UN and by most countries around the world. If you want to use if differently then fine.


In "occupied" Lhasa it's definitely the Chinese.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: No, it's the defacto border. On one side is Israeli civil law on the other is Israeli military law (in the occupied areas) or Palestinian Authority law in the areas where they have been given control.

The settlements are illegal because they are across the green line from Israel. They wouldn't be "settlements" if the border wasn't demarcated, and concept of land swaps also wouldn't make sense in the peace negotiations.

In reply to TobyA:


This is simply untrue.


I was expecting this again, especially as Mike beat you to the "what about Darfour" line that you usually bring up when Isreal's crimes are criticized! Really scraping the barrel once again in defence of the indefensible... Have you really so little sympathy for the Palestinians - another 160+ dead, many of them children in a deliberate, planned, cold blooded operation and all you can do is quibble about the "definition" of the word "occupy"... and get it wrong at that, as if the UN or a court can define the meaning of a word. All pretty stomach wrenching.

In reply to TobyA:

Sorry Toby, although I appreciate your voice of (relative) reason on UKC, you are contradicting yourself here. You say that the border is de facto. But then if you then say settlements are illegal, you are saying talking de jure. Which is the opposite meaning.

Remember, this is a cease-fire line drawn in 1948 between Israel and Jordan. Following the 6 Day War the UN passed a resolution for withdrawals by Israel, but did not specify to where. Now Jordan's out of the picture, and has peace treaty and agreed borders with Israel, the legal status of the West Bank is very unclear.

One strong argument says that the Oslo agreement is the governing international law (until superseded by a final agreement). It certainly is the latest status, and also has been endorsed by the international community. Under Oslo, Area C was to be under Israeli control, and the Oslo agreement says nothing about no settlement building in this area.

What could be illegal is some of Israel's action against Palestinians in the West Bank. But settlements do not seem to be in themselves illegal. As far as I can read the international laws about this, it's illegal to force people across a boundary. But not illegal if they (the settlers) choose to go.

If you or someone else could actually the reference the text (international law, the Oslo agreement, etc) that says building in Area C is illegal, I'd be very interested. All I hear is people quoting each other, rather than the source text.

I am not very interested in what people think should be illegal here because I'm trying to explore what is actually illegal and what is not. I highly disapprove of smoking in the streets: but that does not make it illegal. I know many here highly disapprove of Israel's actions: but their opinions do not make it illegal either.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The Jewish immigrants to Palestine occupied the land until they took control of the whole of Palestine by force of arms in 1948.

Bruce, what are you smoking? Almost all of Palestine (as defined as being the land partitioned for an Arab state by the UN) was occupied and annexed in 1948 by the invading Arab armies: mainly Jordan with military and diplomatic assistance from the UK, but Egypt and Syria got bits too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What is untrue? That I'm not using the word "occupy" in the way international law does? Or that international law is wrong?

You may think it wrong, but Israel is a sovereign state recognised by international law and the community of nations in the form of the UN. Feel free to object to this, argue why it was the wrong decision etc., but it is a fact. The recognised borders of Israel do not extend to the West Bank and Gaza, Israel took that land in war and therefore is the occupying power with all the obligations under international law that entails. My sympathies towards the Palestinians are neither here nor there, although I've said many times that I think the Palestinians have been historically wronged by many different countries and deserve their own independent and sustainable state now. Either that, or a one state solution.

I know we have different opinions on Israel/Palestine, that's fine, but here you seem to want to fight for the sake of it here. The aside about Lhasa was merely to point out if you don't respect what international law takes to be a sovereign state, then Tibet is "occupied". It isn't (well, at least the majority of countries recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet) but if it makes you happier I could have mentioned "occupied" Sydney or "occupied" Montreal instead - the point still stands.

In reply to TobyA:

If in doubt, Google. I found this
'Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "'

This would seem to say clearly that Gaza and Oslo Area A are not occupied. (Note that it's illegal under Israeli law for an Israeli citizen to enter this area) Area C would seem to count as occupied, since as you say Israeli military law applies (and also Jordanian, British and even Turkish sometime it seems)
The status of Area B (shared by Palestine and Israel) would seem to be unclear

In reply to MikeTS:

and of course as you say, Israel west of the Green Line is not occupied territory

In reply to MikeTS:


some more, from the ICRC, which would relevant to the Oslo agreement

'A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. '

so maybe Area B does not count as occupied either

In reply to MikeTS: I'm sure lawyers would say I was being very sloppy using de facto. Sorry - I'm aware the Israel's borders are the ceasefire line from 48, I understood there is some legal argument around this but basically that's what every government takes as being the borders of Israel. I just meant to counter Gordon's odd belief that the borders change at the whim of the Israeli government. I'm not sure what he meant - maybe the "security barrier" which has been moved around in certain places and times?

I'm no lawyer and I know that some Israeli lawyers and governments argue settling occupied land isn't illegal for various complex legal reasons, but not even the US seems to agree with them. I know the UK government is clear that the settlements are both illegal and an obstacle to peace; that's good enough for me as non expert. I once got taken to lunch with a senior Israeli foreign ministry guy who was visiting Helsinki, he was responsible for relations with Northern European states including the UK. I asked him how he would sum up relations with the UK and he said "inside the green line they are good friends, but over the green line they are harsh critics" which seems to reflect the clarity of the UK position.

In reply to TobyA:

A more radical interpretation is based on Article 43 of the Hague regulations, which says
'The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant'

So, this argument runs, since Jordan's acquisition of the West Bank was not internationally recognized, then in 67 (when Israel conquered it) there was in fact no transfer from a 'legitimate power' and hence Israel does have the status of 'occupant'.

Personally, I think that the Oslo agreement then superseded this legal black hole: but it's interesting!

In reply to TobyA:
I know the UK government is clear that the settlements are both illegal and an obstacle to peace; that's good enough for me as non expert.

Unfortunately I have no standing to ask the UK Government why it believes this!

In reply to MikeTS:


Up thread you were criticizing me for dehumanising the conflict. Now you seem to be giving serious weight to the most arcane and Israeli-biased interpretation of law you can come up with. Do the Palestinians (you know, those humans whose land you are discussing) have no say in your eyes?

In reply to MikeTS:


I'm sure international lawyers argue this one backward and forward, but I would think because Israel has control over the Jordan valley and airspace, the areas which are under PA control are far from "sovereign". As far as I'm aware you can't get to anywhere in the West Bank without going through Israeli border controls, be that at Ben Gurion or crossing into the West Bank from Jordan.

The Oslo accords I thought bound the parties not to change facts on the ground, which is why people argue that building new settlements, or even more houses inside existing ones, contravenes that?

In reply to MikeTS:


I think its a very mainstream interpretation of what the fourth Geneva convention says. Knock yourself out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements (huge number of links to other articles discussing this)

In reply to MG:


You are being completely ridiculous. If you say that something is a war crime (a very serious allegation) then you have to have a legal basis for saying it! So I'm asking you (i.e. the hostile UK posters) to tell me what this basis is. To demonstrate that I have a reason for saying it is not, I quoted international law and made some rational arguments. So maybe I could get the same courtesy from you?

By the way, my personal position is close to Israeli mainstream and government policy, and also close to what Obama and Cameron have said, that there should be negotiations to establish an Palestinian state based on the 67 borders, with land adjustments, limited return of descendants of refugees, mutual financial compensation (Israel for Arab property, Arabs for Jewish property for the 650,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands in the 1950s and 60s), sharing of holy places in Jerusalem, and this to be state that presents no threat to Israeli lives.

Which means of course that Palestinians would be able to run their own lives without having Israel in their face,

This seems to be to be both reasonable and practical. The problem is that Abbas keeps setting preconditions that change from month to month, and Hamas advocates only armed resistance.

In reply to TobyA:

Sovereignty is not the test for non-occupation as far as I can see.

As far as I'm aware you can't get to anywhere in the West Bank without going through Israeli border controls, be that at Ben Gurion or crossing into the West Bank from Jordan.

Pretty hard to leave Luxembourg without crossing the borders to Belgium or France. Doesn't make then occupiers.

In reply to MikeTS:

You've just berated someone for being 'completely ridiculous'. Well, I think comparing Luxembourg with the West Bank is completely ridiculous.

In reply to MikeTS:

Why do Israel and the USA refuse to give the Palestinians a recognized state?How long has this gone on whilst the Israelis take more and more Palestinian land?
Who was that ex-Us ambassador or Diplomat who recently said there are many senior Israelis who want the Palestinian people to just disappear into the sea.
You British colonists and troublemakers started this whole mess in the first place and the USA have picked up where you left off.
They understood the importance of a strategic Jewish state in Palestine and its geo-political usefullness. Quote Ronald Storrs, first British Governor of Jerusalem; namely that a zionist Palestine would be ‘a loyal little Jewish Ulster for Britain in the Middle East’.
Only twenty two countries in this world have not been attacked or taken by threat of force by the UK and you want to tell the Israelis to stop stealing bits of Palestine?
You got very rich from this now you are afforded the luxury of being sweet littkle liberals condescending to others who follow your example.Think on.You built your countries wealth and sustain it on creating victims all over the world just like the Palestinians and how you pillory Israel,when you should look at yourselves,for they hold up a mirror.

Intifada for all oppressed.

In reply to MikeTS:

Giving serious consideration to those affected by developments would seem sane and rational and just to me.



If you say that something is a war crime (a very serious allegation) then you have to have a legal basis for saying it! So I'm asking you (i.e. the hostile UK posters) to tell me what this basis is. To demonstrate that I have a reason for saying it is not, I quoted international law and made some rational arguments. So maybe I could get the same courtesy from you?

Where did I say war-crime? However, Israel in my eyes is certainly guilty of being aggressive, recklessly careless of civilians, and of acting illegally on numerous occasions (eg. many violations of UN resolutions

http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/unresolutions/studyguide/sgunres1e.h...

In reply to MikeTS:


Luxembourg has an airport and the French army doesn't control Luxembourg's border with Germany deciding who can come in and out.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I was talking (please read my posts) about a principle of international law, that control of borders and airspace is not a test of occupation.

In reply to MG:
>g illegally on numerous occasions (eg. many violations of UN resolutions
>

You use the word illegal again! And UN assembly resolutions are not international law

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

They don't. They signed onto the Oslo accord which clearly say that they lead to a state following negotiations on issues like refugees and borders. And Netanyahu in his speech last year to the UN repeated what has been official Israeli policy for 20 years, that 2 states is the solution.

What we need now is:
1. Abbas to climb down from his tree and sit at the table
2. Hamas to be persuaded to accept Israel in principle

Both are needed, but unfortunately unlikely soon.

In reply to TobyA & MikeTS:

You are arguing about a use of the words "occupy" and "occupied" in a legal text, or texts, but this is a specific use and will be defined in the text, as in many legal documents there is first a bit which defines the terms, for example "the 'contractee' is he who... etc". But this is just a method of clarifying what the parties involved in writing the laws mean in the specific text, it is absurd to then claim that this becomes a universal definition of the terms.

When I, and others, refer to "occupied Palestine", or the "occupying army" we are using the word in a general sense, not a legalistic one - Jewish immigrants have "occupied" Palestine over the years from the end of the 19th century onwards, not a legal point, a factual one - they have gone there, some individually but most as part of an organised movement - zionism, Jewish Agency and so on, settled there and "occupied" the land.. as two people cannot occupy the same square foot at the same time this has displaced the original inhabitants - sometimes by purchase, sometimes by simple force. This is a fact that neither of you can deny, although you may find it justified, whereas I don't. The word "colonise" could have been used but this leads to endless pedantic arguments so occupy is simpler.

Why do you do this? Because getting lost in legalities clouds the very simple issues involved, many are unaware of the numerous pseudo legal texts concerned so you simply attempt to blind us all with science.. you have little choice though as the plain horrific facts of what has happened to the Palestinian people are so clear, which is what you both try to cover.

As for the "legal" arguments themselves, right back to the British and French "mandates" over the Middle East after WW1, my modern standards what basis do they have? Was there a genuine attempt at self-determination, back then? Were the engagements given to the Arabs for helping the Allies against the Turks respected? Clearly not as any vote at the time would have resulted in the setting up of states in which the Jewish minority would not have ruled, probably they would have been able to remain there as Jews and Christians had done under the Ottoman Empire, but we'll never know as the "legal" situation, like all legal situations was that of the dominant force, not one that treated all human beings as equals.

A last remark to MikeTS, so you are against smoking in public, a laudable thing, but seem to have no problem with you army killing all those human beings in Gaza a few days ago! I think this puts the reality of any debate based on so called "legality" in perspective.

In reply to MikeTS:


There is no problem for point 1, as you know, but for point 2. apart from asking why any Palestinian should be obliged to accept the loss of his land, you know as well as I do that even if they did you would then move the goal-posts and impose another condition that would be unacceptable.

You don't want a compromise, the last decades have shown that quite clearly - the present government in Israel and public opinion is quite clear about this. You think you have enough force to continue as is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There's no point discussing history when you come out with bizarre things like Israel capturingthe whole of Palestine in 1948. And there is no point in discussing the international legal status of the situation since you prefer your opinion of what should have been rather than what is. And there is no point is discussing what should be since you don't accept any right for Israel to exist because all the lands should become Palestine.

So their really isn't anything to talk about. So, bye.

In reply to MikeTS: I think that post pretty much sums up why the Israeli problem still exists after 60 odd years. "You don't agree with me therefore I won't talk to you". And yes, before you start, I know the Palestinians are intransigent too.

In reply to MG:

Grim news flash from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-palestinians-israel-settlement...

In reply to MikeTS:

I could return the compliment to you - a person who believes Israel was set up by the UN clearly has only a mythological contact with reality! So for you Israel wasn't created by the armed uprising of the Jewish minority?

You are right about one thing, I don't accept that the state of Israel as it is today has any right to exist, but the recent vote reassures me that I am not alone.

How isolated will you have to become before you see the writing on the wall?

In reply to MikeTS:

For your education here is the relevant part of the "DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL" - May 14, 1948

In capitals in the original:

"ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Proces...

In reply to Bruce Hooker: ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Shouting about it won't make Israel cease to have come into being (again) or to cease to be.

In reply to Sir Chasm:It's cut and pasted from the website it's written in capitals on. Don't blame Bruce.

He might be to blame for other things, but not for the above capitals. ()

In reply to Timmd: I know, he said that in his post.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm not sure why you think things like the Geneva conventions are "pseudo legal texts". You might not want to deal with the nitty gritty of this, but that's what governments and civil servants around the world are doing every day. I heard that the Finnish foreign ministry had call the Israeli Ambassador in today to complain about move to build new settlements. That's because, like I think all EU states, Finland believes that Israel is acting illegally. It's not really that hard to understand.

In reply to Sir Chasm:Erm, what was your point then?

???

In reply to Timmd: That, in part, Israel was set up by the UN.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is a great example of the bizarreness of what you post. I mean. Israel was recognised by the UN after it declared itself a state. Now you're trying to tell me this never happened?

In reply to MG:

It isn't that I won't talk to Bruce because he disagrees with me. It's because his view of what happened in history and the conclusions he draws are so strange that I don't know where to start!

In reply to MikeTS:

We are miles apart on Israel, I guess, but on that post I am with you!

In reply to MikeTS:

To clarify the sequence
1. Partition between Arab and Jewish states became UN policy, 29 Nov 1947
2. UK (the mandatory power)prepares to withdraw
3. Three way civil war: Britain, Arabs, Jews
4. UK leaves on May 14, 48
5. Same day declaration of Israeli independance
6. May 15 (next day) combined Arab armies invade
7. War between Israel and Arab countries
8. Cease-fire agreements with 4 Arab countries from 24 Feb to 20 July 49
9. UN admits Israel May 11, 49

In reply to MikeTS:

The issue is not whether Israel was accepted by the UN, but what the agreed boundaries were. That's what they've disagreed with since 1967.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

For you, but Bruce is fighting something else!


There has never been agreement about the border between Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. The dispute goes back 20 years before 67!

I have a copy of the original UN partition plan from 1947 in front of me. It shows Israel as having 55% of the area: it got the Negev desert, the coastal plain, and some of Galilee. Arabs got 42%: the hill country and around Gaza and some of the Galilee. Plus a UN trustee area around Jerusalem.


The original problem, never solved, was that Jordan in 48 took and annexed most of the Arab part and the UN trustee part, as defined in the 47 partition plan.

Following the 67 war, UN resolution 242 said Israel should withdraw from some occupied areas but did not draw a map. It said they should be secure boundaries and should be agreed,. And since then - no agreement.

In reply to drunken monkey:

youtube.com/watch?v=cKHaowFEOsw&

In reply to MikeTS:
partition plan.

What has Israel done since that time?

The impression one sometimes gets in the UK is that it's been slowly increasing the amount of land which is called Israel. Have heard discussions about Israel going back to the pre 1967 boarders being helpfull/productive towards peace.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Funny because BICOM were reporting the exact opposite headline in there story of the same set of facts this morning. Whatever - it seems like petulant knob waving at the U.N. and Palestinians from here but the Israeli government and many/most Israelis don't see it like that. The myth of the few against the many goes deep in the Israeli psyche. Personally I can't see a two state solution ever working out as a long term settlement - I doubt the Israeli elite who profit from the eternal war believe in this for other reasons.

The leaders of each camp need to fast forward 200 years into the future and start behaving like wise men and not little playground bitches focused on the slights and wrongs of the past - but both sides need to vote for a credible alternative than more of the same. Livni, Netunyahu, Hamas. Same shit different bag.

D

In reply to MikeTS:

Recognition of an existing situation on the ground is the same as "setting up" a state is it for you? I can see discussing reality is going to be difficult if this is the way you think!

In reply to MikeTS: I was listening to a programme on Radio Scotland a few weeks ago (before the gaza scrap) where some buffoon from the George Dubya Bush administration came on and critisised the palestinians for not having a credible state who could look after their poeple.

I wonder how that is eh? I really couldnt believe my ears.

Do you find the blockade of Gaza acceptable? The stealing of land acceptable? Firing rockets into Israel cannot ever be condoned - But cant you see why these people are absolutely fecked off to the back teeth? They are being blockaded into living in a 3rd world.

The VAST majority of the world agrees at the UN to give the Palestinians some basic rights and a wee bit of a voice to be heard.

And how does netenyahu (sp) behave? throws his teddies out the pram and signs off plans to steal more land.

I really hope Obama has some balls in his second term.

In reply to drunken monkey:

I really hope Obama grows some balls in his second term.

fixed that for you

Thought that was the cause of the latest spat/targeted killing/warcrime. Test out the Obama stance on Israel after the election?

D

In reply to Timmd:

Ok, I'll continue my history lesson.

Following 67 was the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 by eight Arab countries. They adopted the “Three NOs”
NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel

This lead to the Yom Kippur War, but then eventually peace treaties with Egypt !979) and Jordan (1994) who broke with the other Arab countries.
Then came Oslo (1994)when Israel gain withdrew from Arab land (Gaza and Jericho at first).

So contrary to what you say, Israel has many times withdrawn from lands and adopted the 'land for peace' approach when working with good partners.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Problem is, your facts are wrong. Israel is

1. Trying to prevent terrorism like suicide bombers crossing over the border into Israel (Do you have a problem with that?)

1. Maintaining an arms embargo on Gaza. Following the last flotilla fiasco, even the UN agreed that an arms embargo was legal. As an example, Israel still supplies much of the electricity to Gaza - which Gaza has not paid for. This supply continued through the last 2 mini-wars with Gaza. I could quote you pages of other stuff that shows that this is not a blockade, but it would be just too boring for UKC

In reply to MikeTS:

1. What was the UN at the time? How many countries? The axis countries could hardly vote against, those who wanted to were put under enormous pressure, well documented. Britain abstained at least, maybe because they knew what the zionists were like, having lost so many troops and civil servants murdered by the Stern gang, Irgun and others (you don't mention how these Jewish fanatics invented modern terrorism, blew up the British HQ with 92 deaths, murdered Lord Moyne etc etc). The final vote was 33 for to 13 against, with 10 abstentions - as they needed a 2/3 majority it just scraped though - without the pressure it wouldn't have.

Having said that a UN resolution is only a proposition - it has no value of law (as that's what seems to be what you think in terms of). The UN can't enforce a resolution against the parties concerned, if they refuse it then that's it, just another bit of paper... The Jewish representatives accepted it, which is not surprising as it was very generous to them, they were only a minority at the time (33%) and owned very little of the land, but the Arabs, both Palestinians and neighbouring states refused it. The proposition went therefore into the dustbin of history.

There's the problem the reality is a little more complex than your one line "explanation".

3. approximation to say the least! But it was a bloody period which set up what followed, pages could be written on it.

5. The text is just above, you will notice that the claim is to all the area, although is deliberately left vague (see accounts of the discussion between Ben Gurion and others when they were preparing the text), the term Eretz-Israel was used.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Bruce, you'll do yourself a mental injury if you're not careful trying to prove 65 years after the event that the recognition of Israel does'nt really count.

If the UN doesn't mean anything, does hat mean the Palestinians didn't get a non-voting state last week?

In reply to MikeTS:

If all they're doing is inforcing an arms embargo, why did they feel the need to work out how many calories they would need to allow through to avoid a humanitarian crisis?

http://smpalestine.com/2012/10/17/red-lines-official-document-shows-israel-...

In reply to drunken monkey:

Israel behaving like the British and Americans?
Who do they think they are?

In reply to MikeTS:


Try reading what I wrote not what you want to see... I didn't say the "UN doesn't mean anything" I said the truth, that UN resolutions of this type propose a solution, then this can form the basis of an agreement between those concerned - it has no power to impose such a resolution. As only one side accepted the proposition it could not be applied - this was one explanation given by the British for abstaining.

As for doing myself a mental injury, I'd worry a little more about your apparent difficulty with reality... myths are ok for children but, as the behaviour of you and your compatriots shows, when adults live by myths it can be very harmful for them and those around them... Your ancestors were victims of other myth believing adults, which is why I find it so hard to understand why you can't make the connection between their suffering and that of the Palestinians.

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:


Colonists, they think they are colonists and act like them - for the USA it was the Wild West and those pesky redskins, for the Brits it was half the world. The difference is that both the USA and Britain (mostly) moved on from direct colonialism half a decade ago whereas Israeli are still living in the 19th century.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I'm a bit agnostic abut Israel, but conflating the US and their Manifest Destiny of expanding to the west at the expense of the native Americans, with the British Empire demonstrates a woeful ignorance of history.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:It's probably a similar sense of being better than the native people in both instances though.

In reply to Timmd: I take your point (although Queen Victoria was happy to have Indian servants in her entourage, unlike any royal since). But the US WANTED to colonise the West; on the whole we didn't want to colonise India, Canada, Australia, Africa, in the sense of displacing indiginous populations ... we wanted to establish Pax Britannica and trade.

Chalk and cheese.

As for Israel - it is beginning to look like they have abandoned any possibility of a 2 (3?) state solution, and expect that the Palestians will continue to be marginalised, ground down, and increasingly dependent on Israeli aid.

Which in the absence of a more enlightened and subtle leadership may well happen.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What's so special about 2007? We were both still in Iraq then.

In reply to TobyA:Belay jacket, i've emailed you.

In reply to Ciro:

^^^^^This^^^^^^

To be honest Mike, you are not helping your cause.

You go on and on about legal/illegal while totally ignoring any morality.

If it wasn't for the ludicrous UN security council vetos from the US then the 'legal' situation would be very different. And everyone knows this.

When I'm dealing with somebody and they stop talking constructively and start the bickering over minuscule disputed details then I know that they are acting in bad faith.
Frankly the position that you are holding is not going to win support. The establishment of the isreali state was a disaster for peace in the middle east. A western european guilt trip comes back to bite for decades.


But carry on, not sure how to rate this thread since you keep replying which is -ve scoring, but you do keep people engaged.

In reply to another_mark: What would you call constructive? A 2 state solution? Israelis go home, a la Bruce? A n other solution?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I would think constructive is more to do with a plan to get to whatever end-point is decided upon that what the end point is. Neither firing rockets at Tel Aviv or building houses in the West Bank is going to lead to any stable solution. cf Northern Ireland.

In reply to drunken monkey: A part of me says leave them to it. They're not looking at a goal and working back from it, they're lloking at petty points and sticking to them while wiggling their fingers in their ears saying 'I'm not listening'

Fine. Crack on. I don't live there.

Note, it's their attitude which makes me feel this, not lack of compassion. I just think it's a waste of our time and that time could be better spent on places where peace might be achievable.

In reply to MG: Let us know when both/all sides agree what the end point should be.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Yep.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The mind boggles, remind me which was the biggest empire in the world until the mid 20th century?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Remind me which nation colonised Israel?

In reply to TobyA:

Should have been half a century, I started thinking of 50 years or five decades then though that a pedant might pick me up on the exact date... the rest is the brain wandering. Thank you for pointing out my error.

In reply to MG:


The situation is hardly similar! Derry was never an open air concentration camp for catholics, with helicopter gun-ships killing IRA members, and any assorted children who happened to be nearby, cut off from the world with barely enough to live on and so on.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Some would say the USA but this wasn't really so obvious at the beginning. The nearest equivalent I can see is the landings of the "pilgrim fathers" in N America. They weren't representing a nation, they were made up of people who fled persecution in Europe to go to the New World, a land of milk and honey. The zionist movement uses similar language, was born at the height of the colonial era in the 19th century, and even has a very similar relationship with the "natives".

When both arrived they tried to cooperate with the natives, many were idealists, but reality and human nature stepped in and as the locals realised what the danger was the more aggressive, and less idealistic, colonisers took advantage of the situation, provocation and revolt alternated, and the genocides got under way.

There was a documentary on the telly, on utube for a while about Palestine, interviewing Israeli "settlers" of the more extreme kind, one of them used the term "final solution" regarding the Palestinians, without apparently realising what these words recall. He was dressed in a stetson, a cowboy style shirt, waist coat and jeans and wore a double belt of bullets with two six-guns like John Wayne, or a Disney rodeo show. Clearly for him the locals were like the Indians, under-men to be wiped out as required.

In reply to MG:


Do you deny the right of an overrun people to resistance?

The rockets are fired in retaliation to infinitely more powerful missiles fired by the Israelis at them. Do you think they should just lay down and die - knowing full well that no one in the world will help them if they do?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What would you say, Bruce? It's you who keeps making the ridiculous claim that it's a colony, so which is the mother country?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I've just replied, which bit didn't you understand?

A group of people can take over a country without having a common home land - N America being an example. Eventually European countries - chiefly Britain and France - claimed the myriad of little colonies as theirs and fought it out. In the case of Canada it became a classic colony, but further South they broke away from Britain... while a new kind of colonisation took place towards the West. In fact one of the main reasons the ruling elite broke away was because the British government wanted to reserve Western lands for the indigenous population and Georges Washington and others had considerable land interests their... Now he's the all American hero, an example of honesty, which is a little ironic to say the least.

Colonisation has many different forms, sometimes it is population movement, sometimes simply domination to take natural resources, sometimes the search for markets. In the case of Palestine, the zionist movement sought to colonise Palestine on behalf of a people/ethny/religion to create a "Jewish homeland". They saw Serbs, Bulgarians, Italians etc claiming their own "nations" and though Jews should have one too - not all Jews agreed, many campaigned against it at the beginning of the 20th century.

They chose Palestine for historical come religious reasons, but the colonisers came from all over the place, the condition being that they be Jewish, itself a fairly elastic criterion. Basically zionism is a classic 19th century nationalist movement but which came to fruition a century too late when it was no longer considered valid for most of the world.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: It's not a colony, look in the dictionary. There are enough issues that are hard enough to resolve without your mendacious description of the situation.

In reply to MikeTS: I'm not condoning suicide bombings in Israel ever. But the Gaza blockage prevents a hell of a lot more than arms getting in. In fact, most of the arms comes in from tunnels from Egypt.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Perhaps you should read other books than your dictionary? Or buy a better one? Before doing so try reading this Israeli web site text: "Truth against Truth"

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/downloads/truth/

If you really want to stick to your restricted view of colonisation then the colonizing nation would be the Jewish Nation, seeking their own Jewish homeland. It's covered in the text. Palestinians, however, see it as an outpost of Western Imperialism, according to the text, so again in your meaning of the word you would have to think in terms of a multi-national colonialism... which demonstrates the limits of your definition.

The web site it comes from is worth a read too: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Oh, the Jewish Nation. Riiight. Better repatriate all teh jooz to the Jewish Nation then if that's where they came from.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It almost makes one wish for a return to the good old days when Dror invited its principal, Uri Avnery, to discuss just this with BH.

But no, let's go round again.

Arrived late with my tuppence

My biggest problem with Israel is that its current administration falsely claims to be working towards the common international goal of the 2 state solution yet does everything it possibly can to prevent it.

Netanyahu's claim to be working towards a 2SS is one massive fraud.
Members of his cabinet were the founders and leaders of the "Whole Land of Israel" Knesset Caucus that was established officially for only one purpose: preventing a Palestinian state in any part of Palestine.

Netanyahu has been totally opposed to the formation of a Pal state for his entire political career.

The Likud platform is explicit:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river...The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/likudplatform15.html

As is World Likud:
FACT: A Palestinian State within existing Israeli territory is not feasible.
PLAN: Talks on the establishment of a Palestinian State will cease effective immediately. Israel will declare its right to exist within its current borders, with no further surrender of territory.
http://www.worldlikud.org.il/?page_id=36

The Gaza withdrawal was specifically designed not to advance the 2SS solution but, in the words of Sharon's aid, to put the peace process with that end "in formaldehyde"
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-fre...

At the heart of the current impasse is the utter lie that Israel has any interest in realising the same outcome - a Palestinian state - as the rest of the world.

From an international relations point of view, Bibi can't reject the 2SS outright (as he did consistently during his elecetion campaigning) but he can spit the words to appease the Americans (eg Bar Ilan) and then do everything possible to prevent it happening. Quite why the world is taken in by this sham is beyond me.

Arrived late with my tuppence

My biggest problem with Israel is that its current administration falsely claims to be working towards the common international goal of the 2 state solution yet does everything it possibly can to prevent it.

Netanyahu's claim to be working towards a 2SS is one massive fraud.
Members of his cabinet were the founders and leaders of the "Whole Land of Israel" Knesset Caucus that was established officially for only one purpose: preventing a Palestinian state in any part of Palestine.

Netanyahu has been totally opposed to the formation of a Pal state for his entire political career.

The Likud platform is explicit:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river...The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/likudplatform15.html

As is World Likud:
FACT: A Palestinian State within existing Israeli territory is not feasible.
PLAN: Talks on the establishment of a Palestinian State will cease effective immediately. Israel will declare its right to exist within its current borders, with no further surrender of territory.
http://www.worldlikud.org.il/?page_id=36

The Gaza withdrawal was specifically designed not to advance the 2SS solution but, in the words of Sharon's aid, to put the peace process with that end "in formaldehyde"
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-fre...

At the heart of the current impasse is the utter lie that Israel has any interest in realising the same outcome - a Palestinian state - as the rest of the world.

From an international relations point of view, Bibi can't reject the 2SS outright (as he did consistently during his elecetion campaigning) but he can spit the words to appease the Americans (eg Bar Ilan) and then do everything possible to prevent it happening. Quite why the world is taken in by this sham is beyond me.

In reply to another_mark:
I can do morality too. I was talking legal cos the original posters talked about war crimes and illegal settlements, which are legal concepts.

Hamas runs Gaza. It is a supremacist Islamic fundamental islamic organisation that believes in a Jew free middle east. It kills Christians, gays, suspected Israeli spies and Fatah members without trial in public lynchings.

All this is no secret: they are proud of it.

Is this an organisation that you support?

In reply to MikeTS:
It'll be very interesting to see the western arselickers, about face, if the predicted vast Israeli energy finds, start to be exploited, and exported?!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A different scale certainly but many similar attributes - Bloody Sunday, colonial history, Catholics mainly poorer, terrorist bombs. After decades of bombs and murder, things are now fairly stable after both sides compromised.


Of course the UK could have responded as Israel, perhaps by bombing Belfast. And the IRA could have then started targeting civilians explicitly like Hamas and we would still have all the troubles. Instead compromise has led to benefits for everyone.

In reply to MikeTS:

That's appaling, what Hamas do, and that they are proud of it, though Israel has used phosphorus in civilian areas, which is pretty rotten as well.

It burns your lungs when you breath it in, and you cough up brown liquid and die. Not nice.

In reply to dek:

Please explain. Given the amount of Israeli money oiling the wheels of U.K. parliament if there are big energy reserves found in Israel these western arselickers will start to lick Israeli face?

D

In reply to MikeTS:



There is a state terrorist organization which has routinely kidnapped and murdered secular and Islamic civilians,as well as shooting small children who maybe throwing stones or just playing football.Although they seem to prefer bombing whole apartment blocks where they continually murder many more hundreds of innocent people.

In reply to Dauphin:

Sorry - totally gratuitous post but what did you think all that those Fox, Werrity, Gould meetings that couldn't be talked about were set up for? It's pretty clear U.K. foreign policy is aligned with Israel whether we (the wider electorate) want it or not.

D

In reply to MikeTS:
I would like to refer you all, but especially MikeTS, to the first book of Samuel, chapter 27, verses 8 and 9.
Read that and then see if you can find any simularities between those days and now.

In reply to Timmd:

Glad you agree, and that you brought up the question of morality.

On the issue of the Israel vs Hamas conflicts, people participating this thread can take one of 3 moral positions

1. Agree with Hamas that Israel should be destroyed

2. Agree with Israel that it has the moral right to defend itself

3. Be neutral: they're both a bit morally wrong and a bit morally right

So far I'm the only one that takes number 2
Toby A and you I'd place on 3.
That leaves the rest of you on or close to position 1, since no-one else has said that Hamas is even a little bit morally wrong or that Israel is even a bit morally right

In reply to mockerkin:

Even though I'm a Jewish beleived I try very hard not to compare the Tanach (Old Testament) with today

In reply to MikeTS: I suspect Bruce is the only person who really thinks 1. You are like listening to a six year old.

"ITS NOT FAIR!! HE DID IT TOO AND YOU ONLY TELL ME OFF"

In reply to MG: & even Bruce (I suspect) doesn't want the Israelis killed, just 'moved' somewhere else, and would rather that a scenario such as in Michael Chabon's The Yiddish Policemen's Union had happened

In reply to MG:


I have summarised with patience a lot of detail on the Israeli conflict with the Arabs. I have tried to combat lies and abuse. I've tried to point out flaws in posters' reasoning with evidence and logic. I've tried to explain the inconsistencies in people's position. I am still at a loss as to why no-one can bring themselves to crticise, even a little bit, Israel's enemies or even a little bit appreciate that Israel is surrounded by enemies that seek its destruction - not because of reasons like settlements, but for the simple reason that it exists.

In reply to MikeTS:


Simply put, because you (Israel) are seen as the greater of two evils, for several reasons.

If your stance were different and Israel appeared to be making real efforts for peace, people might see it differently.

You say you've been logical, fair etc, but you give the appearance of being completely intractable.

In reply to Doug:

Well since Bruce and MG don't actually say, we'll never know.

There's a story about an Israeli's grandfather. The grandfather said:
'When I was in Germany in the 1930s they told me to go back to Palestine where the Jews came from. Now I'm in Israel they tell me to go back to Germany where I came from'

There is also the question about the majority of Jewish Israelis who are from families that were expelled from Muslim countries in the 1950s and 60s. Where do proponents (like Bruce and Palestinian intellectuals) of the European colonialist theory of Israel's origins suggest they go?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:


You use the word 'appearance'. Well I'd appreciate my postings being treated on the evidence and logic rather than ad-hominem attacks.

Actually I posted earlier my view quite clearly that there should be a 2 state solution. In this I am in the mainstream of Israelis views and UK and Israeli government policy.

If you think this is an intractable position, then what do you believe?

In reply to Doug:

Thanks for that, I've said often enough that I want the killing to stop but I can't see this happening while a state like Israel continues to exist in the Middle East. Living in France you are doubtless aware of the way the French finally left Algeria, there were more than a million of them and the colonisation dated back further than the present occupation of Palestine. The number involved are higher, but still within the same order of magnitude. Given this the greater potential of welcome, in the USA, Britain, France and many other countries where anti-semitism is pretty well absent and the overall world wealth available today compared to the early sixties makes such a move altogether possible.

I used to think a two sate solution was possible but now I think there is too much blood under the bridge for Jews and Arabs to live together. I have been reading a few texts due to this thread and when you see how even the zionists and Arab nationalists proposed solutions in which freedom of religious conviction and so on would be guaranteed in the various propositions made a few decades ago they appear totally naive and idealistic in today's light.

A one state solution in which all the legitimate inhabitants of the area would live together in a secular, democratic state might have been a solution, but it seems pretty clear that the Jewish component would never accept that... most Arabs might but it's hard to imagine that an extremist element would not try to prevent it too.

So when all else seems doomed to failure and continued bloodshed what else is left but for the occupying forces to withdraw, as for most other colonial situations? It would end the fighting, stabilise the region and pull the rug from under the islamic bombers too. Only those with money involved and anti-semites who are glad to park their Jewish minority in a war zone would be losers and I have no sympathy for either.

In reply to MikeTS: It's one thing to say you're pro a 2 state solution (which is what I happen to beleive to be the correct course too) but you go on to justify a stance which appears anything but helpful.

The trouble with you seems to be that you don't want to hear what people think, you just want them to agree.

I don't agree with much you type........ and don't care enough about the situation to bother giving it enough thought to clearly explain why. It would be wasted.

In reply to MikeTS:

What on earth makes you think I want to kill all Israelis? If it makes you happy, I am quite happy to state that I don't. To avoid any doubt, and complaints from you about me not saying, you can assume I don't want to kill all of any other group of people either.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

This.

In reply to Bruce Hooker

So, I get you.

Because of you principled opposition to ethnic cleansing, you are proposing.....


..... ethic cleansing

In reply to MikeTS:

Interesting typo

Freudian slip perhaps?

In reply to MikeTS:


Another shorthand version of history!

Jewish minorities lived all over the muslim world in comparative harmony, more so than in christian Europe anyway. Often these minorities were far larger than in Palestine itself which had only a few thousand Jewish inhabitants until the latter part of the 19th century. Under islamic law non-muslims were tolerated and simply had to pay an extra tax, under the Ottomans they even had their own representatives at court and in the legal system.

Then after the Jewish takeover of Palestine and the ensuing massacres, destructions of Arab villages and general genocidal antics of your side this equilibrium was shattered. As you are keen on history, or so you say, you will know that this was a deliberate policy of certain zionists in Israel who were worried about the slowdown in Jewish emigration to Palestine - once the flow from Europe after WW2 had finished fewer and fewer people were interested in moving to a war zone where they were clearly not welcome - and the quite deliberately staged vicious anti Palestinian provocations were organised for this purpose as well as the obvious desire to recover more and more land for Jewish settlers.

When people in Muslim states saw how fellow muslims were being treated in Palestine what did you expect them to do? With a little help from zionist agents and other extremists the result was inevitable... so far from being a problem for Israel the arrival of many Jewish settlers, with a built in grudge - they had been made to leave a land they had lived in for generations - was a timely boost.

In reply to MikeTS:

In a way, yes, except I don't see that when colonials in all the old European colonies left Africa, India, Asia etc. after the colonies attained independence that many would call it ethnic cleaning - it was a necessary part of decolonisation. Often, for Algeria for example where a population colonisation had been practised they had lived there for many generations and occupied posts at all levels of society - not just the colonial administration and cadre roles as in many British colonies.

So if the Brits leaving India when the country became independent was ethnic cleaning then your remark is valid. Personally I don't think the term is justified in situations of this kind.


PS. I've said it many times but if you just happened to be having a blackout each time I repeat I am trying to provide solutions to stop further deaths in Palestine, the only difference may be that I would put Palestinian deaths at the same level of importance as Jewish deaths.

Your propositions are obviously aimed at "more of the same", ie. more deaths with the usual preponderance of non Jewish deaths at a higher (10 times?) rate.... something that you have never said clearly is a problem for you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Is this true? What did "zionist agents" do in Muslim countries to encourage the expulsion of Jewish arab populations?

In reply to TobyA:

I suppose you think it was all spontaneous like the plucky uprising of Libyan democrats in Benghazi the other day?

Coming back to the main point, were you aware that decisions were made by zionists in Israel to take actions to boost Jewish emigration to Israel at the time? I read about it a while ago, did you?

Also in your reply I didn't refer only to zionist agents, you are cherry picking in your citation. I don't think many "mass movements" are spontaneous.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What are you going on about? I'm just interested. Who were these "zionist agents" who assisted/promoted/whatever the expulsion of the Arab jews? I know of the US Jewish groups who did much to promote the emigration of the Soviet jews to Israel during the Cold War, but what Jewish groups encouraged the expulsion of of the Arab Jews?


No, you put it next to "...and other extremists", you actually made it even less neutral than some one could at least argue it is on its own.


Nope, agreed, nothing spontaneous at all about this period of history: it was various Arab governments expelling some of their own citizens because of their ethnicity/religion. Like Idi Amin expelling the Asians.

In reply to TobyA:

It was also about Israelis who wanted to boost the flagging immigration of Jews to Israel. They knew they were racing against time to build up the Jewish component of the population to beyond a critical mass and all means were used to incite and encourage this movement. The use of extreme brutality towards native Palestinians to provoke reactions against the Jewish minorities in other muslim countries was one deliberate, planned cunning ploy. It's all there to be read in the memoirs of those concerned, Ben Gurion, Dayan and others for those interested in knowing the truth rather than just making do with heroic myths.


Do you want their names, addresses and ID photos? Sorry but I haven't got them - does this surprise you?

If you want an operation which was a bit more open look up that concerning Yemeni Jews on wikipedia.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


There are many explanations which together explain why there appear to be more Gazan deaths, and which are a huge problem for me as an ethical Jew. But none of which involve blood-thirsty Jews trying to kill little children (and where have we heard that before!)

1. Hamas store and fire rockets in residential areas (of course a war crime)
2. Many rockets fall short and kill their own people
3. Hamas rockets on the whole (thank God) are inaccurate (which is why Israel is upping the ante as Gaza is equipped with Iranian missiles)
4. The Iron Dome system
5. The Israeli warning system + air raid shelters (Hamas conspicuously fails to provide protected places for its own people)
6. Lies by Hamas (they published a dead Gazan child recently with a picture that was actually from Syria If you think I'm being outrageous, then check, for example, this http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/11/18/another-photo-of-syrian-massacre-false...
6.Sheer luck by Israel.


More generally, over the 12 years of conflict, almost all of of victims of Hamas rockets, suicide bombers etc have been Israeli civilians. The reason, of course, is that although the Israeli army (as per the conventions of war) put its soldiers in uniform and place army bases away from civilian areas, Hamas targets towns, not the IDF. Its favourite times for rockets are school hours

In reply to MikeTS:

Obviously it's just your opinion, and not that of the govenment of Israel, but do you think there might ever be a time where some land around the 'bottom' of Israel is used to join up the two patches of land which Palestinians live on at the moment, so they'd be able to have a country to call Palestine?

Is there room in the belief that Israel should exist for a Palestine to exist as well?

I'm just interested in what you think really, and maybe what any people you know and might have talked to about it think.

In reply to MikeTS:


An odd phrase... why not "as an ethical person"? You appear to be retreating into a kind of racial/ethnic cocoon, or maybe bunker would be a better word. Your case is not isolated though, it seems to be general in Israel judging by election results and opinion polls - a massive majority of Israelis were in favour of the recent aggression against Gaza, and IIIRC a majority were against the cease fire, they wanted more bloodshed.

Do you, as an ethical person, see any future in this sort of attitude?

In reply to MikeTS:

Mike, assuming there was somewhere in Gaza away from civilians for hamas to base their military operations, what would happen to them if they did this?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

As I can't seem to convince you, or Toby, that colonialism applies to the situation in Palestine perhaps those most concerned in it all might? Here's a facsimile of the "Basel Program" decided at the First Zionist Congress in 1897, which defines the founding objectives of zionism:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/The_%27Basel_Program%27....

It is written in German and the first point is:

"I. Die zweckdienliche Förderung der Besiedlung Palästinas mit jüdischen Ackerbauern, Handwerkern und Gewerbetreibenden."

which translated into French is:

"1. Coloniser la Palestine d’une manière adéquate grâce aux ouvriers agricoles et industriels juifs."

and in English:

"1. The promotion by appropriate means of the colonisation of Palestine by Jewish farmers, artisans, and tradesmen."

The key word: "Besiedlung" can also be translated by "settlement", as is the case in some later translations.

In reply to MikeTS:

Fight back Mike your people are being put down by *British*,i'll repeat that *British*
Or are you too "loyal"?

In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Your posts are very enigmatic... what exactly are you on about?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Be careful Bruce. Gudrun's ghost may be vengeful. You don't want to end up being last pictured looking dejected and battered under a red star and MP5 flag.

In reply to TobyA:


Now you're doing the same... what's the MP5 and what's the connection with the red star... I expected you to challenge my German translation, not to go all new age.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Surprised the name didn't ring any bells Bruce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudrun_Ensslin

And MP5, as in Heckler and Koch. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42514000/jpg/_42514489_hansmartin_200...

In reply to TobyA:

So we have a dead person posting on ukc, I suppose that could explain why she/it doesn't make much sense.